John Logie Baird

)%4()34/29/&4%#(./,/'93%2)%3 3ERIES%DITOR$R""OWERS $R#(EMPSTEAD

*OHN,OGIE"AIRD 4ELEVISIONPIONEER

/THERVOLUMESINTHISSERIES 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME 6OLUME

4HEHISTORYOFELECTRICWIRESANDCABLES2-"LACK 4ECHNICALHISTORYOFTHEBEGINNINGSOFRADAR333WORDS "RITISHTELEVISIONTHEFORMATIVEYEARS27"URNS 6INTAGETELEPHONESOFTHEWORLD0*0OVEYAND2%ARL 4HE'%#RESEARCHLABORATORIESp2*#LAYTONAND*!LGAR -ETRESTOMICROWAVES%"#ALLICK !HISTORYOFTHEWORLDSEMICONDUCTORINDUSTRY02-ORRIS 7IRELESSTHECRUCIALDECADEp'"USSEY !SCIENTISTSWARpTHEDIARYOF3IR#LIFFORD0ATERSONp2*#LAYTON AND*!LGAR%DITORS %LECTRICALTECHNOLOGYINMININGTHEDAWNOFANEWAGE!6*ONESAND 204ARKENTER #URIOSITYPERFECTLYSATISÙED&ARADAYlSTRAVELSIN%UROPE  ""OWERSAND,3YMONDS%DITORS -ICHAEL&ARADAYlSk#HEMICAL.OTES (INTS 3UGGESTIONSAND/BJECTSOF 0URSUITlOF2$4WENEYAND$'OODING%DITORS ,ORD+ELVINHISINÚUENCEONELECTRICALMEASUREMENTSANDUNITS 04UNBRIDGE (ISTORYOFINTERNATIONALBROADCASTING VOLUME*7OOD 4HEEARLYHISTORYOFRADIOFROM&ARADAYTO-ARCONI'2-'ARRATT %XHIBITINGELECTRICITY+'"EAUCHAMP 4ELEVISIONANINTERNATIONALHISTORYOFTHEFORMATIVEYEARS27"URNS (ISTORYOFINTERNATIONALBROADCASTING VOLUME*7OOD ,IFEANDTIMESOF!LAN$OWER"LUMLEIN27"URNS !HISTORYOFTELEGRAPHYITSTECHNOLOGYANDAPPLICATION+'"EAUCHAMP 2ESTORING"AIRDlSIMAGE$&-C,EAN *OHN,OGIE"AIRDTELEVISIONPIONEER27"URNS 3IR#HARLES7HEATSTONE NDEDITION""OWERS 2ADIOMANTHEREMARKABLERISEANDFALLOF#/3TANLEY-&RANKLAND %LECTRICRAILWAYS p-#$UFFY #OMMUNICATIONSANINTERNATIONALHISTORYOFTHEFORMATIVEYEARS 27"URNS 3PACECRAFTTECHNOLOGYTHEEARLYYEARS-7ILLIAMSON

*OHN,OGIE"AIRD 4ELEVISIONPIONEER 2USSELL7"URNS

4HE)NSTITUTIONOF%NGINEERINGAND4ECHNOLOGY

0UBLISHEDBY4HE)NSTITUTIONOF%NGINEERINGAND4ECHNOLOGY ,ONDON 5NITED+INGDOM 4HE)NSTITUTIONOF%LECTRICAL%NGINEERS &IRSTPUBLISHED 4HISPUBLICATIONISCOPYRIGHTUNDERTHE"ERNE#ONVENTIONANDTHE5NIVERSAL#OPYRIGHT #ONVENTION!LLRIGHTSRESERVED!PARTFROMANYFAIRDEALINGFORTHEPURPOSESOFRESEARCH ORPRIVATESTUDY ORCRITICISMORREVIEW ASPERMITTEDUNDERTHE#OPYRIGHT $ESIGNSAND 0ATENTS!CT  THISPUBLICATIONMAYBEREPRODUCED STOREDORTRANSMITTED INANY FORMORBYANYMEANS ONLYWITHTHEPRIORPERMISSIONINWRITINGOFTHEPUBLISHERS ORIN THECASEOFREPROGRAPHICREPRODUCTIONINACCORDANCEWITHTHETERMSOFLICENCESISSUED BYTHE#OPYRIGHT,ICENSING!GENCY)NQUIRIESCONCERNINGREPRODUCTIONOUTSIDETHOSE TERMSSHOULDBESENTTOTHEPUBLISHERSATTHEUNDERMENTIONEDADDRESS 4HE)NSTITUTIONOF%NGINEERINGAND4ECHNOLOGY -ICHAEL&ARADAY(OUSE 3IX(ILLS7AY 3TEVENAGE (ERTS 3'!9 5NITED+INGDOM WWWTHEIETORG 7HILETHEAUTHORANDTHEPUBLISHERSBELIEVETHATTHEINFORMATIONANDGUIDANCEGIVEN INTHISWORKARECORRECT ALLPARTIESMUSTRELYUPONTHEIROWNSKILLANDJUDGEMENTWHEN MAKINGUSEOFTHEM.EITHERTHEAUTHORNORTHEPUBLISHERSASSUMEANYLIABILITYTO ANYONEFORANYLOSSORDAMAGECAUSEDBYANYERROROROMISSIONINTHEWORK WHETHER SUCHERROROROMISSIONISTHERESULTOFNEGLIGENCEORANYOTHERCAUSE!NYANDALLSUCH LIABILITYISDISCLAIMED 4HEMORALRIGHTOFTHEAUTHORTOBEIDENTIÙEDASAUTHOROFTHISWORKHASBEENASSERTED BYHIMINACCORDANCEWITHTHE#OPYRIGHT $ESIGNSAND0ATENTS!CT

"RITISH,IBRARY#ATALOGUINGIN0UBLICATION$ATA "URNS 272USSELL7 *OHN,OGIE"AIRD46PIONEERp(ISTORYOFTECHNOLOGYSERIESNO "AIRD *OHN,OGIE)NVENTORSq3COTLANDq"IOGRAPHY4ELEVISIONq(ISTORY )4ITLE)))NSTITUTIONOF%LECTRICAL%NGINEERS ll )3".DIGIT  )3".DIGIT     

&IRSTPRINTEDINTHE5+BY-0'"OOKS,TD "ODMIN #ORNWALL

Contents

Acknowledgements Preface Abbreviations Chronology List of tables List of illustrations

ix xi xiii xiv xix xx

1

Early life

1

2

Hastings

31

3

Frith Street, London

70

4

The first demonstration of television

88

5

Noctovision and phonovision

111

6

Company formation and long-distance television

129

7

Television and the BBC

154

8

The first television broadcast and other ‘firsts’

177

9

Overseas interests

195

10

Large-screen television

209

11

The early television work of Bell Telephone Laboratories

224

12

Financial difficulties

245

13

The first public 30-line service

263

14

Baird’s personality

274

15

A rival and high-definition television

288

16

The London television station

314

17

Baird and cinema television

333

viii 18

Contents The war years

360

Epilogue: Two ‘greats’

391

Appendices 1 J L Baird’s patents 2 Television Committee. Memorandum by Mr J L Baird 3 Awards and commemorations

397 404 408

Index

411

Acknowledgements

First and foremost the author is much indebted to Professor Malcolm Baird for generously permitting me to quote extensively from his father’s writings. His magnanimity is greatly appreciated. This book has been based, where possible, on primary source documents held in specialist libraries and archive centres. The principal depositories used were the BBC’s Written Archives Centre, Caversham; the Post Office Archives and Records Office, London; the National Information Reference Service, London; the Public Record Office, Kew; and the British Newspaper Library, London. Since a vast amount of my time and endeavours were spent in these libraries and centres I should like to express to their staffs my gratitude for the courtesy and support which I received from them: they were always unfailing in their efforts to be of assistance and it was ever a pleasure to undertake research work in such comfortable and helpful surroundings. Of the other libraries and archive centres which gave me information, mention must be made of the ready and helpful service provided by the staffs of the libraries of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, the Science Museum, London, the University of Nottingham, the Nottingham Trent University, and Nottinghamshire County Council; the British Lending Library, the British Library, the Mitchell Library, Glasgow, the Andersonian Library of the University of Strathclyde, Hastings Public Library and Hastings Museum and Art Gallery, EMI Music Archives, the Marconi Company Archives, the Cable and Wireless Archives, Selfridge’s Store Archives, and the Royal Television Society’s Archives. Of the many persons, friends and colleagues who have aided my endeavours I am especially grateful to Mr R M Herbert, a former employee of Baird Telvision Ltd. He has an extensive knowledge of the history of this company and has an unrivalled collection of memorabilia, private papers and photographs relating to John Logie Baird and the companies associated with him. Mr Herbert made many suggestions during the course of my writing and provided me with numerous photocopies of relatively inaccessible material. I am most indebted to him. Among the other persons who assisted me with recollections, information, or documents I should like to recognise Mr P A Bennett, Mr T H Bridgewater, Mr B Clapp, Mrs D Douglas, Mr W C Fox, Mrs P Holt, Mr P Leggatt, Mr S L

x

Acknowledgements

McCrearie, Mr V R Mills, Mr P Reveley, Mr T N Rimington, Mrs B M Ryan, Dr R F Thumwood, and Dr P Waddell. To all these individuals I wish to declare my thanks and appreciation. Many quotations from both written primary and secondary sources have been included in this book. I am most grateful to the following persons for giving me permission to use extracts from their organisations’ publications or private papers: the editors of the Daily Telegraph, the Birmingham Post and Mail, the Folkestone Herald, the Evening Telegraph and Post, the Hastings and St Leonards Observer, the Sunday Express, The Times, the Guardian, the Glasgow Herald, the New York Times, the Daily Express, the Evening Standard, Nature, Electronics and Wireless World, the journals of the Institute of Physics and the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and Mr R Price, publisher, Odhams Leisure Group Ltd. Especially warm thanks are due to all those persons who provided me with photographs and illustrative material, and who gave me—in all cases most willingly—permission on behalf of themselves or their organisations to use the material in this book. To the following I am deeply indebted: Mr R M Herbert; Professor M Baird; Dr G E Winbolt, and the Plessey Company; the BBC; the late Mr P Leggatt, formerly Chief Engineer, external relations, BBC; the late Mr J A Lodge, formerly of EMI’s Central Research Laboratories; Mr S L McCrearie, formerly Service Director of Radio Rentals; AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories; Mr G D Speake, formerly Deputy Director of Research, GEC Research (Marconi Research Centre); the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; Mr V Yates, formerly company archivist and historian, Selfridge’s store; Mr D F McLean; and the Royal Television Society. In a few cases, because of the deaths of the copyright holders, and the unknown whereabouts of their dependants, it was not possible to obtain permission to use certain quotations.

Preface

John Logie Baird was 35 years of age when in 1923 he began his experiments on television. Because of ill-health he had sold a thriving business and had left London to convalesce in Hastings. While residing there, he decided to attempt the realisation of a quest which, for approximately fifty years, had engaged the attentions of inventors, scientists, and engineers in many countries. Baird’s decision was extraordinary: he had no regular income, he did not receive any funding or sponsorship for his proposed task, he had no workshop or laboratory facilities or experience of research and development work, and, initially, he had no access to any experts who could help him. For nearly thirty months Baird carried on his work, in various rooms, using makeshift apparatus of a very crude nature and surviving, essentially, on the modest capital which he had accumulated from his previous business ventures. Success was attained on 2nd October 1925 when, for the first time anywhere, the imperfect image of a televised person was seen. Later, on 26th January 1926 Baird demonstrated his rudimentary system to about forty members of the Royal Institution. Baird, and his then recently appointed business partner O G Hutchinson, aspired to establish a low-definition television broadcasting service in the United Kingdom. For this purpose, and for the further development of Baird’s work, capital was required. This could only be obtained from the flotation of public companies, but, since Baird received no encouragement or patronage from the broadcasting monopoly, the general public had to be persuaded that investment in the companies would be worthwhile. Consequently, Hutchinson sought to publicise Baird’s work. During a hectic five-year period of activity Baird gave demonstrations of rudimentary spotlight scanning television, noctovision, phonovision, longdistance television, colour television, stereoscopic television, zone television, large-screen television, and two-way television. Unfortunately, Hutchinson’s business and publicity methods caused some antagonism towards Baird. In the early 1930s Baird could have retired as a very wealthy person. Instead he chose to develop further his ideas and continued working on television, particularly cinema television, colour television and stereoscopic television, until he died in 1946. He left just slightly more than £7 000.

xii

Preface

Several questions can be posed with regard to Baird’s endeavours. Was his October 1925 success a truly outstanding achievement? Were his early systems of television in consonance with those of well endowed industrial laboratories? How did Baird’s policy for the development of television compare with the policy of Marconi for the development of wireless? What were the differences in the technical development strategies of Baird and the leading electrical engineering R&D organisations? Should Baird’s low-definition television development programme have been replaced by a medium-definition television development programme at an earlier stage?—and was this possible? Did Baird have a ‘blind spot’ in his outlook? What were his successes—and failures? This book seeks to consider these, and other, questions by reference to the work of Marconi, the British Admiralty Research Laboratory, and several large industrial companies including the prestigious Bell Telephone Laboratories. The objective has been to present a balanced biography of one of the twentieth century’s outstanding inventors. It is based, where possible, on primary source documents, though many personal recollections have been included to add colour and humour to the narrative. Great care has been taken to ensure that it is as accurate as the available documentation allows. The book contains a great deal of material—for example, the 1924 to 1925 correspondence between Baird and his first business partner, W E L Day, which has only recently (1999) become available to researchers—which has not featured previously in books on Baird. Extensive reference lists have been provided, and all Baird’s patents have been listed in an appendix. The book incorporates a detailed chronology and various notes and appendices have been added to extend particular points mentioned in the text.

Abbreviations

AT&T BBC BIT BTDC BTL CBS c.r.t. CVEPC C&W EMI FRC G-BPC GEC GPO h.f. HMV h.t. M–EMI MWT p.e. PMG RCA R&D r.f. r.p.m. RTC TAC u.s.w. WW&RR

American Telephone & Telegraph Company British Broadcasting Corporation Baird International Television Baird Television Development Company Baird Television Ltd Columbia Broadcasting System cathode ray tube Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company Cable & Wireless Electric and Musical Industries Federal Radio Commission Gaumont-British Picture Corporation General Electric Company General Post Office high frequency His Master’s Voice high tension Marconi–Electric and Musical Industries Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company photoelectric Postmaster General Radio Corporation of America Research and Development radio frequency revolutions per minute Royal Technical College Television Advisory Committee ultra short waves Wireless World & Radio Review

Chronology relating to John Logie Baird

1888 John Logie Baird born on 13th August in Helensburgh, Scotland 1893–1906 Attended ‘Ardenlee’ school, Miss Johnston’s preparatory school, and ‘Larchfield’ school 1906 Enrolled at the Glasgow and West of Scotland Technical College 1910–11 Industrial training at Halley’s Industrial Motors Ltd, Yoker from May 1910 to February 1911 1911 Industrial training at Argylls Ltd, Dumbartonshire from March to September 1911–13 Industrial training at Brash and Russell (Electrical and General Engineers) from October 1911 to May 1913 1914 Awarded an Associateship of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow 1914 Tried to enlist in August. Rejected on health grounds 1914 Entered Glasgow University 1915 Abandoned BSc course 1915 Obtained employment at Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company 1917 Baird Undersock company set up on 1st May 1918 Baird Undersock company business name registered on 9th September 1919 Sailed for Trinidad on 22nd November 1920 Sailed from Trinidad for the United Kingdom on 16th September 1920 Resided in a boarding house, Bloomsbury, London from late 1920 1921 Established a business enterprise selling Australian honey, fertiliser, coir fibredust 1921 Ill, stayed at a health spa for about 6 months 1921 Returned to London late in 1921. Resided in Pembroke Crescent 1922 Business enterprise set up selling ‘Baird’s Speedy Cleaner’ soap 1922–23 Ill during winter. Moved to Hastings during the ‘late Spring’ of 1923 1923 Resided with ‘Mephy’ at 21 Linton Crescent, Hastings from ‘late Spring’ 1923 Advertised, for assistance, in The Times on 27th June 1923 First television patent, application date 26th July 1923 Various periods in Helensburgh, Folkstone, Tunbridge Wells, and London

Chronology 1923 1924

1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1925 1925 1925 1925 1925 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1927 1927 1928

1928 1928

xv

First report of Baird’s television work published in November Demonstration of Baird’s work to the Press. Reports in the Daily News (15th January) and the Hastings and St Leonards Observer (19th January) Letter sent by Baird to W Odhams on 17th January Television apparatus moved from Linton Crescent to 8 Queens Avenue sometime between January and April Inaugural lecture to the Hastings and St Leonards District Radio Society given by Baird on 28th April Letter, 5th April, from Baird to W E L Day Letter, 14th April, from Day to Baird agreeing to a payment of £200 for a one-third share in the exploitation of Baird’s patent Baird’s article in Wireless World and Radio Review (7th May) describes the use of a ‘light chopper’, (patented 12th March 1924) In April Baird transmitted signals from Hastings to London Death of Baird’s mother on 7th May Letter, 29th October, from Day to Baird confirms that premises are available at 22 Frith Street Demonstrations in April in Selfridge’s store, Oxford Street, London Report, in Nature (April issue) of a demonstration, mentions use of a neon lamp ‘Light and shade’—crude television—achieved on 2nd October Day informs Baird on 18th November that he wishes to sell out Day resigns his directorship of Television Ltd on 16th December. His interest is purchased by O G Hutchinson and Captain Broderip Application for a transmitting licence made to the GPO on 4th January Spotlight scanning patent application dated 20th January Demonstration on 26th January to members of the Royal Institution Move to Motograph House on 15th February. Television Ltd reshaped on 15th February Experimental licences, 2TV and 2TW, granted on 5th August Patent on phonovision applied for on 15th October Demonstration, on 30th December, of noctovision to members of the Royal Institution Baird Television Development Company formed in April. Statutory Meeting on 18th July Move, during the Christmas period, to 133 Long Acre, London Trans-Atlantic television demonstration during night of 8th–9th February. (Previously, on 12th January 1927, signals had been transmitted across the Atlantic but only the sound was heard because no televisor was available.) Television signals transmitted to the SS Berengaria on 6th March Popular Wireless £1 000 challenge in March.

xvi

Chronology

1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1929–32 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1930 1930 1930

1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1932 1932 1932 1932 1932 1933 1933 1933

