Radio broadcast .. (1922-30)

AUGUST, 1926 A PROPOSAL TO MAKE INTERFERENCE ILLEGAL 297 ENGLISH DIRECTION-FINDING EQUIPMENT This photograph shows the combination direction-finder and the Sperry gyro-compass, manufactured by Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, London. The metal box fitted to the left side of the directionfinder is coupled to the ship's main gyro-compass. The variations of the gyro-compass are communicated to the metal ring of the dial of the goniometer, so that the true bearing of the ship can be directly obtained by reading from the outer ring without any correcting calculations. The bearing relative to the ship's head is read in the usual way from the inner ring of the dial. The radio receiver shown here, is of course connected to the special loop antenna on the bridge Armstrong. Since the publication of the editorial referred to, it has been brought to our attention that the statement "Armstrong's priority over other inventors apparently depends altogether upon a sketch of a supposedly regenerative circuit, which was accompanied by practically no explanatory disclosure," and "it was, to be sure, certified by a notary, but there has apparently been some question raised as to the genuineness of the notary's signature," are entirely unjustified by the facts. The sketch in question, which was certified by a notary, has been upheld as genuine by at least six different tribunals. Judge Julius Mayer said, from his bench in Federal Court, on one occasion: The signature which appears in the County Clerk's record, of course, is a different signature than that which appears on Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 37; and in such circumstances, I do not see that the defendants would be blamed, from any moral or sentimental standpoint, from taking any advantage that there may have been in that circumstance. As a matter of common experience, I have, of course, in my life, seen signatures of the same man that varied, for some reason or other, best known to himself. Men have peculiarities in such respects. I am perfectly satisfied on the testimony in this case that the signature to Exhibit 37 is the signature of the same man who was the notary, whose certificate was filed in the office of the County Clerk. (Exhibit No. 37 is the sketch with the notary's signature.) In point of fact, there can be no doubt whatever that the signature, to which reference was made in the editorial in our June issue, is genuine. Obviously, the way in which the editorial, and the advance sheets quoted above, mentioned the sketch disclosing the regenerative circuit, cast suspicion on the character of Major Edwin H.Armstrong. RADIO BROADCAST has always had the highest respect for that famous radio worker and we are glad to state that there is no justification whatever for the suggestion in that editorial, real or implied, that he had been a party to dishonest or at the least, unfortunate practises, in the earliest recordingot his regenerative circuit. The paper in question bears the date of January 31, 1913. RADIO BROADCAST regrets very deeply that, in its effort to report the important radio news of the moment, any damage should have been done to the reputation of a radio investiga tor of the high standing and unquestioned character of Major Armstrong. We are glad to give this item equal prominence with the original editorial in our June number. Washington Proposes to Make Interference Illegal RADIO enthusiasts of the state of Washington are reported to be actively supporting a bill before the State Legislature, which is intended to eliminate interference by "electro-radiant" systems. Such systems are defined as any source of radiant electrical energy which interferes with radio reception. The state's Bureau of Weights and Measures is to be charged with the enforcement of the measure. It is to be authorized to license radiant systems upon payment of a fee of $2.00 it the system does not interfere with radio reception. Owners of vacuum tube receiving sets are to pay an annual fee of $1.00. In addition, an appropriation of £25,000 is proposed to meet the cost of enforcing the Act. Complaints of interference filed by broadcast listeners, when accompanied with a $10.00 fee, are to be investigated by the Bureau. If no interference is found, the fee may be returned to the complainant upon the discretion of the Bureau. If the source is found to be one which the Bureau has licensed, the fee is also returned and corrective measures are to be recommended to the owner of the interference source. If it is not a legalized noise, the owner of the system is called to pay the $10.00 and to eliminate the noise forthwith. From the standpoint of the broadcast listener, the Act leaves nothing to be desired, unless he should happen to be a stockholder in a light and power company or is attempting to cure his rheumatism with an ultra-violet ray machine. Undoubtedly there are minor cases of noise interference *Vhich may be eliminated by corrective devices and improved insulation. But what will the harassed public service corporations, providing electric light, power, and traction at rates fixed by law, do if the Act is adopted by the legislature? At the behest of any one owning a ninedollar receiver, who pays an annual fee of $1.00, they may be compelled to spend RADIO RECEIVERS IN QUANTITY Completed receivers coming down the factory conveyor left in a New York radio factory. Large radio factories turn out their sets on the same efficient methods as does a certain large motor car maker of Detroit