Milestone-Proposal talk:Invention and First Demonstration of Radar
Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.
IEEE Milestone proposal 2015-01 Invention of Radar 1904
1) The advocate, upon review of the proposal, designates the IEEE technical field associated with the technology of the milestone proposal. Designations could be general such as computers, communications, or power or specific such as oceanic engineering, aerospace electronics, or electron devices. It is important that the advocate designate the technical field of the proposal because it can provide a source of expertise through an IEEE Society and/or Technical Society (S/Cs). Many IEEE S/Cs have a history committee, technical committees, journal editors and distinguished lecturers who may help in the identifying of experts.
The advocate must consult experts in the technical field associated with the proposal. The advocate must consult as many experts as needed, however, at least two must be consulted. If the advocate has expertise in the technology, then only one additional expert is needed.
If the advocate has difficulty identifying expert(s) to verify the significance of the technology advance, the advocate should consult with the volunteer Milestone Coordinator and the History Committee chair.
This proposal is suitable for Antenna sand Propagation Society Aerospace and Electronic Systems Geophysics and remote sensing Microwave Theory and Techniques' '
2) Is the proposal for an achievement rather than for a person?
This proposal is for the achievement of an individual on the first proposal for the development of a RADAR
3) Does the location being proposed for the milestone plaque have a direct and logical connection with the work (e.g. where the achievement was developed, tested, demonstrated, or installed)? The proposers must supply a copy of a letter of permission from the site owner allowing the mounting of a plaque before the proposal can be submitted. Is the location truly publicly-accessible?
The location is quite suitable as the first demonstration of this concept in this city
4) Can the plaque site physically support the weight of the plaque? Is there space to fit the plaque’s dimensions? I do not know the answer to this question. But since it is proposed I assume it is a suitable location.
5) Is there an IEEE organizational unit(s) willing to sponsor the milestone?
Antenna sand Propagation Society as I am the chair of the Membership Geographical Activity committee and so I can say for sure!
6) Is the work truly a significant achievement vs. an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
This is a revolutionary concept as this was the first development of RADAR.
7) Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature? If so, what sets this achievement off from them?
No there were no prior hardware activity regarding this.
8) Whether the achievement (or the particular version of the technology being proposed) truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology.
Yes, this led to thee development of RADAR.
9) Is the proposal adequately supported by significant references and citations (minimum of five, but as many as needed to support the milestone), such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references must be from a scholarly book or journal article. The references should establish the dates, location, and importance of the achievement. The text of the materials, not just the references, must be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers must send a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the advocate. The advocate is responsible for reading the supporting texts and ensuring that they support the claims made in the proposal.
Yes, there is adequate support.
10) Are the scholarly references recent? If not, has there been more recent scholarly research which ought to be taken into account?
Yes, the references are both historic and current.
11) If the names of individual persons are mentioned in the citation, care should be taken that those persons are the engineers (as opposed to, say, the program managers) who designed the technology.
The presentation is acceptable.
12) The citation’s word length must not exceed 70 words (the maximum which will fit on the plaque). 60-65 words are preferred for aesthetic reasons.
13) Is the citation understandable by the general public (e.g. spell out acronyms, avoid jargon)?
14) Milestone plaques are permanent and will be read by future viewers. Is the citation phrased in a way that does not depend on present perspective? Will it be understandable in the future?"
15) After the process has been completed, the proposal will be either rejected, approved, or approved only after required changes are made.
I strongly request to have this milestone approved.
Might the experts' report be uploaded in order to get a broader understanding about the achievement claimed in this Milestone ?
Re: Advocate comments -- PeterGrant (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
Hugh Griffiths has an excellent summary on early radar at:
Suggestions for expanding the citation to give further details -- Administrator4 (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
In order to give further details about the 1904 experiment, I recommend adding a sentence. The current citation is:
On 17 May 1904, German engineer and entrepreneur Christian Hülsmeyer first demonstrated a device which he named a Telemobiloskop, using electromagnetic waves to detect a distant target. He patented this device in Germany, in the UK and in the USA. This device was the world’s first radar.
On 17 May 1904, at this site, Christian Hülsmeyer demonstrated his Telemobiloskop: a spark gap transmitter, simple parabolic antennas, detector, and an indicator. Using electromagnetic waves, it rang a bell when a barge passed in front of the system at a range of several hundred meters. He patented this device in Germany, the UK, and in the USA. This device was the first radar. (64 words)
I have now read the rveised document with the additional materials. I have no additional comments. I fully support this proposal.
I support this Milestone and the citation.
However I note that "In 1897, Alexander Popov, a physics instructor at the Imperial Russian Navy school in Kronstadt, used an apparatus consisting of a coherer tube and a spark-gap transmitter for testing this in communication between two ships in the Baltic Sea. He noticed an interference beat caused by the passage of a third vessel. In his report, Popov wrote that this phenomenon might be used for detecting objects but he did nothing more with this observation.
Hence Hülsmeyer was the first who demonstrated the idea in practice intentionally
Possible edit to Milestone citation -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
I would like to propose a slight edit to the citation. Instead of "He patented this device in Germany, the United Kingdom, and in the USA," perhaps change the sentence to "He patented this device in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States."
Re: Possible edit to Milestone citation -- Jbart64 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
I fully support the milestone. I suggest modifying the last sentence from "This device was the world's first radar." to be "This was the world's first purpose-built radar detection device." A number of other scientists and inventors noticed the reflectivity of radio waves bouncing off objects before 1904. The last sentence needs to capture the intentional design and first practical demonstration of a working device. Dave Bart
Naming individuals -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
I'd encourage an attempt to try to eliminate proper names in the citation.
Additional material from proposer -- Administrator1 (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
From Hugh Griffiths:
"Attached is some further evidence in support of the nomination, including translations of two newspaper reports from the day after the demonstrations. Significant sentences are highlighted in red"
Letter in support of proposal RSP letter
-- M.j.bastiaans (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
I believe that sufficient evidence is available to accept this Milestone proposal. I like the suggestion to change the last sentence into "This was the world's first purpose-built radar detection device."