First meeting of Television Society on 1st May Demonstration of daylight television at end of June Demonstration of colour television on 3rd July Demonstration of stereoscopic television in August First demonstration, on 18th September, to the GPO First demonstration, on 9th October, to the BBC Baird resided at Swiss Cottage, Box Hill, Surrey Attempts to establish overseas companies Demonstration of television to MPs on 5th March PMG’s reply to BTDC published in The Times on 28th March Demonstration, in August, of news by television Tele-talkies demonstrated on 19th August. The short ‘talkie’ was of George Robey Start, on 30th September, of Baird experimental television service by the BBC Televisors available for purchase by the public in March First sound and vision broadcast on 31st March Demonstrations during the Ideal Home Exhibition at Olympia, 24th March to 17th April, using a transmitter at the premises of Major W H Oates, 195 Hammersmith Road were seen by about 30 000 people Hutchinson resigns on 16th May First television play broadcast on 14th July Large-screen television demonstrated on 28th July at the London Coliseum Baird Television Ltd formed in May First television commercial, using Baird equipment, given by Eugene Ltd in November Demonstration, on 2nd January, of zone television Use of modulated arc in January Test film broadcast on 6th March—the first tele-cine broadcast First outdoor demonstration, on 8th May, of mirror drum scanner Derby at Epsom televised on 3rd June Visit, from September, of Baird to the USA Marriage of Baird and Margaret Albu on 13th November Effective control of BTL by I Ostrer, from January The Bairds left Box Hill in January and resided in Hampstead until July 1933 Demonstration, on 29th April, of television using ultra short waves Derby televised on 1st June and shown at the Metropole Cinema Start, on 22nd August, of BBC low-definition television service Diana Baird born on 5th September 3 Crescent Wood Road laboratory set up Bush Radio Ltd manufacture a new televisor, with a pull-out screen 9 in × 4 in, comprising a 30-line mirror drum, Baird grid cell unit, and four-stage amplifier, for £78.75

Chronology 1933

1933 1933 1933 l933 1934 1934 1934 1935 1935 1935 1935

1935 1935 1936 1937 1937 1937 1938

1938 1939 1939 1939 1939 1939 1939 1939 1940

xvii

The Baird grid cell, consisting of a sealed Kerr cell, Nicol prisms, lens, and light source in one assembly priced initially at £5 but almost immediately reduced to £2 PMG granted licence to BTL to transmit on 48–50 MHz Tests conducted in October at Crystal Palace on ultra short waves West appointed Technical Director about July Part of Crystal Palace rented The 30-line television broadcasts were guaranteed to 31st March but continued until 11th September 1935 Television Committee proposed on 5th April West and Church examined by Television Committee on 7th June Television Committee report submitted to PMG on 14th January First meeting of the Television Advisory Committee on 5th February Agreement with the Farnsworth company signed in June Greer mentioned in his June address that complete and selfcontained facilities were available at Crystal Palace for manufacturing apparatus including cathode ray tubes and electron multipliers Malcolm Baird born on 2nd July Last 30-line television programme broadcast on 11th September Opening of the London Television Station at Alexandra Palace on 2nd November Demonstration, on 4th January, of television at the Dominion Theatre using a 6 ft × 4 ft screen Television service continued with M–EMI system only from 6th February Demonstration of 405-line television at the Palais de Luxe cinema, Bromley on 7th December Demonstration, on 4th February, of colour television at the Dominion Theatre. (This was the first ‘over air’ colour television demonstration.) Derby televised, on 11th June, and shown at the Tatler newsreel house, London Boon–Danahar fight shown, on 23rd February, at the Marble Arch Pavilion, London, and at the Tatler, using a 15 ft × 12 ft screen Airborne television (air-to-ground) demonstrated in July Demonstration, on 27th July, of large-screen colour television in Baird’s private laboratory Closure of the London television station on 1st September Commencement of the Second World War on 3rd September Appointment in November of Receiver and Manager of BTL Mrs Baird and the children move to Bude, Cornwall soon after war is declared Patent, dated 17th September, on colour television (600 lines per picture)

xviii 1940 1941 1941 1941 1942 1943 1944 1944 1944 1944 1945 1945 1946 1946

Chronology Demonstration in December of 600-line colour television Demonstration, about April, of colour television Baird appointed a Consulting Technical Advisor to Cable & Wireless Ltd from 1st November Demonstration, 18th December, to the press of coloured television images in relief Further patents on colour television Hankey Committee established in September Baird gives evidence to the Hankey Committee Demonstration, on 16th August, of two-colour (telechrome) tube Cable & Wireless terminate Baird’s appointment on 25th September Report of the Hankey Committee, 29th December Baird and family move to Bexhill, Surrey early in 1945 About the end of 1945, John Logie Baird Ltd registered Death of Baird on 14th June Memorial service held at St Saviour’s church, London on 26th June

List of tables

2.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 7.1 7.2 9.1 11.1

Dates and names of inventors of some distant vision proposals for the period 1878–1924 Nominal capital of Television Ltd Shareholders in Television Ltd Images recorded on phonovision discs Baird’s arrangements for colour television Filters for colour television Distribution of shares of LVT Syndicate Ltd Some contributions by Bell Telephone Laboratories and by J L Baird to the development of television in the 1920s

36 89 90 125 174 174 203 240

List of illustrations

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

The birthplace of J L Baird. The manse in Helensburgh Mrs Jessie Baird and her children School group at Larchfield School sports ground Baird, with a cousin as his passenger, driving his three-wheeled motorcycle Baird, at about 21 years of age Baird, c. 1915 The jam factory at Bourg Mulatrice, Trinidad Cartoon published in the Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 26th January 1924 Diagrams showing a glass scanner: (above) variation of the cross-sectional shape of the ring prism, (below) the use of the two disks to scan a raster D von Mihaly’s television transmitter and receiver Nipkow’s 1884 proposal J L Baird demonstrating his apparatus in his laboratory in Queens Arcade (early 1924) Baird’s patent no. 270 222 The basic receiver configuration of aperture disc scanner, neon tube, mask and synchronising and phasing equipment used by the Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1927 Baird at the unveiling of the plaque to the Mayor of Hastings Baird’s television system, Wireless World and Radio Review, January 1925 Baird in his Frith Street laboratory, c. 1925 Baird viewing an image produced by one of his early televisors (c. 1925) Baird giving a demonstration of ‘seeing by electricity’ at Selfridge’s store (1925) Baird with his crude transmitter equipment in 1925 Diagrammatic representation of Dr Fournier d’Albe’s television scheme, patented in January 1924 William Taynton, televised in October 1925

2 3 7 12 13 16 22 33

38 39 44 51 57

58 66 71 74 76 77 78 82 84

List of illustrations 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3

4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

6.8 7.1

7.2 7.3 7.4

O G Hutchinson, ‘Stookie Bill’, and Baird in the Frith Street workroom, c. December 1925 Baird and ‘Stookie Bill’ being televised in the early years of ‘floodlight’ television J L Baird standing by a model of the apparatus which he used to demonstrate rudimentary television on 26th January 1926 Schematic diagrams showing (a) the transmitting, and (b) the receiving apparatuses used by Dr R T Beatty at the Admiralty Research Laboratory, Teddington J L Baird shows his televisor to two visitors O G Hutchinson being televised with the aid of Baird’s honeycomb structure device, May 1926 J L Baird with his ‘noctovisor’ Diagrams showing the principles of floodlight and spotlight scanning Baird spotlight transmitter as supplied to the BBC in 1936 A dummy’s head being used as the subject for producing a phonovision record A phonodisc, c. 1928 Picture of Mabel Pounsford, a ‘temp’ to Baird, (left) suffering massive timebase distortion, and (right) after restoration converts the image J L Baird with Professor Magnus McLean, Sir John Samual and an unidentified man The antenna used for the transatlantic demonstration of television The amateur radio station, G2KZ, used for transmission early in 1928, of television signals across the Atlantic ocean Antenna masts erected on the roof of the Long Acre Laboratories Mrs Howe being televised on 9th February 1928 during the transatlantic television experiments Television signals were received, during the night of 6th March 1928, on board the SS Berenaria, in mid-Atlantic Jack Buchanan, the actor and friend from his school days of J L Baird, being televised in daylight on the roof of the Long Acre Laboratories J J Denton communicating by telephone with his colleagues during the transatlantic television test One of the Baird laboratories at Long Acre showing the rear view of a Plessey television receiver and one of the original Plessey receiver amplifiers Some of the various types of neon tube used by Baird for 30-line television Cartoon from Television, September 1928 Selfridge’s exhibition of television receiving equipment dating from 1925 to 1937

xxi

85 89 91

97 102 107 118 120 123 124 124

126 135 139 140 142 143 145

148 149

157 160 161 162

xxii 7.5

7.6

7.7 8.1

8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

8.6

8.7 8.8 8.9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10.1

10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 11.1

List of illustrations An external view of a portable 30-line television receiver as used for the first successful demonstration of television in the provinces in 1929 Stereoscopic television apparatus which was used to give demonstrations at the Glasgow British Association meeting in 1928, and to the Prince Consort of Holland in Rotterdam in 1928 Kingsbury Manor, c. 1929 Before sound accompanied the vision signals, the titles of programmes and announcements were made by means of apparatus shown diagrammatically The Long Acre studio is shown with the pianist and the singer seated in front of a microphone and a bank of photoelectric cells Copper-lined studio (1929), and Mr A D Calkin A cartoonist demonstrating in front of the photoelectric cells during a low-definition television transmission (1930) (a) The front of the Baird ‘televisor’ receiver, with the cover removed, showing all the internal components; (b) the rear of the same receiver Photograph showing Lance Sieveking, C D Freeman, M Eversley and Lionel Millard, during the first television play broadcast by the BBC, Pirandello’s ‘The Man with a Flower in his Mouth’ (July 1930) During the Pirandello play this sliding board was used between scenes to prevent the loss of synchronism Schematic diagram of Baird’s telewriter The Baird telewriter J L Baird with O G Hutchinson and Sir Oliver Lodge Dr C Tierney and Major A G Church, two stalwart supporters of Baird’s efforts Baird International Television Company A pen and ink sketch of J L Baird drawn in 1929 by Eamonn Sullivan Baird’s first patent was filed on 26th July 1923, and described a method of displaying a televised image using a screen of small lamps The commutator used for switching the lamps on and off, of the large-screen equipment The large-screen equipment used at the Coliseum Theatre A Baird Kerr cell light modulating device with ‘spot’ filament projection lamp The large mirror drum, housed in the caravan at Epsom in 1932, with its strobe sectors for accurate speed adjustment Baird’s daylight television equipment caravan which was used for outside broadcasts Apparatus used in the development of television

163

170 173

178 180 181 183

185

187 188 191 192 196 199 201 206

210 211 212 215 217 218 226

List of illustrations 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8

11.9

12.1 13.1

13.2 13.3 14.1 14.2 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.9

(Left) The large photoelectric cell used in the 1927 television demonstration. (Right) The neon receiving lamp Schematic diagram of the line and radio circuits used in the 1927 Bell Telephone Laboratories’ television demonstration Television transmitting apparatus The schematic layout of the lamps and filters used in Bell Telephone Laboratories’ colour television demonstration of 1929 Bell Telephone Laboratories’ apparatus for colour television Diagrammatic layout of Bell Telephone Laboratories’ two-way television system Schematic diagram of Bell Telephone Laboratories’ three-zone television system: (a) receiving end disc with spiral holes provided with prisms; (b) sending end disc with circle of holes provided with prisms; (c) general arrangement of apparatus Both Bell Telephone Laboratories (a) and Baird (b) experimented with large scanning discs in an effort to increase the size of the reproduced image Schematic diagram of RCA’s experimental television system (1931–32) Photograph showing the mirror drum motor with synchronising coils and toothed wheel; the Kerr cell and projection lamp; and the mirror drum used in Baird’s later receivers Baird 30-line scanner, operated by D R Campbell, installed in studio BB, Broadcasting House, London (August 1932) Fred Douglas performing during the first broadcast of the BBC’s low-definition television service (August 1932) Swiss Cottage, Boxhill Baird, c. 1932 Captain A G D West Crystal Palace Experimental 180-line flying spot direct pick-up scanner 180-line intermediate film equipment in the Baird Crystal Palace studios, December 1934 The 240-line telecine scanner as used originally at Crystal Palace (a) The 10 kW vision transmitter and (b) the sound transmitter installed at Crystal Palace (1935) The mirror drum camera which Baird used during the Ideal Home Exhibition of 1933 The 240-line intermediate film equipment as developed for use at Alexandra Palace, c. spring 1936 (a) Schematic diagram of Fernseh’s continuously working intermediate film scanner. (b) A prototype of the first equipment used for recording television pictures on a film which was subsequently developed, washed and dried, and passed into a film projector for projecting onto a cinema screen

xxiii

228 229 231 233 234 235

237

242 254

267 271 272 275 277 296 298 299 300 301 302 305 307

308

xxiv

List of illustrations

15.10 Diagram of Farnsworth electron camera used by Baird Television Ltd 16.1 The BBC London television stations at Alexandra Palace, north London 16.2 Alexandra Palace television antenna mast 16.3 Major the Right Honorable G C Tryon, H M Postmaster General, being televised while opening the London television station, Alexandra Palace (November 1936) 16.4 (a) The Marconi-EMI studio A showing two emitron television cameras in use; (b) the London station’s outside broadcast unit initially comprised three emitron cameras and associated equipment 16.5 (a) The Baird studio, Alexandra Palace; (b) the art of self-defence: jiu-jitsu being demonstrated by Bob Gregory and his partner in the Baird studio, Alexandra Palace 16.6 Baird telecine scanner, with the monitoring and control racks in the background 16.7 The remains of Baird Television Ltd’s laboratories, Crystal Palace, after the disastrous fire of November 1936 17.1 John Logie Baird’s private laboratory at 3 Crescent Wood Road, Sydenham 17.2 The 20-facet mirror drums of the mechanical colour camera which were used at the Dominion Theatre demonstrations in December 1937 and February 1938 17.3 Baird’s 120-line colour television mirror drum camera which was utilised for the Dominion Theatre demonstrations 17.4 The colour television projector and the associated power supply for the Dominion Theatre, 1937/38 17.5 The original cathode ray tube large-screen projection equipment used in the Tatler cinema, London, on the occasion of the Trooping of the Colour in 1938 17.6 One of the original large-projection cathode ray tubes used by Baird for his direct projection of television pictures onto a cinema screen 17.7 Improvements in cathode ray tube projection on 8 ft x 6 ft (2.44 m x 1.83 m) screen 17.8 Projection television receiver installed in the Marble Arch Cinema for receiving special television programmes 18.1 J L Baird with the dummy model which he used in his colour television experiments 18.2 Diagram used to illustrate the principle of operation of the anaglyph method of stereoscopic viewing 18.3 Schematic diagrams showing the layout of the apparatus which Baird used to show stereoscopic colour television 18.4 J L Baird viewing an image on a cathode ray tube in his private laboratory, c. 1941–42

309 319 320

321

323

324 325 326 334

339 340 342

347

352 353 354 365 368 370 371

List of illustrations Baird working in his private laboratory at 3 Crescent Wood Road, c. 1942–43 18.6 Diagrammatic representations of the Thomas system of colour cinematography and colour television 18.7 The optical arrangement of Baird’s three-colour television system 18.8 Diagrams illustrating Baird’s line sequential colour television system 18.9 Diagrams showing the principles of Baird’s two-gun and three-gun telechrome tubes 18.10 Baird with the world’s first multi-electron gun, colour television receiver (1944) 18.11 Baird viewing an image on his telechrome tube, 1944 18.12 A Baird de luxe television receiver built before the war

xxv

18.5

372 375 376 377 378 379 381 387

Chapter 1

Early life

John Logie Baird1 was born at 8 a.m. on 13th August 1888—14 years after the birth of Guglielmo Marconi—in the town of Helensburgh, a small seaside resort situated approximately 25 miles northwest of Glasgow. He was the youngest member of the family, which included his nine years older brother James (b. 1879) and two sisters, Annie (b. 1883) and Jean (b. 1885). Interestingly, Guglielmo was nine years younger than his brother Alfonse, and both John and Guglielmo were born ten years after the marriages of their parents2. Like the famous Italian inventor, Baird was brought up in a comfortable, middle-class, professional household. His father, the Reverend John Baird, was the Church of Scotland’s minister of the local St Bride’s church. He had entered Glasgow University in 1860, and, by dint of a great deal of hard work and selfhelp—he supplemented his small financial resources by engaging in tutoring— he obtained a Bachelor of Divinity (BD) degree and two years later a Master of Arts (MA) degree with honours in classics3. In 1869 some local residents of Helensburgh submitted a request to the University of Glasgow which asked that a student should be sent to open a small church to serve their needs4. John Baird BD, MA was chosen and the new church was blessed in July. One of the subsequent members of the congregation was Jessie Morrison Inglis, the orphaned niece of a wealthy family of Glasgow shipbuilders, and in 1878 the Reverend John Baird and she were married. Her dowry enabled them to purchase, at a cost of £1 100, ‘The Lodge’, a square stone bungalow in East Argyle Street, as the church had no manse. The building had recently been constructed for an elderly woman whose ambition in life was to have the largest dining-room in town. Her wish achieved, she died a short time later. As the Reverend Baird’s family increased in numbers he had an additional room, which became his study, built in the roof space of the bungalow. Here the minister wrote his sermons, received his parishioners, and conducted marriage ceremonies, for church weddings had not yet become the norm. The study was Mr Baird’s retreat and was strictly out of bounds to the children. They dared not knock at its door, but instead had to communicate

2

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 1.1

The birthplace of J L Baird. The manse in Helensburgh

Source: The Glasgow Herald

with their father via a speaking tube, with whistle, when matters arose which demanded his attention5. John’s mother was much younger than her husband and was a gentle and devout woman whose purpose in life was to help everyone. John, as with Marconi, received much comfort, love and understanding from his mother. When writing his autobiography Sermons, Soap and Television (1941), he mentioned: ‘Of my mother, I find it difficult to write. She was the only experience I have had of pure, unselfish devotion. Her whole life was taken up in looking after others, particularly after myself . . .’ 6. Similarly, Marconi was able to write, following his mother’s death: ‘Up to the very end, my mother kept in close touch with my work, and her letters when I was in Canada or cruising, were a source of constant inspiration to me, as her gentle voice had been in my earlier days.’ 7 Apart from caring for her family, Jessie Baird had to undertake many parochial duties as the minister’s wife, including visiting the poor. Sometimes John would accompany her, since he was often absent from school because of illhealth. These visits showed John what poverty was and helped to shape his political leanings: the visits made a lasting impression on him.8 ‘There was old Mrs Mac, for instance. All that was to be seen of her was a head wrapped in a not-too-clean nightcap and dimly seen in the darkness of a cupboard bed. Her home

Early life

Figure 1.2

3

Mrs Jessie Baird and her children: left to right, Annie (b. 1883), James (b. 1879), Jean (b. 1885), John (b. 1888)

Source: Mr T N B Rimington

consisted of one very musty room which served as a kitchen, sitting room and bedroom combined. She was entirely supported by charity and lived in continual dread of being sent to the poorhouse. My mother visited her everyday with many parcels of food . . . While they talked I sat on a dilapidated horsehair sofa and examined a lithograph showing Jesus walking on the sea. ‘We also visited another old and bed-ridden woman in another dingy cupboard bed. Then there were a number of poverty stricken younger women, and squalid families with tales of drunken husbands.’

These visits to the poor had a strong effect upon Baird: ‘In Helensburgh poverty was, for the most part, not the open horror of the Glasgow slums, but a horror hidden beneath the cloak of genteel respectability. This was just as well, for the condition of the poor in city slums in my youth was appalling. I have seen young children running about in the backyards of Glasgow tenements, clothed only in old sacking in the icy wind and rain of a Scottish winter. My blood boiled when, fresh from such sights, I used to read the society notes and see in various magazines photographs of the idle rich skiing at St. Moritz, sunbathing at Monte Carlo and flaunting their over-dressed persons at race meetings and house parties.’

4

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

In contrast to Baird’s mother, his father seemed a ponderous, forbidding figure, with a large beard through which he boomed at his children in the manner of an oracle. He was 47 years older than his youngest son in an era when any man over 50 had become an elderly, pompous figure. Here again a similarity exists between the two inventors, for Marconi’s father was 48 years old when the radio pioneer was born. As a consequence, no doubt, the young Baird found his father’s efforts to joke with him frightening and embarrassing, although the minister was famed for his humour throughout the west of Scotland. ‘There was nothing pawky about Papa’s humour; it savoured more of Rabelais and Voltaire than of the innocuous wit of Ian Maclaren’s kailyard worthies and it did more, I think, than anything else to prejudice his rise in the church. A homely pawky wit would have done him no harm, but any savour of Rabelais’ vulgarity or of that satirical infidel Voltaire, was sufficient to damn any preferment.’ 9 On one occasion Mr Baird was asked to officiate at a marriage of necessity, for which he had a strong dislike. He arrived half an hour late for the ceremony and was rebuked by the bridegroom. ‘You are very late Mr Baird’, he said. ‘Yes, about six months late I should think’, responded Baird’s father.10 In his later years Mr Baird abandoned the literal truth of the Old Testament stories. But one of his favourite theological students, Willie Milne—‘a very devout youth’—accepted every biblical statement and story as fact. ‘ “Now Willie”, Papa said, “you believe in the literal truth of Jonah and the Whale?”, “I do indeed Sir”, said the devout Willie. “Aye Willie”, said Papa to the astounded student, “you and the whale rival each other in swallowing capacity.” ’11 According to Baird, his father’s superiors regarded such wayward expressions of belief with apprehension and disapprobation and as a consequence Mr Baird’s position in the Church remained unchanged from the date of his appointment at St Bride’s. Some of his contemporaries, however, progressed and Baird felt that towards the end of his father’s life this embittered him. ‘One by one those who in his youth had looked up to him with respect and even awe, rose out of his orbit leaving him far behind. One of his youthful circle, Bonar Law, even rose to the highest place in the land, becoming Prime Minister.’ Mr Baird was a person of considerable learning. He was energetic and enterprising and established a literary society of which Bonar Law became a member. His knowledge of the classics, divinity and literature, and his accomplishments in several languages, led, despite his unorthodoxy, to invitations to accompany, for the pleasure of his pithier comments, his wealthier parishioners on their vacations abroad. Norway and Africa were regions which he visited. He had a substantial following in the parish and was very well esteemed. Baird recalled an occasion when he was stopped in the street by a rather pompous member— known as ‘Old Coffin Face’—of his father’s congregation. He was a man of considerable standing and means. ‘ “Ah!” he said, when he met me, “you are Mr Baird’s son are you not? I am a great admirer of your father, many times I have felt the power and emotion of his beautiful

Early life

5

prayer at the Sabbath evening service”. He knew the words of the prayer by heart, so did I, but to me it was a mere monotonous rigmarole, to him a thing of beauty and consolation, or was he in fact, as my father regarded him, a posturing mouthing old humbug?’

Thus, it was an intellectual, caring environment which helped to shape Baird’s formative years; an environment in which both his mother and father served the parish in which they lived: an environment in which duty, responsibility and compassion were the prime determinants. The Church dominated Baird’s early life12, and the life of those around him. Here again a similarity exists between the young Baird and the young Marconi. Degna Marconi in her book My Father, Marconi mentions that every evening after supper his mother, Annie, would call her two sons to her room and read them two chapters from the Bible. As their English improved they would read to her13. On the Church, Baird has recalled that it was ‘a living force in those days and I was an implicit believer. I thought God was actually floating somewhere overhead, a stern man with a beard, something like Papa only of enormous dimensions, infinitely powerful and fearsome.’ Baird has described the fear which he used to feel as a boy14. ‘Fear, indeed, hung over me like a dark cloud in my childhood—fear not only of God but of intangible evil, ghosts and spirit creatures of unimaginable horror, waiting and watching for an opportunity to get at me. ‘At night I was put to bed at eight o’clock and left alone, to lie in abject terror. I covered myself with the blankets, leaving only a little breathing hole, while the grey lady crept up to my bedside or the two supernatural old men crouched at the foot of my bed, waiting and watching; a burglar or a tiger would have been a welcome intrusion. ‘Later, to the fear of ghosts was added the ever-growing fear of God; I went through a phase resembling the state of mind of the Children of Israel, propitiating an angry and jealous Deity. I prayed interminably, and even felt that sacrifices were demanded of me. I went on praying, fearing God and making propitiating gestures long after my reason regarded such things as altogether contemptible and ridiculous.’

Baird’s closest friend for the greater part of his early childhood was Willie Brown15, the son of the gardener, known as ‘Auld Broon’, who lived next door. He was one of the assistant gardeners to Ure of Cairn Dhu, a local worthy. Although Auld Broon’s weekly wage was a mere £1, he was able to support a wife and two children in ‘happy contentment.’ Their accommodation comprised a room and an attic for which a rent of 5/– per week was paid. Brown was able to buy all the requisites of life and even to save something from the balance of 15/–. Of the food necessities, the price of a 4 lb loaf of bread was 2p, butter and cheese were 6p and 4p per pound respectively, 14 lb of potatoes cost 3p, tea and milk were 7p per pound and 0.5p per pint, and meat and eggs were 4.5p per pound and 5p per dozen (in the decade 1891–1900)16. Willie and John were inseparable and from morning to night played in the large garden of The Lodge, building mud houses. John’s friend subsequently became a happy, healthy gardener, ‘untroubled by any hopeless ambition to be one of the gentry.’

6

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

In his autobiography Baird lucidly and graphically described his early upbringing and schooling; first at ‘Ardenlee’, ‘an extraordinary Dickensian menage, kept by a Mr Porteous and his wife. Mr Porteous, a most fearsome man, literally spread terror among the pupils, marching through the classrooms with a cane, which he used vigorously and indiscriminately.’ Baird, a day boy, was fortunately too young to experience the horrors of Mr Porteous’s teaching methods and learnt to read and write without too much effort in an enjoyable and relaxed ambience. Later Mr Porteous suffered financial hardship—so much so that he was unable to pay his church seat—and went bankrupt. John was then enrolled at Miss Johnston’s Preparatory School, where a most formidable middle-aged spinster ruled the pupils including John by the same method of inconsiderate and indiscriminate corporal punishment as had been adopted by Mr Porteous. Baird’s stay at Miss Johnston’s school came to an end when a new school17, ‘Larchfield’, was opened in Helensburgh. John Baird described this as a really dreadful school run by three public school men fresh from Oxford and Cambridge. ‘They made it an imitation of their public schools,’ he wrote, ‘and a very poor imitation it was, with all the worst features and none of the best.’ Like Marconi, Baird was not an academically bright pupil and by his own admission ‘did very badly.’ No form of science was taught at Larchfield, but sport featured strongly in the curriculum and occupied the pupils’ time from 2 o’clock until 4 o’clock each day. The school games were rugby in the winter and cricket in the summer. One result of this compulsion was Baird’s abiding inability to derive much fun from playing or watching either game. What Baird especially disliked about the afternoon activities were the subsequent cold showers which were a mandatory requirement. ‘[The cold spray] was to me, the culminating point of a tortured afternoon. In winter it became an unbearable ordeal.’ He went to great lengths to escape the agony, but sooner or later he would hear the dreaded sound of a master shouting: ‘Baird, you have not had your tub.’ Whereupon his hair would be grabbed and his head held under the ‘icy douche until [he] became numb and blue with cold.’ For Baird the consequences were predictable: he caught chill after chill and spent most of the winter months in bed. Not surprisingly his academic work suffered. His school report for the 1900 Christmas term placed him second last in a class of 15 pupils, although the report did mention his absence from school because of illness. Interestingly the report alluded to Baird’s timidity. Of the classics, Latin was for Baird an abomination: he hated the subject and made no progress18. Year after year he remained in the same class and term after term he translated the same Latin exercises from Fabulae–Faciles (Easy Fables) until eventually he could quote from memory the first of the book’s stories. ‘Robertson, the Latin master, stormed and shouted in an effort to goad me into some progress, but in vain.’ Baird’s bête noir led to an amusing sequel many years later when he had finished delivering a speech at the Hastings Pavilion. Among the persons who spoke to Baird was Robertson.

Early life

Figure 1.3

7

School group at Larchfield School sports ground. Baird is at the rear left, and his friend Jack Buchanan is at the extreme right.

Source: Mr R M Herbert

‘ “Well”, he said, “I don’t suppose you remember who I am?” Now was my chance to get some retaliation on my childhood torturer. [He had once given young Baird 3 marks for a Latin paper—possibly an all-time record for the school.] I started at once with the first page of Fabulae–Faciles; “Hercules alcmanae filius olim in graciae habitabat. At Juno reginae deaorum alcmanae aderat et Hercules necare voluit illigita immedi nocti”, and so on said I. For thirty years that accursed rubbish had been clogging my brain, to throw it back at its instigator and watch his astounded face gave me infinite pleasure.’

Curiously, none of Mr Baird’s interest in, and scholarship for, the classics, or divinity, was acquired by John Baird. He was, however, well read: Goethe, Tolstoy, Voltaire and Shakespeare being some of the writers for whom he had a high regard, although they were not his favourites. These were Guy Boothby, Max Pemberton, W W Jacobs, Jerome K Jerome and many others, but in later life Baird could not recall a single line of any of their works, whereas he could remember whole pages from the classical authors. His demi-god in his younger days was H G Wells. Reading a new book by Wells was regarded as a ‘feast.’ Like many adolescent boys, Baird was initially unsure what career path he should follow. His father had wanted him to become a minister but with ‘the impertinent insensibility of extreme youth, I had the audacity to tell the old gentleman that I did not think I could be a sufficiently good hypocrite. “I think you might manage that alright”, [he riposted].’ 19

8

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

The factor which determined his future career was his reading, at the age of 13, of a book entitled The Boys’ Book of Stories and Pastimes. From this Baird learned how to assemble a simple type of telephone. All that was needed were some cocoa tins and thread. Later a more ambitious model constructed with wire, nails and pill-boxes was tried. The difficulty with these forms was that it was not possible to determine whether the sound heard at the listener’s ears had travelled via the string or wire, or had arrived by propagation through the air. Baird set out to make an apparatus for hearing by electricity, i.e. a telephone, similar to the one specified in his book. After some difficulties, success was achieved and telephones became his ‘mania.’ His small exchange—which was in his room at The Lodge—was linked by wires to the houses of four of his school friends, Neil Whimster, Jack Bruce, Ian Norwell, and Godfrey Harris20. Extensions were planned when a ‘small tragedy brought the whole telephone enterprise to an end.’ ‘One windy night, old MacIntyre the cabby was travelling home when he was caught round the neck by a telephone wire, dragged from his box, and thrown cursing and shouting into the gutter. Shaking with anger, he ran to the house of Mr MacDonald, a very mild and inoffensive man, who was at that time the manager of the National Telephone Company. “What the devil”, MacIntyre demanded, “did MacDonald mean by having his blank wires hanging over the road?” “MacIntyre was going to wring his blank neck and have the law on his company.” The whole thing looked like developing into an unpleasant legal action and I had an anxious time, for the wires were not the National Telephone wires but ones running from my local exchange. Fortunately, MacIntyre was a good friend of my father and the affair was settled quietly . . .’

At the age of 14 years Baird decided to install electric lighting in The Lodge21. He bought a secondhand engine and had made a small dynamo which charged a bank of accumulators. These were constructed by Baird and comprised innumerable lead plates wrapped in flannelette which were packed in jam jars filled with sulphuric acid. The arrangement was crude but it worked—provided Baird was present to supervise its operation—and the Helensburgh Times reported that The Lodge was ‘enjoying the amenities of electric light, thanks to the ingenuity of a youthful member of the household.’ Shortly afterwards an incident occurred which abruptly terminated this desirable amenity. One dark night the Reverend Baird fell down the unlit staircase from his study to his ground floor bedroom. In his anger he had the gas-lights restored and the dynamo consigned to a shed. At about this time Baird attempted to produce a speaking cinematograph film22. He knew that a photoelectric cell was an essential component of such a system and endeavoured to fabricate one. The procedure appeared simple: a length of wire would be wrapped around a piece of porcelain, then the assembly would be heated up and rubbed with a stick of selenium, a photoconductive material. After many trials—on the kitchen range—the outcome was chiefly ‘bad smells and burnt fingers.’ ‘But I did learn one thing, which was that the current from a selenium cell was infinitesimally small. Before anything could be

Early life

9

done some means of amplifying this [had] to be found. I made all sorts of attempts at amplifiers—[valves had not yet been invented]—but could get nothing sufficiently sensitive.’ 23 It was then that Baird first began to ponder on the possibilities of seeing at a distance, i.e. television. However, there is no documentary evidence that he engaged in any practical work other than his efforts to fabricate a selenium cell. Notwithstanding the lack of science teaching at Larchfield, Baird acquired an interest in practical science which led him to engage in further projects and experiments with cameras, gliders and electricity in his spare time. Photography24 was an attraction and Baird, after saving every penny he could obtain, acquired a camera which became his prized possession. Many years later, when writing at the age of 53 years, he could still recall its specification: ‘Lizar’s ¼ plate perfecta, triple expansion, rack and pinion focusing, rising and falling front, folding back, Taylor & Hobson f7 rapid rectilinear lens, Bausch & Lomb roller blind shutter, 1/100th to 1/10th second.’ With such a ‘masterpiece’ he became the President of the Photographic Society which was established by his schoolboy friends and local enthusiasts. Among the former members there were several who became very well known, namely: Jack Buchanan, a famous stage star; Bony Wadsworth, a leading London accountant; Neil Whimster, a Glasgow shipowner; and Jack Bruce, another ship owner. Of the others whom Baird could recall there were Jimmy Bonner, who was killed in the First World War; and Guy Fullerton Robertson—nicknamed Mephistopheles but more often known as ‘Mephy’—who was Baird’s lifelong friend. Meetings of the society were conducted with ‘great decorum’; articles were read on photography, and photographs taken by members were perused and criticised. Not all the society’s affairs were undertaken with such dignity and consideration. On one occasion the society learnt that one of its members, Jack Buchanan, had suffered a ‘terrible insult’ at the hands of old Forbes. ‘While innocently passing the time by instructing young Sonny Forbes how to climb a lamp post, and stimulating Sonny with the application of a rubber strap, old Forbes had appeared and, unthinkable insult, boxed his ears. The club there and then were enlisted to wipe out the insult and avenge [Buchanan] on old Forbes. Our first effort was to borrow a builder’s ladder and climb to old Forbes’s pigeon loft and wring the necks of all his pigeons. In cold terror I clutched the bottom of the ladder as the bold [ Buchanan] at the top did his dastardly work on the wretched pigeons. We took the bodies down to Brown, the fishmonger, and sold them for 4p each. Thus, escaping undetected, we planned further vengeance. All poor old Forbes’s prize tulips were ruthlessly cut down and laid in a row at his front door. The doorbell was then pulled by a string and, when old Forbes came to investigate, he was greeted by a volley of mud balls. The pace was, however, too hot for most of the members and resignations were tendered from all sides. In spite of a hastily passed rule that all members who resigned should be fined five shillings and receive six strokes with the cane, the club broke up.’

While at Larchfield, Baird and his friends endeavoured to construct a glider25. His imagination and that of Godfrey Harris had been much stimulated by the

10

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Wright brothers’ experiments of 1903; they read with avidity all the literature they could obtain on the principles of flight. Their enthusiasm led to a decision to construct an aeroplane, which in reality became a ‘weird contraption like two box kites joined in the centre.’ Many weeks of work were required for the completion of the aircraft. Baird and Harris decided to follow the early practice of the Wright brothers and try to glide first before fitting an engine. ‘We hoisted our flying machine on the flat roof of The Lodge and I got into it. I had no intention of flying, but before I had time to give more than one shriek of alarm, Godfrey gave the machine one terrific push and I was launched shrieking into the air. I had a few very nauseating seconds while the machine rocked wildly and then broke in half and deposited me with a terrific bump on the lawn. Fortunately, no bones were broken, but that was the first and the last time I have ever been in an aeroplane, I have no desire whatever to fly and, unless forced by circumstances, would probably never do so.’

Baird seems to have had most tolerant and considerate parents, although in his autobiographical notes he wrote that ‘while I was at the Lodge I had been under the most strict supervision.’ Nowhere in Baird’s autobiographical notes is there any mention of him being chastised by either parent for his poor school record—Baird has written26 that as a boy he was considered to be ‘phenomenally stupid’—or for his escapades. When Baird’s father saw young Baird experimenting with some home-made apparatus he would not ask ‘What does it do?’ but would enquire ‘What does it matter?’ ‘His attitude, although he never expressed it, was this: “Suppose you can see through a brick wall. What good does that bring to the soul of man?” ’ Even Baird’s conversion to agnosticism while living at home does not appear to have stimulated a rebuke from the Reverend John Baird. Moreover, Baird was freely allowed to try to persuade others—including visiting clergy—to his beliefs. ‘Thus when [I was] an arrogant young man, sure and certain of the absurdity of religion, I used often to convert to agnosticism the clergy who came to our house as “pulpit supplies”. These young men, fresh from the University had all the theological gambits ready for me, and they met my confident spear-thrusts with vast verbal smoke-screens, pompous evasions, reference to authorities, references to the original Greek Testament. They twisted and turned far into the night, until the discussion died with the exhaustion of both parties. The older clergy baffled me by repudiating reason and intelligence alike and appealing to faith.’ 27

Baird’s debates with the clergy were the outcome of his studies of metaphysics and philosophy. He had read of ‘the transcendental metaphysics and the transcendental analytic, and the idea verae and a priori cognition and the pre-established harmony and the monads and the first cause. [He had] followed the Devil’s advice to the Student: “With thoughts profound be sure to scan What won’t fit in the brain of man, But fit or not it is small concern, Some pompous phrase will serve your turn”.

Early life

11

[He was], therefore, equipped with a sufficient stock of pompous phrases to hide [his] ignorance in a lengthy and incomprehensible flood of words. It would, however, amount when put into plain English to nothing more than “[He did not] know”!’

Baird rejected his father’s request to enter the ministry and enrolled in 1906, at the Glasgow and West of Scotland Technical College, to follow a course in electrical engineering. The college had been formed in 1886 and incorporated Anderson’s College (which had been established as Anderson’s Institution in 1796), the College of Science and Arts (which derived from the Glasgow Mechanics Institution of 1823), the Allan Glen’s Institution, and the Atkinson Institution (of 1861). Afterwards, in 1912 the title of the college was changed to the Royal Technical College, and one year later it was affiliated to the University of Glasgow28. During his first year at the College Baird bought a second-hand motor cycle29 called a ‘Kelly Antoinette.’ It cost him just five pounds and had only a tiny engine under the seat, but it was considered the last word in cycles at that time. Subsequently the motor cycle was sold and a ‘nondescript tri-car’ was purchased. Baird described it as ‘a perfect scrap heap on wheels.’ Locally it was known as ‘young Baird’s reaper and binder’ because of the awful noise which it generated. Baird does not seem to have found Professor Angus McLean’s course particularly enlightening; indeed his autobiographical notes show that he found much of the material he studied quite boring30. ‘On leaving Larchfield I went to the Royal Technical College in Glasgow, filled with zeal and enthusiasm and feeling quite sure I would distinguish myself. I found it not so easy. There were plenty of other youths there filled with zeal and determination. How these youths worked. They were, for the most part, working men, bright lads out to make a career for themselves. They were not the intellectual cream (those won a scholarship and went to the University): nevertheless they were doughty competitors. Nothing could approach the frenzied concentration with which they absorbed learning. There was no pretence at social life; there was no time for it. ‘The first year I was there I learnt a good deal that was very useful and interesting; the remaining years were, I think, almost entirely a waste of time. I learnt, with great pains and boredom, masses of formulae and tedious dates, of which much was never used and soon forgotten. But what I learned in the first year remained with me all my life and has been of great value.’

The first-year course was common to all engineering programmes of study and aimed to provide a sound basis in elementary science for the studies of the succeeding years. An examination of the course curriculum shows that the subject timetables for the second and third years of the mechanical engineering and electrical engineering programmes were almost identical, ‘as modern industrial conditions required that those who had adopted one branch should have a knowledge of the other.’ 31 This fact has an important bearing on Baird’s early work on television, for he had a penchant for designing and inventing devices which had a mechanical basis rather than an electrical foundation. Baird displayed considerable

12

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 1.4

Baird, with a cousin as his passenger, driving his three-wheeled motorcycle known locally as ‘the Baird reaper and binder’

Source: Mr T N B Rimington

ingenuity and innovativeness in the fields of optics and mechanics and produced many patents on aperture disc, lens disc, and mirror drum scanning mechanisms, but only a few on electronic components or systems. Electronics was not Baird’s forte, though he did use electronic devices and systems. Prima facie, it would seem that neither electric telegraphy nor wireless telegraphy formed part of the diploma programme. (See Note 1 at the end of the chapter.) Attendance on the first, second and third years of the courses in the engineering disciplines qualified a student for the award of a diploma in engineering science, while attendance on an appropriate fourth-year course enabled a student to become an Associate of the College. Candidates for this award had to have completed at least two years of practical works experience in the related industry before entering the fourth or Associateship year of their course32. Baird spent three periods in industry, first, at Halley’s Industrial Motors Ltd, Yoker (from May 1910 to February 1911): the firm manufactured vans, lorries and charabancs. Here, each day he started work at 6 o’clock in the morning and

Early life

Figure 1.5

13

Baird, at about 21 years of age, when he was a student at The Glasgow and West of Scotland Royal Technical College

Source: Mr T N B Rimington

nominally finished at 5.30 p.m., but in practice incessant overtime was worked and Baird was seldom away from the works before 8 o’clock in the evening. Baird’s enthusiasm for his first paid job was soon dissipated. ‘The work was absolutely soul-destroying, monotonous drudgery.’ Hour after interminable hour he had to chisel small grooves in castings called ‘spring housings.’ The unrelieved tedium of the task was made worse by ‘the most sordid conditions’ which surrounded his work bench, and in the winter the ‘icy cold’ environment compounded his gloom. Inevitably his work was interrupted by ‘perpetual illhealth.’ Nevertheless Halley’s gave Baird a good testimonial33. (Baird’s reminiscences are not always consistent. In an article on ‘The story of television’, which he wrote for the Sunday Chronicle, 15th November 1936, he mentioned that ‘he enjoyed the work’ at Halleys, though his ‘constitution could not stand [the] treatment and [he had to spend] a good part of [his] time ill in bed. At length [he] had to give up the job.’) Although this industrial placement did nothing to advance Baird’s knowledge

14

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

of the theory and practice of engineering, the experience certainly confirmed his socialist views, which had been forming from the time when he accompanied his mother on her visits to the poor of her husband’s parish. The factory experience, too, helped to shape Baird’s character. He learned the importance of comradeship, of determination, of stoicism, and of the importance of fighting back— qualities which he would find to be of considerable worth when he began his subsequent life’s work on the development of television. And he added to his treasury of biblical parables those of everyday early-twentieth-century living. One of the most valuable of these was: work or want. Baird’s immediate supervisor at Halley’s was ‘a fierce old man known as Big Gibson’ who was generally described as a ‘callous old bastard’ 34. ‘He was an independent and vindictive socialist with the most lurid flow of foul language, unfortunately mostly unprintable even in these days of obscene novels. I was accustomed to outbursts such as “Whit the hell are ye standin’ gapin’ there for? Dae ye take this for a b....y Sunday school treat?” ‘The chief of the research room was a public school and university man and endeavoured to keep some of his refinement. On one occasion he had the temerity to offer a piece of advice to Big Gibson. Big Gibson considered this an insufferable impertinence and I remember to this day the storm of abuse which descended on the superior research gentleman, who fled, followed by a roar of “Get to hell, ye hauf biled toff”. He complained to the manager, who got on well with Big Gibson and rebuked him gently—“Aye George, that’s fine! You knock the b....y guts oot o’ the stuck-up bastard. Then you get the sack and your wife and wains starve. Keep your daunder doon, the poor beggar does his best!” ’

So the moral of the times was: retain one’s job or starve—there was no dole then. Baird’s testimonial, written by the Shop Foreman, described Baird as ‘most attentive to his duties. I have great pleasure in recommending him as an industrious, sober and efficient workman.’ Baird’s second engineering placement (from March 1911 to September 1911), was with Argylls Ltd of Alexandria, Dumbartonshire, where he was an Improver in their car drawing office working on engine and chassis details, and gaining some experience with fittings for motor bodies. Argylls’ testimonial35 refers to Baird as being ‘persevering and industrious’, and ‘anxious to get on.’ It ended: ‘I shall be very glad to hear of his success and to answer any questions as to his ability.’ During this spell in industry, the young Baird met a person who was later to play an important role in advancing the Baird system of television, namely Oliver George Hutchinson. Finally, Baird worked (from October 1911 to May 1913) at Brash and Russell (Electrical and General Engineers) of Glasgow, where he was employed on the design and layout of high and low tension switchboards and switchgear. Baird’s testimonial36 mentioned that he was ‘obliging and attentive to his work’, we ‘wish him every success in his new sphere.’ Baird did not do well at the Royal Technical College, but in 1914 did succeed in becoming an Associate and in obtaining the College diploma. Excluding the

Early life

15

industrial training periods, the three-year course had taken Baird five years to complete. However, as he said, it was not altogether stupidity which had delayed the award, for his studies had been continually interrupted by bouts of long illnesses. Baird was 26 years of age when he left the Royal Technical College. He tried to enlist in August 1914 and when he was declared unfit for service entered Glasgow University as a BSc degree student. Possession of the Associateship award of the Royal Technical College entitled the holder to take the appropriate final year degree examinations of the University, after a period of six months’ attendance. Baird spent an enjoyable session at the university but did not sit the examinations. Subsequently he obtained work as an assistant mains engineer, at 30 shillings per week, with the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company37. At this time income tax was 6 pence in the pound, rent for a working-class house was 40p per week, a labourer’s weekly wage was £1.30, coal was £1.25 per ton, and an ounce of tobacco and a gallon of beer were 2.5p and 6p respectively. Baird’s job entailed the supervision of the repair of any electrical failure in the Rutherglen suburb of Glasgow, whatever the weather, day or night, and as a consequence Baird had to live in lodgings in the area. For a while he stayed at 17 Blairbeth Road38, but later he lodged with a family called Sommerville at 2 Millar Terrace. Baird had a telephone in his bedroom and if this rang in the middle of the night, and he was informed the electrical power supply had failed, he had to get out of bed and arrange its restoration as a matter of urgency. It was appalling work. On some occasions Baird would have to spend a whole night, in horrible weather conditions, while Stibbs, the chief ganger, and his ill-tempered Irish labourers attempted, by digging holes in the road, to locate a cable fault. At times drunken fights would break out. Baird has recalled that on one particularly wet and windy night Jimmy McGauchy knocked Billie MacIlvaney down a manhole, causing much cursing intermingled with cries of pain and anger as the combatants departed. Placating a workforce at 4 o’clock in the morning when most of them wanted to return home was anything but pleasant. It was sordid, depressing work and Baird continued to suffer from chills, colds and influenza, which necessitated lengthy periods of convalescence. His numerous absences from his employment as an assistant mains engineer because of illness mitigated against any promotion in the company. Because of this he disliked the job and eventually resigned. It was a wise decision. Baird’s notes tell how he came to the turning point in his life. ‘If I had remained travelling along the straight road of an engineering career, I should either be dead by now or a hopeless, broken-spirited object. To break my career seemed to those about me the act of an irresponsible madman, the throwing away of all my expensive training. If the choice was between slavery and madness, I preferred madness—there seemed no middle course. “Are there no ways but these alone, madman or slave must man be one?” It seemed so in my case. If I remained an engineer I saw nothing before me but a vista of grey days, of unrelieved drudgery. Coughing and shivering through the winters, what hope to force my way through the mob of lusty competitors?’

16

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 1.6

Baird, c. 1915, as a young assistant mains engineer at the Rutherglen substation of the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company

Source: The Royal Television Society

Essentially, Baird was a man of ideas, of imagination. Later events were to show that he possessed an inherent genius not only for adapting and developing the inventions and innovations of others, but for originating and pursuing what, at first sight, must have seemed unlikely business enterprises. His subsequent life showed that he was endowed with an indomitable spirit for overcoming difficulties with a tenaciousness and relentlessness which could not be satisfied by a humdrum, boring and intellectually deflating existence as an assistant mains engineer. Thus the break with routine came in 1919. Now he was free to make his fortune as he dictated. Actually, Baird’s departure from the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company was hastened by his entrepreneurial exploits during the period 1917–19. In 1917 he decided to put into practice some thoughts which he had expressed in an article on ‘How to make money’ which he had written, in 1913, under the nom de plume ‘H2O’, for the Royal Technical College magazine. He wrote: ‘Some geniuses put whisky and water with a little cinnamon and sugar, into medicine

Early life

17

bottles, label it “Swamp Root Tonic Laxative”—“A Pure Vegetable Extract” and sell it at a shilling a bottle. They make millions. ‘Other geniuses make pills with liquorice powder and bread paste, label them “Dod’s Backache Kidney Pills”—“Every Picture tells a Story”—and sell at one shilling per box. They make millions. ‘Other geniuses make “Home-Made Strawberry Jam” with wood chips, turnips, and molasses. They make millions. ‘Thousands upon thousands of d—d fools drudge all their lives in drawing offices. They make from 25s. to £3.10s per week. . .’

Baird’s first thought was to market a cure for piles. One of the station attendants, Billy Barnes, had claimed to have a specific mysterious white compound which would alleviate the distress caused by this condition. Baird, being a chronic sufferer, prudently tried it out on himself. The outcome was painful—he was unable to sit down properly for several days. More thought was needed. At about this time he carried out an experiment in a sub-station of the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company. It was generally known at that time that artificial diamonds could be formed by the application of intense heat and pressure to carbon. The eminent French chemist and metallurgist M Moissan using an electric arc furnace had achieved temperatures of about 3,500° C and had found that carbon was freely dissolved by several metals, including iron, in fusion at such temperatures. However, when the carbon separated from the metals, as they cooled and became solid, it was always in the state of graphite. He soon hypothesised, following a study of the conditions under which natural diamonds were formed in South Africa, that if the solidification could be effected under great pressure the carbon might solidify in the diamond, rather than the graphite, state. Moisssan took advantage of the fact that cast iron at the moment of solidification expands, and reasoned that, if a fused mass of iron and carbon were suddenly cooled on the outside, a solid shell of iron would enclose a still molten interior which on cooling would normally expand. The constraint imposed by the solid shell would, according to Moissan, lead to the generation of an enormous pressure. In his early experiments he cooled his crucible in water, but he found that a more rapid cooling could be achieved by plunging his vessel into molten lead. Moissan’s work was successful. When the mass of iron was dissolved away, diamonds of all types were found in the residue. They were as perfect in shape and colour as the diamonds mined at Kimberly, but were extremely small—the largest was just 0.02 in across. Unfortunately, within three months the largest had spontaneously fragmented. Baird sought to modify Moissan’s experimental procedure39. He obtained a thick bar of carbon which he filed down to a thin rod in the centre and then embedded the bar in a large iron pot. Wires were attached to each end of the bar—the other ends of the wires being connected via switchgear to the power station bus-bars. His idea was to send an enormous current through the bar so as to generate incredibly high temperatures and pressures. Wisely, Baird chose to carry out his experiment when no-one was about. He

18

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

closed the circuit breaker. There was a dull thud from the pot, a cloud of smoke arose, and then the main circuit breaker tripped and part of Rutherglen was without electricity. Baird had expected this outcome and quickly restored the supply—but there were some awkward questions to be answered. He was unable to remove his ‘wires away quickly enough and unpleasant explanations followed’: the episode led to Baird being regarded as a ‘dangerous character.’ What became of the pot is unknown: ‘perhaps it is today lying in some forgotten rubbish heap. . .with priceless diamonds embedded in it!’ In 1917 boot polish was difficult to obtain. Baird seized the opportunity to enliven his life and increase his meagre wealth by registering a company at 196 St Vincent Street and employing girls to fill cardboard boxes with his own boot polish. The formula of his concoction, which he marketed under the name ‘Osmo’ 40, is not known. (There is an unsupported story that his locker at the office where he worked was filled with tins of polish bought in Clydebank and Yoker in an attempt to corner the market for his own product.) This venture appears to have escaped the notice of his employers, but the next did not. Baird had always suffered, and always did suffer, from cold feet. As a boy he used to imagine how pleasant life would be if the surface of the earth were covered with three inches of warm water. After years of suffering from this condition he deduced that cold feet are invariably caused by damp socks. ‘Take a pair of socks out of a drawer and hold them in front of the fire and feel the extraordinary amount of moisture they contain.’ The cure seemed simple: the socks had to be heated, almost to the point of burning, prior to being used. But in a few hours dampness and cold feet would again be experienced. Baird’s practical solution, which took him some years to discover, was to heat and dry his socks and then place pieces of thick paper between the soles of his feet and his socks. Bliss followed: ‘what a comfort warm feet are only cold feet sufferers can realise.’ (Margaret Baird has mentioned that after her marriage her husband would change his socks two or three times a day.) On the principle of capitalising on one’s deficiencies, Baird sought to market his cure41. Paper undersocks were not practicable, so he approached a sock maker and, ‘after many peregrinations’, learnt two useful facts. First, in the trade socks were not known as such but were referred to as ‘gents half-hose’; and secondly, the production centre was in Hinkley, Yorkshire. He soon ordered six dozen pairs of specially made unbleached half-hose, into which he sprinkled borax powder. These he marketed as ‘The Baird Undersock’, from his one-room office in Vincent Street. An advertisement, which cost 30s., in the People’s Friend proclaimed the merits of the sock: ‘The Baird Undersock, Medicated, Soft, Absorbent. Keeps the feet warm in winter and cool in summer. 9d. per pair, post free.’ Baird’s enterprise did not have an auspicious beginning—his advert led to one sale. The prognosis for wealth creation seemed gloomy: expenditure 30s., income 9d. There appeared to be just one solution. So one Saturday afternoon Baird ‘packed two dozen pairs of socks in a handbag and set out on [his] first venture as a commercial traveller. [He] visited chemists and drapers and sold the two dozen and got orders for six dozen more, and felt that

Early life

19

at last [he] was on the road to success. Not advertising, but travelling, that was the key!’ An advertisement in the Glasgow Herald for a traveller produced many replies and soon, throughout Scotland and England, as far south as London, Baird’s representatives were proclaiming the advantages of the Baird Undersock. Only a few were sold in England. Selfridge’s purchased six dozen pairs, and there were a few sales in other parts of London and the provinces, but in Glasgow, where Baird could supervise his travellers more closely than in England, business was brisk. He began to make some money and to use some of his profits to further the undersock’s commercial exploitation. He hired a squad of women to carry sandwich boards around the city and soon began to obtain free publicity for his product. The women attracted much interest in the press: ‘First sandwich women in Glasgow’, ‘New occupation for the ladies’ the headlines stated. Photographs of the ladies, with their placards prominently displaying ‘The Baird Undersock for the Soldiers Foot’ were published in some of the illustrated papers, usually without payment, but in two cases Baird had to pay a small fee to have the name reproduced in the paper. ‘It was first class publicity’, noted Baird. In addition he had constructed a large model of a tank—plastered with posters about the efficacy of the Baird Undersock in providing comfort for soldiers’ feet—which was trundled about the streets of the city. Inevitably news of Baird’s activities reached the Directors of the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company. They were not pleased. Either the enterprise had to go or Baird had to go. Baird sent in his resignation; he ‘was only just in time to forestall getting the sack.’ With his new-found freedom Baird could devote himself full-time to his business. His undersocks were selling well in chemists’ shops, and he was making appreciable profits, but he felt that if the city’s principal drapers could be persuaded to stock his article profits would be really substantial. He had sold a dozen pairs to the Polytechnic—the Selfridges of Glasgow—yet when he visited the store the socks were nowhere to be seen. He decided to implement a ruse and persuaded his friends to call at the Polytechnic and ask for the ‘Baird Undersock’—Baird providing his friends with the necessary money for the purpose. Soon the shop’s stock of undersocks was sold out and ‘the drapery counter was besieged by people demanding “Baird Undersocks”. The effect was electrical. The buyer himself called three times at [Baird’s] little office, only to find it closed, but he left a note and [Baird] called at the Polytechnic and sold on the spot fifty dozen pairs. He [the buyer] had a special table at one of the entrances and one of the front windows was filled with “Baird Undersocks”.’ Naturally the general public was inquisitive and immediately bought the articles. Other department stores, not wishing to lose quick sales, soon followed. Baird’s entire stock was sold out at once and he had to book significant orders. He decided to add other sidelines to his business, solid scent being one of them. However, his ‘old enemy found [him] out and in the early spring [he] was laid up with a very bad cold.’ He decided to sell up and seek warmer climes. When he sold his enterprise 12 months after leaving CVEPC, he had made roughly £1 600,

20

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

a sum which in 1996 would have the equivalent purchasing power of about £35 000. It would have taken him 12 years to earn this amount as an assistant electrical engineer with the company. An interesting description of Baird’s appearance and habits during the late war years has been recorded by Mr McKinnon, an accountant, who did some auditing for Baird. ‘ His mind was often centred on other things. He seemed to be partly or wholly oblivious to what was going on around him. ‘He would arrive at the office with a week’s growth on his chin and his thoughts away in the clouds, and his assistant had to perfect a system to bring him back to earth. ‘The assistant would say, “Now, Mr Baird, before we put pen to paper you are going down with me to Bamber’s (a well-known city barber) for a shave and a haircut.” Without a word Baird would rise and follow the assistant to the barber, whence, shaved and trimmed, he would emerge more in touch with the world of CVPC.’

After the sale, Baird decided to seek his fortune in the West Indies. One of his friends, Godfrey Harris, was in Trinidad and had sent him glowing reports of the possibilities there. Baird read several guide books and these too gave equally adulatory accounts. ‘Eerie, land of the humming bird and eternal summer’, and ‘the Caribbean paradise’ was how they described it. To Baird, who was racked by colds, chills or influenza every winter, the accounts of life there must have portrayed a utopian existence. He was full of hope and on a date between 22nd November and 6th December 1919, he embarked casually for the West Indies, taking a cheap passage in a cargo boat so as to keep as much as possible of his capital intact42. His passport of 18th September 1919 gave a very simplistic description of the 31-year-old entrepreneur: forehead, medium; eyes, blue; nose, straight; mouth, medium; chin, round; colour of hair, fair; complexion, fair; face, oval. His baggage comprised an odd assortment of personal belongings, and three trunks filled with samples of cotton and other goods which he intended to sell to the natives. (In another account Baird wrote that one of these trunks was filled with works on sound, light, heat, electricity, and the latest discoveries that pointed in the direction of his own goal, television.) He soon found that his prospects might not be so promising as he had originally thought. On the ship a down-to-earth Venezuelan examined Baird’s wares and indicated that his expectations of selling them appeared ‘infinitesimal.’ The Venezuelan regarded Baird ‘as little short of a madman to give up a good business in Glasgow for a wild-cat venture in the tropics.’ Suitably subdued, Baird arrived at Port of Spain after an unpleasant passage of three weeks aboard the rolling and pitching cargo ship. In his autobiographical notes43 Baird gave a graphic account of his arrival there: ‘The moist heat rose in waves from the crowded pavement; negroes, Chinese, Caribs, Hindus, Portuguese and a few sallow-faced Europeans jostled me on the narrow side path as we walked towards the Ice House Hotel, where Harris had booked a room for me. I

Early life

21

was glad to get there and get on top of the bare bed in the little carpetless bedroom. I did not feel well and soon I felt worse and, for the next few days, I was very ill indeed. I had contracted some form of dysentery. Most Europeans get it sooner or later, I was told. I had not lost much time. It left me weak and miserable and with my faith in the islands of the blessed considerably shaken. [This account contrasts with the 1936 Sunday Chronicle44 article which states: ‘For the first week after my arrival . . . life was exceedingly pleasant. I basked on the veranda of the town’s best hotel and dreamed of the good times to come.’] ‘However, as soon as I could get about I transferred to the boarding house of Mrs Brisbane, “Columbia House”. Here I was met by Mrs Brisbane herself, a fat old woman with a yellow face of almost unimaginable ugliness. She was, however, full of compassion and kindliness. “Come in, come in, we’ll take care of you here. I’ll be a mother to you!” ‘I must indeed have looked a pitiful wreck. The other inmates of this asylum for white cargo were three young bank clerks, one in bed with a venereal affection; a young commercial traveller who had been sent out to Trinidad to cure him of dipsomania; and lastly, an incongruous figure, an elderly, very prim and proper English governess. She had lost her job and had been left stranded in Port of Spain. ‘I shared a large bedroom with the dipsomaniac. He had only recently come out from London and, knowing nothing of his background, I thought this a lucky meeting, for he was a most amiable fellow and most anxious to help me. I felt he would be a help and opened my heart and my trunk of samples for his inspection. I was rather disappointed to note that, anxious as he was to encourage me, my scheme of selling to the natives did not seem to fill him with enthusiasm. However, he said he would himself take some of my samples round and as he was well in with the chief buyers, might be able to place some orders. He also gave me the names of some buyers upon whom I should call. I set out next day and met with a complete fiasco. I will not dwell on it. After three weeks of interviewing greasy negroes, half-cast Portuguese, tipsy whites, and generally having a thoroughly humiliating time, the net result was the sale of 5 lb of safety pins, my one and only sale. What was to be done now?’

While cogitating on the way forward, Baird again fell ill and was confined to his bed for a week with a high fever. His forced inactivity gave him plenty of time for contemplation and he conceived the notion of starting a jam factory. The tropical island was lush with vegetation and teemed with citrus fruits, guavas seemed plentiful, and sugar was produced in great quantities. These would be the raw ingredients for his jam. Moreover, the island was overrun with mango trees so mango chutney could be added to the factory’s products. It all seemed so simple. The foods would be produced and exported—in such a way that no rotting would occur—and ‘a fortune would be made.’ Baird learnt that the centre of the fruit growing region was at a small village, in the Santa Cruz Valley, called Bourg Mulatrice (The Black Man’s Village) which was situated to the northeast of Port of Spain. Here he boarded cheaply in a house belonging to the local cocoa planter. ‘This was a wooden building beside a small river surrounded by a clump of gigantic bamboos, in the very heart of the bush. With the help of Ram Roop (a Hindu youth) and Tony (a large simple creature of mixed generation), I commenced to build a factory.’ This comprised three bamboo huts. A large copper pan, which Baird thought had originally been a wash tub, was

22

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 1.7

The jam factory at Bourg Mulatrice, Trinidad

Source: Mr R M Herbert

bought from a scrap dealer in Port of Spain and positioned over a brick fireplace. In a little while the cauldron was filled with sugar and orange cuttings, in the proportions given in cookery books, and the fire was lit. Two large wooden ladles had been purchased and soon Ram Roop and Baird were vigorously stirring the mixture: the heat was intense. Sweet smelling vapours emanated from the pot and wafted away into the jungle. They acted like a homing signal to the insect life and swarms of insects of all types appeared out of the bush in alarming numbers. They flew into the steam above the pot in their thousands and, overcome, fell dead into the boiling jam. This was a new experience for Baird, who dropped his stirrer and ran, but Ram Roop did not seem the least concerned. After a while the invasion from the jungle abated slightly and Baird and his assistant were able to finish their jam making and pour their product into a selection of glass jam jars. There were other difficulties. The factory became an insects’ paradise. Hundreds of enormous ants crawled into his store and, in one night, made away with 1 cwt of sugar. The floor of Baird’s bedroom was alive with insects, chiefly huge cockroaches; giant spiders ran up and down the walls; and strange insects flew in and out in multitudes. All the while mosquitoes continually enfolded the entrepreneur in a cloud. Some of the jam was sold, with difficulty, to local shop owners, then once again Baird fell ill with a fever. He directed his business as best he could, giving instructions to Ram Roop and Tony from his bed, but it was apparent that no adequate market existed for Baird’s products.

Early life

23

Harold Pound was one of Baird’s friends in Port of Spain. He was an agreeable companion and together they shared a bungalow, spending much time drinking gin cocktails and whiskey. Baird has related a delightful anecdote about the time when he returned one evening to the bungalow to find Pound, with a large whiskey and soda, ‘gaping with alcoholic horror at a stupendous, unbelievably large grasshopper which sat on the table gaping back at him. He was immensely relieved when I arrived and confirmed that the grasshopper was real and not the result of the alcohol. We finally caught the creature in a waste paper basket. It proved to be a gigantic locust and we kept it in a canary’s cage as a pet for the amusement of the people who visited us. We fed it on grass and whiskey and soda, which it drank feverishly. However, it soon died of delirium tremens.’ Baird’s sojourn in the West Indies was not turning out to be the utopia which he had anticipated. He decided to return to London and try his luck there. A large cask and a number of kerosene tins were obtained, filled with mango chutney, guava jelly, marmalade, and tamarind syrup, and on 16th September 1920 Baird with his cargo set sail aboard the SS Stuyvesant for England. His experience of the West Indies was not attractively memorable. He concluded that ‘the West Indies is an excellent spot for those in robust health who can stay at the Queen’s Park Hotel and spend their time in bathing and motoring, but living in the bush, particularly under the trees in a valley near a river, is not at all a wise course of procedure’. Baird has written that the only progress he made in that West Indian year was towards television. He said that he spent his nights in the jungle working out problems so that on his return to England he was ready for new experiments. All he needed was the money to carry them out. Unfortunately Baird did not state whether his ‘working out problems’ was undertaken mentally or practically. His autobiographical notes make no mention of any television activity in the West Indies. However, some statements have been made—based on second-hand or third-hand accounts passed on after a period of about sixty years—that Baird carried out experiments while living in Bourg Mulatrice. Cables were connected between two houses, so it is said, and pictures were transmitted and made visible. Apparently, the images were hazy but nevertheless the faces seen were recognisable. When Baird in the late spring of 1923 began his full-time work on television he was not able to demonstrate the reproduction of a human face until 25th October 1925, that is, approximately thirty months later. At that time he was not encumbered by the need to set up a factory and make and market jam and chutney, he was not plagued by hordes of voracious insects, and he did not suffer bouts of fever or dysentery. During the period 1923–25 he was able to purchase radio components, including valves which were essential for any television systems and which were most likely not available in 1920 in the jungle of the West Indies. Furthermore, he had access to several persons competent in radio and workshop practices. Pound accompanied Baird in his passage to the UK. Baird thought that

24

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Pound, who had assessed the jam-making adventure in its proper perspective, was a little anxious about his (Baird’s) future. Pound knew London and probably felt he could assist his temerarious friend. On arrival in the capital, Baird rented a small shop at 166 Lupus Street and there, after a while, the mango chutney and other delicacies were delivered. He visited Mark Lane and Mincing Lane hoping to find outlets for his products, but no buyers were forthcoming— the quality of his guava jelly and chutney were below standard. In desperation Baird sold the lot for £15 to a sausage maker who mixed-in the unwholesome food with his sausages. ‘From what [Baird] gathered, so long as the stuff was not absolutely poisonous it was quite acceptable.’ During his early period in London Baird resided at a boarding house in Bloomsbury run by Miss Selina Borthwick45. It was an appalling place which opened his eyes to the comfortless and abject nature of some Bloomsbury guest houses. As it had been recommended by Mephy, who was staying there, Baird felt he had no immediate alternative but to stick it out for a short time. Partial board, which included breakfast and dinner throughout the week and full board on Sundays, was from 25s. per week. Baird, keen to preserve his savings, opted for one of the cheapest rooms. ‘This was a wretched attic at the top of the house with one little barred window with broken glass, a bare floor and a rickety bed, and some dilapidated blankets.’ The blankets, however, were clean. Breakfast comprised, usually, ham and bread and butter, and occasionally an egg of doubtful quality. Dinner, more often than not, was soup of the dishwater type, followed by a watery stew and mashed potato. The pudding, Baird found, was best left alone. ‘The inmates were the most depressing crew I have ever met—down and out commercial travellers and wretched elderly women, some eking out an existence on small pensions, others employed as milliners and stenographers and so on, grown old in service and hanging on in constant fear of the sack. ‘I would not have stayed at all but for Mephy, who seemed to find the place very convenient and cheap and got on well with Selina. Poor Mephy was also cutting down expenses and had a bed in a disused washing house, with a stone floor and original wash tub. The wash tub still had the hot and cold taps, so that at least he had the advantage of a supply of hot water. It was a dreadful place to sleep in however, very damp and cold, and I think it contributed to give him the rheumatics with which he suffered.’

Baird was now in a rather precarious state. His savings had dwindled to just £200, and he had no paid employment, or other source of income. He had to initiate some means of making money, and tried answering advertisements which were published in The Times under the heading ‘Business opportunities.’ All sorts of crackpots sought out Baird at his Bloomsbury lodgings with schemes for making money which were as crackpot as themselves: all were futile. Many involved selling patent medicines. One man gave some trouble46. He had heard that a vast quantity of galvanised iron buckets could be purchased as surplus Army stock at what to him was a bargain price. If Baird could finance their acquisition—for £1000—there would be a fortune to be made. The buckets would be sold from street barrows, the

Early life

25

organisation of which would be undertaken by a friend who was known as the ‘King of the barrows’ throughout London. This friend, ‘an enormous villainous hooligan with red muffler’ had the barrow trade at his fingertips. He was very much the worse for drink when he and his friend waylaid Baird and when he showed some hesitancy in agreeing to their demand they became very obstreperous. Possibly as a result of his answering adverts in the ‘Business opportunities’ column, Baird learnt that Australian honey could be bought at a knock-down price and that considerable quantities of it were in storage in the London docks47. The owners were keen to sell at almost any price and Baird decided to take a gamble and purchased two tons, which he stored in his Lupus Street shop. Advertisements were placed in The Times and the Morning Post announcing: ‘28lb tins finest Australian honey, post free to your address 30/–’, and soon, once again, a lucrative Baird venture was underway. He began to make money rather than lose it. But as Baird’s stock was sold more goods had to be obtained. He spent a good deal of time in Mark Lane, where traders known as the Mark Lane scorpions, offered ‘bargains’ of all types. Their favourite business tactic was to attempt to persuade an innocent buyer to part with his money in advance ‘to clinch some wonderful bargain’ and then disappear. ‘Sometimes they took jobs as travellers, sold your goods at absurd prices (promising the customers enormous discount) then, immediately the goods were delivered they called, collected the cash and vanished.’ At about this time Harold Pound introduced Baird to his uncle who owned a small horticultural business, which included a shop and appreciable storage space, which he wished to sell. The ‘business was just what [Baird] wanted. It gave [him] storage accomodation in plenty and a certain amount of over-thecounter trade.’ He paid £100 for it, even though the place was most unhealthy— the office was under a railway bridge—and the walls ran with moisture. It was far from being the ideal situation for a person who suffered from yearly colds and chills. Nevertheless, Baird found that his customers still patronised him and he did his best to sell them fertilisers and coir fibre dust, as well as honey. Business was good and Baird had a number of other schemes on hand when his ‘old enemy laid [him] low again and [he] found [himself] in bed with [his] usual severe cold. In bed [he] remained for several weeks, the business meanwhile going to bits’. While in this state, a friend of Harold Pound arrived from Trinidad. He was eager to begin a business in London and offered to buy a half share in Baird’s enterprise. Baird willingly agreed and Pound’s friend took charge while he remained incapacitated. Meantime, with no improvement in his condition, Baird, on his doctor’s advice, went to Buxton Hydro to convalesce. He sold his share of the business to his partner, and received £100 in cash and £200 in shares in an oil company from the transaction. (Baird still had them in 1941—they were quite unsaleable.) Fortunately, he had insured himself at the beginning of the year against illness and his entire stay in the health spa was paid for by the insurance company at the rate of £6 per week. Baird was ill for

26

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

nearly six months, but finally recovered sufficiently and returned to London at the end of 1921. And so once again he found himself in a financially parlous plight with just £100 in his pocket. Lodgings were obtained in Pembroke Crescent and once more the local and national papers were scanned for potentially sound trading opportunities. In the Grocer he noticed an advertisement for two tons of resin soap at what seemed an astonishingly low price. Baird’s enquiries led him to the office of H T Manning48. ‘Mr Manning was out, but his lady Secretary was entertaining to a cup of tea an elderly gentleman [Mr Young] with pince-nez glasses (from which one glass was missing). She kindly invited [Baird] to join them and [they] discussed the soap trade.’ The resin soap was horrid stuff and not to be bought at any price, but Young knew of a good line—‘a fortune in it if handled the right way.’ And so, with Young as manager at £2 per week, Baird rented a one-room office at 13 Water Lane, and placed an order with Messrs George Green Ltd, for one ton of twin tablet, doubled wrapped pale yellow soap. He advertised for salesmen and sent Young off on the road complete with the first sample of ‘Baird’s Speedy Cleaner.’ The day after the advertisement was published a steady stream of decrepit travellers appeared, all eager to vend the product. ‘All wanted a small salary, [and] the majority wanted a small advance on account. All were told the same tale: no salary to start with, commission only if results justified it, salary would follow. All were given a sample with price-list. Their commission was lavish, 20% . . .’ Baird’s ‘dilapidated army’ set out and within a few days orders began to arrive. The business grew and within a short time Baird decided to expand. A larger warehouse was rented and materials were bought in bulk. Baird wanted Young to take charge of the warehouse, and the storage and dispatch operations, but Young, while agreeing, insisted on having a boy to help him pack and handle the goods. So, another advertisement was placed in an evening paper—‘Strong boy wanted to help in warehouse.’ The day after the advertisement was printed Baird was surprised to see, as he approached Water Lane from Mark Lane station, what appeared to be a riot with two policeman trying to restore order. The whole of Water Lane, up to its junction with Mark Lane, was a seething mass of ‘strong boys’ who had come to ‘help in warehouse.’ Baird quickly slipped into the office by a back entrance, pushed his way through the crowd of strong boys, who blocked the passage, and knocked and shoved at the locked door. It was opened to Baird by a white-faced, thoroughly terrified Mr Young. The boy at the head of the queue was engaged and a large notice ‘job filled’ was put on the door. The company remained in a state of siege. For days afterwards strong boys hung around the office. Scowling and muttering, they banged on the locked door and threatened to break in. Baird and Young were accosted in the corridors and in the streets as they scurried in and out. Soon, the business began to prosper. Soap was sold to hotels, to boarding houses, to ships’ chandlers and to street barrows. At 18/– per cwt it was very

Early life

27

cheap, but it was also rubbish, being mostly soda, with a ridiculously small fatty acid content (the test of a good soap). ‘Water held together by caustic soda was how an angry customer described it! But what could they expect at the price?’ One day a very vulgar and ferociously angry woman banged her way into the office. She carried a small infant, pulled its clothes over its head and a thrust a raw and inflamed posterior into Baird’s face. The poor child looked like a boiled lobster. The wretched women had washed the infant in a strong solution of ‘Baird’s Speedy Cleaner’. Baird calmed her down and pointed out that his soap was a powerful scouring product for floors and ships decks, and not a toilet soap for infants. Soon a competitor came on the scene. Young, in some excitement, told Baird that a Mr Hutchinson was selling soap, labelled ‘Hutchinson’s Rapid Washer’, at 16/– per cwt, from his barrow. Baird immediately arranged a meeting with his rival, a hearty, jovial Irishman. ‘We got on well together and came to the conclusion that we should join forces. We met that night and dined together at the Cafe Royal. We sat long into the night drinking old brandy and settling the last details of our merger. I felt ill when he saw me off at Leicester Square tube station. Next morning I had a high temperature and a terrific cold. I had left my old lodgings and was staying in a cheap residential hotel (bed and breakfast, full board Sunday, 30/–). My bedroom was a converted conservatory and bitterly cold. I got rapidly worse. Hutchinson appeared with a bottle of Eau de Cologne and was thoroughly alarmed at my state. The doctor was called in and I got steadily worse. He became concerned and told me that I must get out of London at once or he would not answer for my recovery. Mephy was in Hastings and next day I packed my bags and set off to join him. The business had prospered and I had fulfilled a long held ambition by forming it into a limited company with £2 000 authorised capital. My co-directors, two young businessmen to whom Pound had introduced me, bought out my shares, leaving me with a sum of roughly £200.’

Note 1 The following articles by ‘H2O’ (J L Baird) have been located in the 1912 to 1914 issues of The Royal Technical College Magazine: 1 ‘The invisible man; a creepy Christmas drama in one act’, Vol. V, No. 3, December 1912, pp. 82–3 2 ‘Gussie; a New Year tragedy’, Vol. V, No. 4, January 1913, pp. 101– 2 3 ‘The Cordanglers’, Vol. V, No. 4, January 1913, p. 104 4 ‘Desire’, Vol. V, No. 5, February 1913, pp. 122–3 5 ‘The temple’, Vol. V, No. 6, March 1913, p. 141 6 ‘The war march of the priests’, Vol. VI, No. 1, October 1913, pp. 5–6 7 ‘The test”, Vol. VI, No. 3, December 1913, p. 57 8 ‘Spirits’, Vol. VI, No. 5, February 1914, p. 130 9 ‘Adiabatic expansion’, Vol.VI, No. 6, March 1914, p. 158

28

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Note 2 J L Baird’s College Record Session 1906–1907 Mathematics I Dynamics I Practical Physics Chemistry and Lab. I Mechanics I Engineering Drawing I Session 1907–1908 Mathematics II Fuels and Oils Materials of Construction Electrical Eng. and Lab. I Thermodynamics Mechanics and Lab. I Motive Power Eng. I Engineering Drawing II

1st year Electrical Engineering

2nd year Electrical Engineering

Session 1908–1909 Mathematics III Engineering Drawing II Materials of Construction Motive Power Eng. Mechanics IIB Session 1909–1910 Electrical Eng. and Lab. II Mechanics IIB 3rd year Electrical Engineering Motive Power Eng. and Lab. II Session 1913–1914 Mathematics C Mechanics and Lab. II Motive Power Eng. and Lab. II 3rd year Electrical Engineering Electrical Eng. and Lab. II Awarded Associateship of Royal Technical College, 1914

Early life

29

References 1 BURNS, R. W.: entry on ‘J. L. Baird’, in ‘New dictionary of national biography’ (Oxford University Press, in preparation) 2 MARCONI, D.: ‘My father, Marconi’ (Frederick Muller, London, 1962), p. 8 3 BAIRD, M.: ‘Television Baird’ (HAUM, Cape Town, 1973), p. 16 4 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television. Autobiographical notes’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 1 5 Ref. 3, p. 18 6 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952), pp. 29–30 7 Ref. 2, p. 14 8 Ref. 6 9 Ref. 4, p. 6 10 Ref. 4, p. 8 11 Ibid. 12 Ref. 6, pp. 27–8 13 Ref. 2, p. 11 14 Ref. 6, pp. 27–8 15 Ref. 4, pp. 4–5 16 PRIESTLY, H.: ‘The what it cost the day before yesterday book, from 1850 to the present day’ (Kenneth Mason, Hampshire, 1979) 17 Ref. 4, p. 15 18 Ibid. 19 Ref. 4, p. 20 20 Ibid. 21 Ref. 4, p. 21 22 Brochure of the Baird Television Development Company, personal collection 23 Ref. 4, p. 21 24 Ref. 6, pp. 33–5 25 Ibid. 26 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘The story of television’, Sunday Chronicle, 15th November 1936 27 Ref. 6, p. 29 28 Calendar for 1975–1976, University of Strathclyde, p. 21 29 Ref. 4, p. 3 30 Ref. 4, p. 23 31 Calendars of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Technical College for 1907–1908, 1908–1909, 1909–1910, 1910–1911 32 Calendar of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow for 1914–1915 33 McFARLANE, W.: Testimonial for J L Baird, undated, Halley’s Industrial Motors Ltd 34 Ref. 4, p. 26 35 ANON.: ‘Man of vision. A jubilee tribute to John Logie Baird who showed fifty years ago the world’s first pictures by television’, University of Strathclyde, 1976 36 Ibid. 37 Ref. 4, pp. 28–30

30

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

38 Form R. B. N. 1., ‘Registration of Business Names Act, 1916’, 9th September 1918, personal collection 39 Ref. 4, pp. 28–30 40 WATKINS, H.: ‘How television began—Part 13’, London Home Magazine, c. 1962. Also Ref. 3, p. 31 41 Ref. 4, pp. 30–2 42 Ref. 4, pp. 33–5 43 Ibid. 44 Ref. 26 45 Ref. 4, p. 36 46 Ref. 4, p. 37 47 Ref. 4, p. 37–8 48 Ref. 4, pp. 39–41

Chapter 2

Hastings

The exact date of Baird’s arrival in Hastings is not known. Baird in his autobiography1 (of 1941) mentions his arrival in Hastings as being in ‘the late spring’ of 1923. Mrs M Baird2 and S A Moseley3 in their biographies referred to the winter of 1922–23 and 1923 respectively; P Waddell and T McArthur4, and B Norman5 in their books suggest late 1922 and 1922. Television development was not initially in Baird’s mind when he settled in Hastings, for in his notes Baird related how, when his health improved, he tried to invent a pair of boots with pneumatic soles so that people could walk with the same advantage that a car gains from its pneumatic tyres. ‘I bought a pair of very large boots, put inside them two partially inflated balloons, very carefully inserted my feet, laced up the boots, and set off on a short trial run. I walked a hundred yards in a succession of drunken and uncontrollable lurches, followed by a few delighted urchins. Then the demonstration was brought to an end by one of the balloons bursting.’6

Also, while in Hastings, Baird had tried to invent a glass safety razor, which would not rust or tarnish, but without success. His financial state was giving him some concern, and, as his health precluded the possibility of him establishing a business or engaging in salaried work, he reasoned that he would have to invent something which would give him a source of income. Baird’s biographers—his wife, Margaret, and staunch friend, S A Moseley— state that Baird thought out a complete system of television while walking over the cliffs to Fairlight Glen. Neither author mentions explicitly why Baird should have considered this topic. Margaret Baird has written that, during her future husband’s period of convalescence, some time was spent by him browsing in the public library. Since Baird was trained as an electrical engineer, it seems highly likely that he would have taken at least a cursory look at the popular and semipopular technical magazines available in the library—particularly as sound broadcasting had not long been in operation in England. If this is so, then the possibility exists that he read an article on ‘A development in the problem of

32

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

television’ by N Langer in the Wireless World and Radio Review7 issue of 11th November 1922. In his article Langer described the rudimentary principles of television and proposed a solution based on the use of oscillating mirror scanners, a selenium cell, a ‘light valve’ of string galvanometer type and a suitable amplifier. The most important aspect of Langer’s paper concerned the results which he had obtained from some experiments ‘to ascertain the limit of speed of change which a selenium cell was capable of recording’. These results showed that selenium cells were capable of responding to variations in light at a frequency of 10 kHz; that with an increase of speed the sensitivity of the cell was greatly reduced; and that by the use of valve amplifiers it was possible to compensate largely for the loss in sensitivity at high speeds. From his observations Langer considered that the selenium cell was applicable to experiments ‘for enabling objects at a distance to be seen by the eye by means of electrical circuits or by wireless, in much the same manner as the ear is enabled by means of these methods to hear sounds at a distance’. Langer concluded his article by saying that he had endeavoured to indicate the lines along which a solution to the problem could be found. ‘I feel that it may be of interest to other experiments’, he wrote, ‘to have these suggestions put forward. The solution of the problem from a wireless point of view must be looked for as a logical outcome of television by line wires.’ Now, as noted previously, Baird, in his youth, had tried to make a selenium cell8 while living with his father and mother in their manse in Helensburgh. However, when one day some hot selenium scarred one of his hands, he abandoned his project and diverted his energies elsewhere9. It has been reported that Baird carried out some investigations, in 1913 or 1914, on television while staying with relatives at 17 Coldingham Avenue, Yoker, and succeeded in transmitting shadowy images from one room to another10. These episodes show that Baird had an early interest in light cells; an interest which could well have been rekindled by Langer’s paper. Certainly Baird was familiar, in May 1924, with the paper because he mentioned it in an article which he wrote for Wireless World and Radio Review . A further point of circumstantial evidence which suggests that Baird perused the Wireless World articles comes from his views on the applications of television. The Hastings and St Leonard’s Observer reported in January 1924: ‘A Scotsman has come south, in fact he has come to Hastings, and this particular Scotsman is now engaged upon perfecting an invention which at some not very distant date may enable people to sit in a cinema and see on the screen the finish of the Derby at the same moment as the horses are passing the post, or maybe the Carpentier–Demsey fight . . .’

This prospect for the future was similar to Langer’s, for he wrote: ‘Personally I look forward with confidence to the time when we shall not only speak with, but also see those with whom we carry on a telephone or wireless telephone conversation,

Hastings 33

Figure 2.1

Cartoon published in the Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 26th January 1924. It refers to Baird’s early television experiments which he carried out in Hastings from ‘the late spring’ of 1923

Source: The Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 26th January 1924

and the distribution of a cinematograph film will be superseded by the direct transmission from a central cinema.’

It is interesting to note that Baird’s first patent, 222 604 dated 26th June 1923, is concerned with a system of reproducing television images which the inventor used to show large-screen television at the London Coliseum on 28th July 1930. A further significant point which lends support to the previously mentioned premise concerns the statement made by Langer in the first paragraph of his paper: ‘The problem of television has been already partly solved by the methods adopted by Professor Korn.’ If the premise is true, then Baird presumably would have wanted to refer to Korn’s work. This he did, for Margaret Baird has written that Baird found a musty and torn copy of a book in German called Handbuch der Phototelegraphie (1911) by A Korn and B Glatzel in the public library. Korn and Glatzel’s work was the only pre-1922 publication which gave a clear

34

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

description, with diagrams, of some of the early suggestions and schemes for distant vision. (A published lecture11 which Baird gave in January 1927 indicates that he was familiar with the inventions of the television pioneers.) Thus it seems reasonable to suppose that Baird’s renewed interest in ‘seeing by electricity’ was triggered by an article in a semi-popular technical magazine and that his subsequent choice of the Nipkow disc scanner for his work resulted from a perusal of the appropriate chapter of Korn and Glatzels’s book. Langer’s paper was optimistic in tone and many 1922–23 readers with only a slight knowledge of the advances which had taken place in radio communications and valve circuits would probably have formed the opinion that the accomplishment of television was near at hand. Baird realised the difficult nature of the task: ‘The only ominous cloud on the horizon,’ he wrote, ‘was that, in spite of the apparent simplicity of the task, no one had produced television’12. It is instructive to recall that Marconi was led to pursue his life’s work when he read, while holidaying at Biellese in the Italian Alps, an obituary describing Hertz’s experiments. He subsequently said that, as a result of the article, the idea of wireless telegraphy using Hertzian waves suddenly came to him. In later life he observed: ‘The idea obsessed me more and more and, in those mountains of Biellese, I worked it out in imagination. I did not attempt any experiments until we returned to the Villa Grifone in the autumn, but then two large rooms at the top the house were set aside for me by my mother. And there I began experiments in earnest.’13 Like Baird, the young Italian inventor considered the solution to his posed problem to be essentially simple and he seems to have been surprised to learn that it had not been solved by others. ‘My chief trouble,’ he noted, ‘was that the idea was so elementary, so simple in logic, that is seemed difficult for me to believe that no-one else had thought of putting it into practice. Surely, I argued, there must be much more mature scientists than myself who had followed the same line of thought and arrived at an almost similar conclusion.’14 A further point of similarity concerns the approaches which the two inventors adopted to solve their problems. Neither Baird nor Marconi had any highly original suggestions to put forward at the outset of their investigations and both experimenters modelled their schemes on the ideas of others. Marconi’s earliest transmitter was still essentially a coil and spark gap as used by Hertz (although the design of the spark gap had been slightly changed to incorporate an improvement due to Righi), and a curved metal reflector which was situated behind it to direct the radiation to the receiver. Baird’s earliest distant vision apparatuses were based on proposals which had been advanced by Nipkow and others in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. P P Eckersley, a former chief engineer of the BBC and an opponent of Baird’s low-definition system, wrote in 1960: ‘Baird is to be honoured . . . among those who see past immediate technical difficulties to an eventual achievement; Marconi did much the same with radio. Neither Baird nor

Hastings

35

Marconi were pre-eminently inventors or physicists; they had, however, that flair for picking about on the scrapheap of unrelated discoveries and assembling the bits and pieces to make something work and so revealing possibilities if not finality.’15

Nevertheless, notwithstanding their lack of profound intellect, and their inability to emulate Clerk Maxwell or Lord Kelvin in original thought, Baird and Marconi succeeded where others had failed because they possessed qualities of patience, of concentration and of an overwhelming desire to succeed which enabled them to pursue their objectives with an indefatigable resolve. Baird and Marconi commenced their investigations at opportune times, for, in addition to the ideas which had been put forward by others, the technology existed for narrow band television broadcasting in the one case and narrow band wireless communication in the other. Marconi and Baird also had the luck, or the intuition, to select the right notions to try out. Of course, in some instances, particularly when Baird commenced his experiments in 1923, the choice of components was also decided by factors of cost, ease and simplicity of construction, and of availability. Both Marconi and Baird began their experiments in private residences. Marconi had rooms in the family residence and Baird made use of various rooms which he rented when staying in Hastings and elsewhere. Baird hoped to realise a quest which had engaged the attention of scientists, engineers and inventors from 1873. For, in that year, Willoughby Smith communicated a discovery to the Society of Telegraph Engineers which appeared to provide, a few years later, a means for ‘seeing by electricity’. Smith’s disclosure concerned the photoconductive property of selenium, a characteristic of the element which was utilised in many of the early schemes for television until the development of valve amplifiers and photoemissive cells made selenium cells obsolete in the 1920–30 decade. The photoconductive property of selenium was easily demonstrated—‘its sensibility to light is extraordinary, that of a mere lucifer match being sufficient to affect its conductive powers’—and in the decade following Willoughby Smith’s communication there was an expectation among scientists and others that ‘seeing by electricity’ would soon be a reality. This expectation was based not only on the results that had been achieved in the field of picture telegraphy together with Smith’s disclosure, but also on the invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876, which enabled ‘hearing by electricity’ to be readily implemented. The simplicity of Bell’s device and the lack of effort involved in its development possibly stimulated inventors to attempt the transmission of moving images by electrical means, for numerous suggestions for ‘telectroscopes’ were put forward in the ten-year period after Smith’s announcement on (see Table 2.1). However, the problem of ‘seeing by electricity’ was of an altogether different order of complexity compared with the problem of ‘hearing by electricity’, and success eluded the early workers. An early indication that selenium was not an ideal photoconductive material was given by Sale in a communication to the Royal Society in 1873. Sale’s experiments indicated that instantaneous changes

36

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Table 2.1 Dates (and names of inventors) of some distant vision proposals for the period 1878–1924 1878 1879 1879 1880 1860 1880 1880 1880 1881 1881 1882 1884 1889 1890 1893 1894 1894 1895 1897 1898 1898 1899 1902 1902 1903 1904

de Paiva Perosino Senlecq Carey Ayrton and Perry Middleton Sawyer Le Blanc Senlecq Bidwell Lucas Nipkow Weiller Sutton Pontois Majorana Jenkins Nystrom Szczepanik Vol’fke Dussaud Bolumordivinov Coblyn von Bronk Belin and Belin von Jaworsky and Frankenstein

1904 1906 1906 1906 1907 1908 1908 1908 1908 1909 1910 1910 1910 1911 1911 1911 1915 1915 1917 1919 1919 1920 1920

Ribble Lux Rignoux Diecjmann and Glage Rosing Campbell Swinton Adamian Anderson and Anderson Sellers Ruhmer Schmierer Ekstrom Hoglund Rosing Campbell Swinton Lavington Hart Voulgre Dauvillier Nicolson von Mihaly Sandell Baden Powell Kakourine

1920 1921 1921 1922 1922 1922 1922 1923 1923 1923 1923 1923 1923 1923 1923 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924

Egerton Whiston Schoultz Belin Valensi Jenkins Rtcheoloff Baird Hammond Zworykin Gardner and Hineline Nisco Western Electric Stephenson and Walton Robb and Martin Sequin and Sequin Blake and Spooner Alexanderson Hoxie Takayanagi Appollinar and Zeitlin McCreary d’Albe Dieckmann

of light intensity on a selenium bar did not cause instantaneous changes of resistance in the material. This property of selenium was to limit television development for many years, and even when selenium cells were employed by Korn in low-speed picture telegraphy systems, in the first decade of the twentieth century, a special circuit had to be devised by him to overcome partially this effect. Nevertheless, the work of the nineteenth century television pioneers was not wholly unproductive, and by the turn of the century, some of the basic system components needed to implement a television scheme had been proposed. The basic principles of scanning in particular were well understood and the scanners of Nipkow (1884), Weiller (1889), and Brillouin (1891) were later successfully utilised by scientists and engineers in the period 1925–36. Also, the development effort which had enabled practical picture telegraph systems to be demonstrated and introduced into public service (albeit for short periods) had given inventors an understanding of the principles and difficulties of synchronisation. This understanding was applied to the problem of

Hastings

37

television; indeed, the use of line synchronising pulses in modern television can easily be traced back to the 1843 ideas of Bain on facsimile telegraphy. After the turn of the century the work and notions of Rosing (1907) and Campbell Swinton (1911) on the use of cathode-ray tubes in distant-vision schemes—which subsequently led to the experiments of Zworykin (1923) and the production of the iconoscope and emitron by the RCA and EMI, respectively, several years later—provided the new ideas which were needed to achieve an all-electronic solution to the television problem. In addition, de Forest’s invention of the audion (1907), Hallwach’s demonstration of the photoelectric effect (1888) and the detailed investigations of Elster and Geitel (1889–1913) on photoelectricity were important contributions that were to play a vital part in the progress of television. Consequently, when Baird, in 1923, decided to apply his inventive abilities to the problem of a practical television scheme, the problem seemed to him to be comparatively simple. Two scanning devices rotating in synchronism, a lightsensitive cell and a controlled varying light source capable of rapid variations in light flux were all that were required, and these appeared to be already, to use a Patent Office term, known to the art. Baird’s principal contemporaries in this challenge were C F Jenkins of the USA and D von Mihaly of Hungary. Other inventors were patenting their ideas on television at this time (1923), but only Jenkins, Mihaly, Baird and a few others were pursuing a practical study of the problem based on the use of mechanical scanners. The approaches of the three inventors to their tasks were individualistic. Jenkins was a well known inventor and a person of considerable means. He had produced important inventions in the field of cinematography and was able to design and manufacture apparatus of some complexity. His early rotary scanners consisted either of specially ground prismatic discs or costly lensed discs. Mihaly, an experienced patent expert and engineer, used an oscillating mirror scanner, together with tuning forks and phonic motors for synchronising purposes. Baird’s approach necessarily had to be entirely different to those of his contemporaries. He had little money, no laboratory facilities for the construction and repair of equipment, no access to specialist expertise, and no experience of research and development work in electrical engineering. He had to carry out his experiments in the unsuitable conditions of private lodgings. Anecdotal accounts mention that Baird was helped in his quest by several residents of Hastings. They included Jim Evans ‘who made most of the equipment’; Reg Sergeant who carried out experiments with Baird; Norman Loxdale, a schoolboy, who was sent to Maypole Grocers in Castle Hill Road to buy tea chests which were used to make the scanning discs16; Vincent Edwards, an engineer with Hastings Tramways17; William Le Queux, Claude Froude and Victor Mills18, 19, who were radio enthusiasts and held amateur transmitting licences; J J Denton, an engineer with the Hastings Municipal Corporation, and the first Honorary Secretary of the Hastings Radio Society, and H T Elgar20.

38

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 2.2

C F Jenkins, the American inventor, initially used costly glass scanners. The diagrams show (above) the variation of the cross-sectional shape of the ring prism, and (below) the use of the two disks to scan a raster

Source: Trans. Soc. Motion Picture Eng., May 1920, 10, p. 10

Hastings 39

Figure 2.3

D von Mihaly’s television transmitter and receiver utilised vibrating mirrors for scanning and phonic motors and tuning forks for synchronisation

Source: Wireless World and Radio Review, 19th March 1924, p. 762

In a letter to the author dated 1st October 1975 Mills gave an account of his assistance to Baird: ‘ I [had] been a wireless ham since 1913 and in the winter of 1922 to 1923 Baird came to see me about [the] noise from his selenium cell. Baird had an idea of filtering out his light chopper frequencies from a background of noise which contained a great deal more

40

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

energy. From that time on he had the use of my equipment which included a very good valve power amplifier which could supply more signal than that which was required by his neon lamp. ‘The noise came from a very large selenium cell on which the image of the object being transmitted was projected and the cell was scanned by the chopper disc, thus only a tiny part of the cell was producing a signal while the whole was producing noise and almost as bad the response of the cell varied from point to point. ‘I was able to rearrange things a little and scan a real image of the object in space and focus the disc onto a small cell thus cutting noise and getting a more even response. I rearranged the neon circuit so that the neon was driven into the condition of greater output and not put out! I suggested sending [an] a.c. wave which could be amplified to drive the receiver disc. ‘For a while Baird had a room in our house where he kept his apparatus. My mother bought two tables on which to do the early experiments, one for Baird and the other for me. I still have my table and the two neons which received the first picture on 8 lines. I still have the mica blocking condensers, L F chokes and even many of the ‘R’ type valves, but no selenium cells. I think Baird took these to London where he could get a d.c. source for his light because as we tried to get greater definition we were troubled by black bars due to our a.c. supply. ‘Baird told me that the light chopper was used to overcome the slow recovery of the selenium resistance and not to provide an a.c. signal which of course it did. ‘I think Baird was a wonderful sticker, he lived television and in spite of a mass of ideas for his work and knowledge of that of others he did not appear to have much real technical or scientific knowledge, but I am pleased to have worked with him. We need many more such devoted workers. ‘I must add that I am unable to think of any experiment which we were unable to do because of lack of apparatus. The limit set on our results was due to the selenium and the neon. I had plenty of radio apparatus, accumulators, valves, etc. and their use cost Baird nothing. My mother charged him nothing for the use of the room. . .’

Further anecdotal recollections have stated that a coffin board from Burton’s the undertakers was utilised as a base for Baird’s televisor; that the serrated metal light chopper disc was made in the Hastings Tramways workshop by Edwards21; that some bicycle lamps came from Wheelers in Queen’s Arcade, and that the ‘bulls-eye’ lenses which Baird used were bought for four pence each22. According to Moseley (Baird’s staunchest supporter from 1928), the first televisor Baird devised ‘had the ingenuity of Heath Robinson and a touch of Robinson Crusoe’. Baird described it as having the saving grace of simplicity. A circular cardboard disc cut from a hat box and pierced with two spirals of small holes formed the Nipkow disc, a darning needle served as a spindle, and bobbins together with the use of an electric motor supplied the means of rotating the disc. ‘On one side a powerful electric lamp shone through the bull’s-eye lens on to a little cardboard cross, whose shadow was cast on to the disc. To one side of the cardboard disc was another of tin. This had a large number of little serrations around its edge, was mounted on the spindle of a small but high-speed electric fan motor, and stood in the path of light. ‘On the other side of the cardboard disc [there] was a selenium cell. The interrupted light falling on to this cell generated a current which [after amplification] went to a neon

Hastings

41

lamp fixed behind the same disc but at the opposite edge from the cell, which was connected to the lamp through an amplifier. The lamp glowed when the cell was illuminated and went out when it was in the shade, so that when the apparatus revolved it was possible to see in one half of the disc the shadow of a cross (used as an object) on the other half two feet away.’23

Of the original machine nothing now remains. Baird’s recollection was that it was sold for two pounds in order to pay the rent. Moseley’s description of Baird’s first televisor cannot be taken as the definitive account: he stated that Baird used a neon lamp in his televisor, but a May 1924 description by Baird of the system corresponding to the transmitting arrangement mentioned by Moseley (and shown to the press at the beginning of the year) referred to a receiving disc having lamps arranged in the same staggered formation as the holes in the transmitter disc. Baird’s movements in 1923 are not known in detail. The only 1923 newspaper report of his work mentions: ‘Recently Mr Baird was in Helensburgh on a visit to his home and in conjunction with Mr Yeudall, of Messrs Yeudall and Sprott, carried out several experiments in connection with his invention. Ill-health and a lack of material, however, drove him south and he has since been in Folkestone, Tunbridge Wells, and London’24. His Folkestone association came to light in February 1961 when a reference to Baird by a columnist reminded a resident, Mr P A Bennett, of 21 Shorncliffe Crescent, that the inventor had boarded in West Terrace, Folkestone25, 26. It seems that Baird’s landlady had objected to his cluttering up his bedroom with apparatus and had asked him to leave. Following a recommendation, Baird acquired accommodation with T C Gilbert and Company Limited, at 26 Guildhall Street (where Bennett was a director of the company). The company’s business as electrical contractors brought it into the wireless experimental circle and Baird was welcomed. He was provided with bench space in the workshop and given certain facilities, including the use of some Western Electric audio frequency amplifiers. Bennett27 has stated: ‘Baird stayed here perhaps two or three months, and during that period was in touch with someone in the Tunbridge Wells area, who was experimenting with a light cell . . . When he left Folkestone I feel certain he went into that area, and in retrospect it seems to me that he went to Hastings sometime after that.’

During the early part of 1923 Baird had no source of income, although there was a constant drain on his small capital reserve for the essentials of life and the needs of his ideas. By June 1923 his financial state was becoming precarious and he inserted an advertisement28 in the personal column of The Times: ‘Seeing by wireless—inventor of an apparatus wishes to hear from someone who will assist (not financially) in making working models. Write Box S686 The Times, E C 4.’

In his autobiography, Baird wrote: ‘I thought it better not to ask directly for money and I think this was wise. Anyhow my advertisement got two good bites,

42

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

one from Mr Odhams, the Chairman of Odhams Press, and the other from Will Day, a man with a prosperous wireless and cinema business and well known in cinema circles.’29 This account of the responses from the advertisement has been repeated— though in different words—in the biographies of Baird written by Mrs Margaret Baird, by S A Moseley, and by P Waddell and T McArthur. However, Baird’s recollection was in error (see later). Baird and Odhams did not correspond until January 1924, following a newspaper report dated 15th January in the Daily News; and Baird did not initiate a business deal with Day until April 1924. Following the June 1923 note in The Times it is known that Baird left Hastings and spent some time in Folkestone, Tunbridge Wells, London and Helensburgh before returning to 21 Linton Crescent, Hastings. Moreover it is known that he carried out some experiments in at least two of these places, Folkestone and Tunbridge Wells. No explanation has ever been given as to why Baird should have chosen to work in these seemingly inappropriate— for television development—locations. A possible explanation is that he received replies from his newspaper advertisement from wireless enthusiasts, experimenters living in Folkestone and in Tunbridge Wells. When Baird, from the spring of 1923, embarked upon his life’s work on ‘seeing by wireless’ he had not previously engaged in any experimental work which was of the complexity of even a rudimentary television system. He knew that many inventors before him had suggested or attempted solutions to the problem but had not been successful. Hence during his early experiments Baird was not averse to seeking, without acknowledging, assistance from individuals who could aid him. His Hastings helpers (Denton, Le Queue, Mills et al.) are known, but others from whom he, presumably, obtained some assistance elsewhere have not been identified. Since Baird had no relatives or friends in Folkestone or Tunbridge Wells it appears possible, indeed probable, that he travelled to those places because he had learnt that some expertise was available on aspects of his problem. If this explanation is correct the only means, excluding personal introductions, by which he could have acquired the names and addresses of the ‘experts’ was as a consequence of a national newspaper report or an advertisement for assistance ‘in making working models’. The exact sequence of experiments and investigations which Baird carried out in 1923 is not known, but it is highly likely Baird used a Nipkow disc scanner in one of its many different forms, either at the transmitting end, or at the receiving end, or both, of the television link. Baird utilised disc scanners for many years, and even when the London Television Station was established in 1936 one of the essential items of equipment provided by Baird Television Ltd was a spotlight scanner of the Nipkow disc type. Nipkow’s invention30 had an inherent limitation which precluded its use for a purpose which Baird held to be of some importance, namely, cinema television. Fig. 2.4 illustrates the principle of operation of the Nipkow disc scanner. In its

Hastings

43

simplest form the Nipkow disc consists of a thin, flat, circular piece of metal, or other suitable material, pierced by a number of small apertures, equal in number to the number of scanning lines required, and arranged to lie along a single turn spiral. Given a disc of diameter D and a number n of scanning lines, the circumferential distance between any two apertures is πD/n and the radial distance separating the first and nth holes is πD/nk where k is the aspect ratio (assuming horizontal line scanning). Thus for a disc 30 inches in diameter the size of the aperture scanned is only approximately 3 inches by 2.4 inches, for an aspect ratio of 5 : 4 and a sequential scan of 30 lines. Hence although such a disc could be employed to analyse an image of the object or scene to be televised, it was not possible, bearing in mind the controllable light sources then available, to contemplate its use as an image synthesiser in a large-screen system. Baird’s solution, which he put forward in his first patent31, was based on an idea advanced by Ayrton and Perry, by Redmond, by Middleton and by Carey in 1880, and by Senlecq in 1881—the idea of a mosaic of reproducing elements32. The patent, titled ‘A system of transmitting views, portraits and scenes by telegraphy or wireless telegraphy’, describes the use of an analysing Nipkow disc and a receiver mosaic of incandescent lamps. Baird envisaged the disc to be provided with a series of 18 small holes, each one-eighth inch in diameter, and each circumferentially separated from the next by one inch. At the receiver a rotating brush commutator was to be employed to switch the received signal to the appropriate lamps of the mosaic, whence the varying brightness of the lamps would reproduce the image, and persistence of vision would cause the whole reproduced image to appear simultaneously on the screen of lamps. The date of the patent, 26th July 1923, is of some importance: it is unlikely that Baird, in his impecunious state, would have spent money on a patent application without having some expectation that the method outlined was worth protecting. Moreover it is further unlikely that he had given any public demonstration before the 26th since the Patent Office advises against such action. Prior disclosure of the contents of a patent can jeopardise an inventor’s claim as the originator of the invention and may be a reason for not granting a patent. Actually, Baird tried to implement the above scheme in 1923, for the firstknown published report of his work, which was given in Chambers Journal (November 1923), describes some of the characteristics of the apparatus33. The aperture disc scanner at the transmitter was 20 inches in diameter and the image frame measured 2 × 2 inches. A rotation speed of 20 revolutions per second was adopted for the frame scanning rate and at the receiver the signals were taken to the fulcrum of an arm with a copper brush at the end, which rotated around a ring of tiny contacts. These contacts were connected in sequence to a number of lamps, of only one-eighth inch in diameter mounted in a picture frame. No indication was given in the report of the number of lamps, or holes employed: nor was any reference made to the performance of the system. The writer of the article seemed to have an optimistic outlook for he/she wrote: ‘we may shortly be able to sit at home in comfort and watch a thrilling run at an international football match, or the finish of the Derby’.

44

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 2.4

Nipkow’s 1884 proposal. His apertured scanning disc was used in television systems until c. 1938

Source: German patent no. 30105, 6th January 1884

By utilising a screen of lamps, the individual lamps may have a considerable light decay time constant, whereas with a single source of illumination the source must vary instantaneously with changes of applied voltage. The scheme would have required n times n lamps for a square picture scanned by n lines, but by mounting the lamps spirally on a rotating disc, Baird reduced the number of lamps needed for domestic viewing to n. Each lamp was positioned on the receiver disc in the same place as the corresponding aperture in the transmitted disc and the lamps were connected to a commutator at the centre of the disc. This arrangement was described by Baird in a paper34 published in May 1924, but as with most of Baird’s writings there is some absence of practical details in the descriptions. Nevertheless, the apparatus, or a similar version to it, was seen by a resident of Hastings who described the crude images it produced.

Hastings 45 Baird at this time was in urgent need of money. He therefore gave a demonstration of his apparatus to the press and managed to get mentions in the Daily News (15th January 1924) and the Hastings and St Leonard’s Observer (19th January 1924). A friend of Baird’s father saw the Daily News paragraph and mentioned it to him with the consequence that Baird received a much required present of £5035. The gift of £50 was, of course, most welcome. To put its value into some context, in the 1921–30 decade a skilled male earned about £5.00 per week, coal was £1.50 per ton, a Morris Cowley two-seater car could be bought for £175, and a pint of beer and an ounce of pipe tobacco were 2.5p and 5p respectively. The comparable purchasing power of £50 (1924) in 1996 was £150036. According to the report in the Observer: ‘Mr John Logie Baird . . . is now staying at 21 Linton Crescent, where he is experimenting with his wonderful machine . . . For some time, he had his own laboratory near Hastings station but owing to the fact that the premises are required for a shop, he has had to give up his “lab” and instal his intricate machine in a large room at Linton Crescent. Here he is continuing his experiments and constructing a new machine which will give better results than the purely home made machine with which he has achieved such a remarkable success.’

Mr H T Elgar of Fairfield, 59 Linton Road confirmed that Baird’s earlier experiments were carried out in a back room at Linton Crescent. ‘I know this to be so because he often came into our shop and on many occasions I cut out pieces of tin and sheet brass to his requirements. He himself told me he was carrying out experiments in television in his own room.’37 The Daily News account38 noted that Baird lived ‘within five minutes walk of the station at Hastings and he [used] the drawing room as his laboratory’. Some vague details of the apparatus were given and the report was accompanied by a photograph of Baird and his television system. This ‘appeared to consist of two discs and a few cardboard boxes occupying one table. [On] another were two wireless valve sets with numerous batteries. A selenium cell and serrated disc, which served as a light chopper, were features of the apparatus.’ Baird’s light source consisted of a 2000 candle power lamp housed in a ‘brightly polished chamber of tin’ and a condenser lens. Separate analysing and synthesiser discs were not used. At this time Baird could only transmit silhouettes of simple objects such as letters, symbols and rulers. ‘Mr Baird took a cross, cut out in cardboard, placed it on the far side of the condenser and there, a couple of feet away, in a little dark chamber of cardboard, I saw that outline of the cross . . . There was no trickery about it.’ (Later the cardboard cross was replaced by a solid, enamel cross which had been awarded by the St John’s Ambulance Brigade to a local doctor and loaned by him to Baird.) ‘The reproduction appeared on the same disc as that from which it was transmitted, but on a different part. Mr Baird has been unable to erect another disc in his home-made laboratory, but he is making a second to use at a public

46

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

demonstration of his invention in a few weeks time.’ By using just one disc Baird had no synchronisation problems to resolve. Another person who probably saw the few lines in the Daily News was Mr Odhams of Odhams Press. He recalled how he met Baird but seemed to be under the impression that he wrote to Baird following The Times advertisement of 27th June 1923. However, the author has a copy of the letter written by Baird to Odhams (see later) and this is dated 17th January 1924. Odhams39 wrote to Moseley many years later about his negotiations with Baird, as follows: ‘I have pleasure in recalling the story of my pleasant relations with Mr Baird. There appeared in The Times an advertisement headed “Seeing by wireless” inviting cooperation in the then unknown science of television. The world had just been startled by the practical uses of broadcast sound: what if here was the counterpart—broadcast seeing? I replied to the advertisement the same day and on the 14th was rung up from Hastings by Mr Baird who wanted to call and see me at an early date. An appointment was made for the 16th, and as the unexpected result of a long talk Mr Baird wrote me on the following day: Re-: ‘Television invention’ [17 th January 1924] Dear Mr Odhams, I have been considering our conversation of yesterday, and will be very pleased to let you have a 20% interest in my Television invention, and its developments, in consideration of your paying the cost of experimental apparatus—not exceeding 100 (one hundred pounds)—and giving introductions likely to prove advantageous. You understand that I am anxious to have a decision as early as possible—but I can leave the option open for seven days. I enclose another cutting giving some further information (the technical details are not accurate). Trusting the above will be satisfactory. Yours faithfully, JOHN L BAIRD W Odham, Esq., Long Acre LONDON ‘Another appointment was made for the 18th and I was able to have with me a Mr West, the Assistant Chief Engineer of the British Broadcasting Company, then a comparatively young concern. The interview must have taken at least an hour, I being the silent listener to much technical talk. The only thing I can remember understanding was [that] the enormous difference in the waves of light and sound constituted the difficulty of television as compared with broadcasting. ‘I had another visit from Mr Baird a few days later, and he told me that he was hung up for various apparatus. These, by the courtesy of Mr West, I was able to obtain, viz: 3 DER valves, three LS5 power valves, two R1 inter-valve transformers, one three valve note amplifier. ‘ “I hope’, wrote Mr West in sending them, ‘this will be sufficient for Mr Baird’s

Hastings

47

requirements, but if he requires any more I hope you will ring me and I might be able to send round this afternoon further apparatus.’ ‘Thus equipped, Mr Baird, who had been delayed by a bout of influenza, advised me later that the apparatus was working properly, and a few days after Mr West went down to Hastings to see it. As far as I can recollect, he reported to me that undoubtedly the claims made for television were scientifically sound but that it would be a considerable time before they would be likely to become commercially available. The same view was taken by Mr F H Robinson, the Editor of the Broadcaster, some months later after a visit to Hastings at my suggestion. ‘He said his claims were soundly substantiated by the experiments which I saw . . . Mr Baird’s invention is, of course, extremely wonderful, but at present I cannot see anything spectacular in it. ‘With this expert evidence before me I had to consider the desirability of taking or refusing the handsome offer made to me by Mr Baird in his original letter, and I decided not to avail myself of it because, having already put in over 50 years of strenuous work, I felt it would be unwise to embark on what would evidently be a long drawn out period of further anxious toil.’

Baird later wrote40: ‘Mr Odhams was very charming, he gave me his time and entertained me with a respect and consideration which were as balm to the soul of a struggling inventor instead of being regarded as a dangerous crank. “Well now, Mr Odhams”, I said “what kind of demonstration would convince you?” He said: “If you could put a machine next door, seat someone in front of it, and then on the screen in this room show his face—not a shadow but the face—then I’m certain you will get all the money you would want. I am anxious to help and I have discussed this with West and Robinson, but we can see no future for a device which only sends out shadows.” ’

This account does not accord with Odhams having responded to The Times advertisement of 27th June 1923 for several reasons. 1.

2. 3.

Baird’s letter mentions that: ‘I enclose another cutting giving some further information . . .’. No newspaper reports on Baird’s work had been published prior to January 1924, but in that month both the Daily News (on the 15th) and the Hastings and St Leonard’s Observer (on the 19th) had reported on television. Odhams referred to Baird having had ‘a bout of influenza’. This suggests the season was winter and not summer. West’s report that ‘the claims made for television were scientifically sound’ suggests he saw the early 1924 apparatus, which had been demonstrated to the Daily News, and not the July/August 1923 equipment which had never been shown or demonstrated to a newspaper reporter.

The date (17th January 1924) of Baird’s extant letter and the above points show that Odhams made his inquiries following the 15th January 1924 Daily News article and not the 27th June 1923 Times advertisement. Notwithstanding the lack of financial support from Odhams, Baird did receive help in another way. Both W Surrey Dane, subsequently the joint manager at Odhams, and John Dunber, the editorial chief, were interested in Baird

48

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

and his work and gave him much needed publicity and encouragement41. A few months later the editor of the Wireless World and Radio Review was able to mention that: ‘a good deal of public interest has been aroused by the experiments in television recently conducted by Mr Baird’. With his new riches from his father, Baird, sometime between January and April 1924, moved his rickety apparatus from 21 Linton Crescent to a workroom at No. 8 Queens Avenue (referred to as Queens Arcade in several reports of Baird’s work), opposite the Town Hall. He occupied a small room, over an artificial flower shop, at a rent of five shillings per week. Published accounts of Baird’s residence in Hastings are notable for their imprecise chronologies and inconsistencies; Odhams’ recollection is an example. Other examples include the street name of Baird’s Hastings lodgings as Walton Crescent rather than Linton Crescent, and his landlord in Queens Avenue as a Mr Twigg instead of Alderman Ben Went Tree. (Shortly after Baird’s occupancy at No. 8, Tree left the income from his property in Queens Avenue to set up a trust for the benefit of the Hastings Museum.) One of Baird’s neighbours in Queens Avenue was a Mr Leighton who had a photography shop. A relative, Mrs Louise Leighton, has provided some reminiscences of Baird’s stay42. ‘I was 21 at the time and people those days used to buy biscuits in 7lb tins, and the impression I got—and still retain—of Mr Baird’s invention in its early stages was of a lot of 7lb biscuit tins joined together and covered with wires and things. ‘We often gave Mr Baird and his friend [Mephy?] a cup of tea, and I have often wondered what happened to the friend who used to walk about the Avenue in his sandals and without socks, a rare thing in 1924. ‘The shop beneath Mr Baird’s we let to an artist who used to wear the regulation artist’s hat and big black velvet bow. ‘There used to be a Mr Le Quex [sic] who lived at 91 Marina, and he always carried a poodle dog with him. This gentleman used to come and watch Mr Baird at work, and one day while he was there Baird asked Mr Leighton to take a photograph, which Mr Leighton often did and, of course in 1924 it was the old fashioned flash powder and pan. However, on this particular day Mr Baird and Mr Le Quex were minus their eyebrows.’

(One of Leighton’s photographs of Baird and his apparatus was used to illustrate the 19th January 1924 report published in the Hastings and St Leonard’s Observer.) Lance Sieveking43, who in July 1930 coproduced the first play to be televised in the UK, has left a vignette of Baird as he ambled deep in thought along the promenade at Hastings. ‘It was mostly his back we saw. He had his hands stuck in his coat pockets, staring at the sea. Then he would suddenly say “Ah”, as if he had seen something, and turn and go quickly into the room in an arcade that he used as a laboratory. I did not know then who he was, but the barber who used to cut my hair told me that he was “one of those inventor chaps”.’

The concept of television had a popular appeal and on 15th February 1924

Hastings 49 the Radio Times carried an article44 headed: ‘Seeing the world from an armchair. When television is an accomplished fact.’ After describing certain aspects of wireless broadcasting, such as international broadcasting, the transmission of wireless waves, fading and so forth, the writer posed the question: ‘What will be the next stage?’ He went on: ‘The answer seems to be television. We have encircled the earth with our music and speech, will the next year enable us to see around the earth with our eyes? Eminent scientists have progressed far along the road at the end of which will be discovered the secret of television, or simply, seeing by wireless.’ The writer, whose name is not known, described Fournier D’Albe’s vision of the future: ‘It is highly probable, he (d’Albe) is reported to have said, that we shall be able to sit in, say, the Albert Hall and actually watch the Derby or the ’Varsity Boat Race, or a Naval Review, or a prize fight in America, or, for that matter, a battle. I mean, watch a moving picture of any of these things on the screen, at the moment they are happening . . . As we know now that wireless waves can be relayed almost indefinitely, I see no reason why in 10 years time we should not be able to see what is happening on the other side of the globe. It is only a matter of effort in research, and if the public interest is there the effort will be there.’

Baird’s future colleague Moseley and his business partner Hutchinson would excite this interest in large measure. The writer ended his article by stating that J L Baird had succeeded in transmitting the outline of objects and that C F Jenkins had reproduced his moving hand on the screen. ‘These experiments indicate the miraculous linking up of the whole earth by wireless in the not too distant future.’ Sometime in 1924 Baird visited the offices of the Press Association in London. There, Baird met William Fox. He has recalled the occasion45. ‘It was a day when I was on office duty and the chief sent for me and said: “Oh, Fox, there is a fellow down in the waiting room on the first floor, says he’s done something with electricity. I don’t know what it is. Go down and see what he’s got to say but make sure he hasn’t got any knives on him. Listen to him but don’t promise anything. And, whatever you do, get rid of him.” ‘I didn’t want to see any more of these inventor fellows. I was fed up with them. Everyone coming to say he could do something with radio. It was all the rage . . . Well, I went down and found a man of about my own age with a shock of yellow hair, untidy, old sports jacket, baggy grey flannels and forgotten shoes. I was struck because he said few words as if he was unwilling to let any word go. Very parsimonious with his words. He was difficult to talk to but I got the impression that here was an experimenter like myself. ‘I took him to Lyons, Ludgate Circus and told him that if he could send a signal from Hastings, by radio, to my home in Golders Green, I’d believe him. He said he thought he could as he was in touch with several wireless amateurs [probably W Le Queux and C Frowd in Hastings] and so we arranged a date and time and the signal and, a few days later, I sat beside my radio set late at night. And then, right on time, came the signal, a very rhythmic sound based on the rotation of the scanning disc at about 30 beats a second, just as he had described it—so I kept my word and believed.

50

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

‘Ever after that he was always on the phone; always wanting to give demonstrations so I could write about them. And he told me that the day we met he’d visited every newspaper in Fleet Street and been thrown out as a lunatic.’

The date of Baird’s transmission is known because on 10th April 1924 the Scottish Glasgow Herald46 and several other newspapers reported that a young Englishman (sic) had carried out tests (possibly using W Le Queux’s transmitter—see later) ‘last Tuesday night’ from a south coast town and that ‘wireless amateurs listening-in to the Paris Radiola and other Continental stations may have heard the picture transmission, although they were unable to see anything’. ‘A press representative who listened to the television transmission found that it was indicated to the ear by a curious high-pitched whistle with a hint of regular and very rapid interruptions. Almost inaudible, it was quite distinct from the intermittent mutter of high-speed telegraphy and was totally different from a howl. With the necessary apparatus the signals could have been converted into a picture.’ Given Fox’s recollection of the 1924 transmission it seems likely that the 10th April transmission was the one which he had requested. One well known person who lived in Hastings at this time was the novelist William Le Queux47. He was interested in radio communications, particularly radio telephony, was a member of the Institute of Radio Engineers and had carried out some radio experiments in Switzerland in 1924 with Dr Petit Pierre and Mr Max Amstutz. Le Queux’s48 fame and interests had resulted in him being elected the first President of the Hastings, St Leonard’s and District Radio Society in 192449. The inaugural lecture to the newly formed society was given by Baird on 28th April 1924 when he talked about ‘Television’. The report50 of the lecture in the local press indicated that Baird was still using selenium cells. He said his machine was ‘only capable as yet of transmitting crude shadowgraphs’ and that ‘in the near future, he hoped to have an opportunity of exhibiting his machine to the society but, at present, commercial interests—[probably the pending agreement with W E L Day]—debarred him from giving further details’. Le Queux attended various demonstrations and was willing and eager to help Baird, but said all his money was tied up in investments in Switzerland. He did, however, write an article51 for the Radio Times, in April 1924, with the title ‘Television—a fact’. The article is important as it gives some indication of the progress which Baird was making at this time. After mentioning the successful transmission of outline images by Jenkins and Baird, Le Queux wrote: ‘In both cases, however, the receiving and transmitting machines were mechanically coupled. Mr Baird has now succeeded in overcoming the great synchronising difficulty and has successfully transmitted images between two totally disconnected machines, synchronism being accomplished with perfect accuracy by comparatively simple and inexpensive apparatus.’

Baird was still experimenting with small lamps in his receiver but there is no doubt that these could produce crude images.

Hastings 51

Figure 2.5

J L Baird demonstrating his apparatus to W Le Queux (left) and C Frowd (right) in his laboratory in Queens Arcade (early 1924)

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

‘A Maltese cross was first transmitted, and was clearly visible all over the large room, standing out there luminously from the receiving disc . . . My fingers, moved up and down in front of the transmitting lens were clearly seen moving up and down on the receiving disc, and so forth. It remains now to transmit detailed images and a machine to do this has already been designed. A public demonstration will probably be given shortly and then those who listen to broadcasting will be amazed at being able to actually see by wireless. Soon we shall be able to hear and see a thousand miles away.’

Le Queux seemed to be using his novelist’s imagination to whet public interest. The machine alluded to in this article was also hinted at by Baird in his first technical article52 published in May 1924: ‘I am now engaged on apparatus capable of giving a certain amount of detail, considerable modifications have been made, the large revolving disc and lamps described below have been dispensed with.’ The details of this new machine were not disclosed until he wrote a further paper, in January 1925, for the same periodical, since he wished to confine himself in the earlier article to a description of his earlier experiments. Also in April 1924 F H Robinson, the Editor of the Broadcaster—an Odhams Group publication—wrote an article53 titled ‘The radio kinema’ which was published in Kinematograph Weekly. After describing Baird’s latest apparatus and the results of a demonstration which he had witnessed ‘not so very long ago’, Robinson concluded his account by opining: ‘Undoubtedly wonderful possibilities are opened up by this invention, its very simplicity and reliability placing it well to the front of many of the various complicated methods which have been evolved to do the same work. Now that the main principle has been communicated and proved it is not too much to expect that in the course of time we shall

52

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

be able to see on the screen the winner of the Derby actually racing home watched by hundreds of thousands of his worshippers at Epsom.’

Quite fortuitously, Robinson’s article was published on the same page as a report on ‘The Spectrum dinner’. This was an occasion, which followed the showing of the first series of the new Friese–Greene colour process films at the Holborn Empire, when Spectrum Films entertained a large party of friends at the Trocadero. Among the guests was Will Day, who was a prominent member of the cinema trade. The juxtaposition of the report and Robinson’s article led to Day learning of Baird’s activities. He wrote to Baird and expressed an interest in his work. Baird’s reply, which has only very recently (1999) come to light, is given below. 21 Linton Crescent Hastings April 5th 1924 Will Day Esq C/o Messrs Will Day Ltd 17 Lisle Street WC2 Seeing by Wireless Dear Sir, I have heard from Mr Robinson of ‘The Broadcaster’ that you are interested in my Television invention. I would be very pleased to meet you and expect to be in London to-morrow (Monday) and will ring you up about 10.45 A.M. with a view to making an appointment. Yours faithfully [signed] J L Baird

All Baird’s biographers, and Baird himself, have stated that he met Day following The Times advertisement of 27th June 1923, but clearly this is not correct. His letter is contained in a private collection of 76 letters—22 of them written by Baird and the rest written by Day—which detail Baird’s progress and the tensions which arose between Baird and Day during their association from April 1924 to December 1925. Since these important letters54 have not previously been published, a precis of some of their contents is now given. Day to Baird, 14th April 1924 Notes that Baird has accepted Day’s suggestion that he assists Baird in the perfecting of his patent and agrees to the payment of £200 for a one-third share in its exploitation. Day mentions that his solicitor will draw up an agreement. (In his autobiography Baird stated: ‘His solicitor—an ancient and crafty gentleman in a dirty collar—made me sign a document whereby I afterwards found I had bound myself to pay all expenses in developing the invention, and the costs of taking out patents in every country in the world. Fortunately the document was so badly drawn up that it was, I found later, completely illegal! I

Hastings 53 did not read it at the time; I would indeed have signed away my immortal soul for £200 and I was not going to quibble over the terms of a legal document.’) Telegram, 17th April 1924 J L Baird arriving about 3.15 p.m. Baird to Day, 1st May 1924 Sending a full-size drawing of the scanning disc. Baird to Day, 1st May 1924 ‘The amplifier arrived safely and I am going to test it with the photo-electric cell.’ Day to Baird, 2nd May 1924 Confirms that a disc is being made. ‘Assuring you at all times of my help in this great experiment we both wish to see developed.’ Telegram, 8th May 1924 J L Baird’s mother died yesterday. ‘Going to Scotland for a few days.’ Baird to Day, Saturday ‘I am coming south again either on Monday or Tuesday and will call up and see you as soon as I get back.’ Day to Baird, 8th May 1924 States he is very busy with Baird’s new apparatus—‘but it is a time wasting job evolving [involving?] such high speeds getting suitable discs for the work’. Day to Baird, 21st May 1924 Mentions book on Physiological Optics by Tscherning and thinks ‘perhaps this will eliminate many mysteries which may exist with you regarding colour, etc’. Baird to Day, Monday Returns book on optics—‘most interesting’. Mentions experiments with the photo-electric cell but claims to prefer selenium cells. Baird to Day, 26th May 1924 Again mention experiments with the photoelectric cell, but ‘I prefer selenium’. Day to Baird, 27th May 1924 Acknowledges return of ‘Physiological optics’. Mentions the book, The Telegraphic Transmission of Photographs by Thorne Baker. Day to Baird, 5th June 1924 Day expresses concern about Baird’s article in Popular Wireless since he feels that Baird may have given away too much information.

54

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Baird to Day, 6th June 1924 ‘The photo-electric cell arrived today—Elwell had one in stock which he sent me[.] I also received the selenium cell from Dr Ray.’ Day to Baird, 6th June 1924 Received invoice for the motors from Holland. Delivery sometime next week. Day to Baird, 7th June 1924 Says new photoelectric cells are extremely delicate in their operations. Therefore ‘do not risk the instrument for the sake of having a metal screen which will earth any counter currents that may affect the photo micro cell.’ Baird to Day, 8th June 1924 ‘I have had a large steel case made to enclose the photo electric cell and the amplifier. This greatly reduces the interference and by further screening I hope to entirely eliminate it.’ Day to Baird, 16th June 1924 Confirms that the motors from Holland have arrived but says that they draw 20 A instead of 10 A from a 12 V supply. In his experiments, Baird, like most other experimenters, used a selenium cell, the time lag of which had proved a source of constant concern to distant vision workers. Various attempts had been made to compensate the lag, and Baird, in his early experiments, had given the subject much thought. His patent55 235 619 of 12th March 1924 described a method which he was to employ for about a year in order to overcome the difficulty. Baird outlined the application of this invention in his paper as follows: ‘In the transmitter an image of the object to be transmitted [was] focused on a disc rotating at a speed of approximately 200 r.p.m.. The disc [was] perforated by a series of holes staggered around the circumference. In the experimental apparatus described four sets of five holes were thus arranged: in proximity to this disc revolved a serrated disc at some 2,000 r.p.m, and on the other side of this and in line with the focused image of the object to be transmitted there [was] a single selenium cell connected to a valve amplifier.’

Baird’s rotating serrated disc was a light chopper, a device which is still used in certain applications. It enables the picture information to be sent by means of a modulation of a carrier signal and its utilisation eased the problem of low frequency amplification. Baird wrote about his method as follows: ‘Selenium is instantaneous in its response to light, that is to say, the instant light falls on it, it begins to change its resistance. Time, however, is required for this effect to reach its maximum, and this property of selenium known as its “chemical inertia”, or “time lag”, is fatal to any system which depends simply upon passing the image over a selenium cell, as in passing along a light strip of the image, the resistance is very much lower at the end of the strip than at the beginning, and again in passing along a dark strip the resistance increases as the strip is traversed.

Hastings

55

‘The use of the rapidly revolving serrated disc overcomes this, as the actual resistance of the cell at any instant is not of consequence, it is the pulsations which are transmitted. To make the matter clearer it might be said that light was turned into sound. Loud for the high-lights, low for the darker areas and complete silence for darkness.’

Although Baird did not patent this important idea until 12th March 1924, a photograph published in the 19th January 1924 issue of the Hastings and St Leonards Observer clearly shows the serrated disc incorporated in his apparatus. Baird gave much thought in 1924 and 1925 to the problem of improving the unsatisfactory performance of selenium cells. He was at this time faced with a real dilemma. The photoconductive selenium cells which he was utilising were moderately sensitive, easy to manufacture, but suffered from the serious drawback mentioned earlier and thereby gave rise to blurred television images. On the other hand, photoemissive cells had a much superior transient response but their sensitivity was extremely low, and most probably below the capacity of Baird’s earliest amplifiers. It is known that he had ordered such a cell from Messrs Elwell Ltd in June 1924. The proprietor of this company in November 1924 wrote an article56 for the Electrician which made reference to the Case high vacuum photoelectric cell. Possibly this cell was available for purchase from Elwells. In his autobiography, Baird wrote57: ‘I made a number of efforts to increase the sensitivity of the photoelectric cells and to find other materials which would give greater reactions to light. The light sensitivity of the human eye, according to Eldbridge Green and certain others, resides in a purple fluid found in the retina of the eye, and called visual purple. I decided to make an experimental cell using the substance, and called at the Charing Cross Ophthalmic Hospital, and asked to see the chief surgeon. I told him I wanted an eye for some research work I was doing on visual purple. He thought I was a doctor and was very helpful. “You have come at an appropriate time”, he said, “I am just taking out an eye, and will let you have it, if you will take a seat until the operation is over.” I was handed an eye wrapped in cotton wool—a gruesome object. I made a crude effort to dissect this with razor, but gave it up and threw the whole mess into the canal.’

Baird also tried to develop a new type of cell. In his 21st January 1925 Wireless World and Radio Review article Baird stated58: ‘The cell which I have been using is neither a photoelectric cell nor a selenium cell, but a colloidal (fluid) cell of my own invention.’ No details of this cell have survived the passage of time. Baird was very secretive on the subject of his light-sensitive cells. When he presented some television apparatus to the Science Museum in 1926 the cell was notably missing, although in a report59, dated 25th April 1926, Baird said: ‘The light sensitive cell is nothing very novel among inventors.’ The behaviour of selenium cells exposed to intermittent illumination had been studied by Nisco, Glatzel, Romanese, Bellati, and Majoranda60, but how much of this work was known to Baird in 1923–24 is a matter for conjecture. Since he was living in the non-university town of Hastings at that time, it seems unlikely that he had easy access to the learned society journals in which the findings of the above workers were published.

56

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Various attempts had been made by experimenters to minimise the undesirable property of the selenium cell during the development of picture telegraph systems and of these those of Szczepanik (1895), Zavada (1911), and Cox (1921) were of some importance. Baird’s solution61 to the problem had a distinctive simplicity and consisted in adding to the output current of the selenium cell a current proportional to the first derivative of the output current. Fig 2.6 taken from the patent shows the result of adding these two currents together. In this patent the inventor described several circuit arrangements for accomplishing the desired effect, using passive circuit elements. It appears strange that the method was not advanced and utilised by the early developers of picture telegraphy and this fact further illustrates Baird’s ability to propose a simple, realistic solution to a problem which had for many years been considered difficult, if not intractable. In his early articles and patents Baird did not give any details of the amplifiers which he employed. Bridgwater, who at one time worked for Baird before transferring to the BBC (he later became Chief Engineer, BBC Television), has written62: ‘It has been said of him: “An amplifier was just a necessary and rather unimportant box to him, and one amplifier was very like another.” Undoubtedly an over simplification, but electronics was not Baird’s strong point. Baird was principally interested in optics and mechanics and it is significant that he sought initially, for a solution to the difficulty of using selenium cells by recourse to a mechanical rather than an electrical device. ‘However he fully realised the importance of amplifiers and many years later referred to Sir Ambrose Fleming’s work on valves in the following way: “His invention of the thermionic valve revolutionised wireless communications and is in my opinion by far the most valuable invention of the century.” ’

One of the major problems which had to be solved in any system of television by wireless using Nipkow discs, Weiller drums, or other mechanical scanners at the transmitting and receiving stations, was the need to maintain the two scanners in synchronism. Baird worked on this problem in 1923–24 and on the 17th March 1924 applied for a patent with the title ‘A system of transmitting views, portraits and scenes by telegraphy or wireless telegraphy’. Baird devised a suitable scheme in a characteristic way; his solution was the simplest, most robust and probably the cheapest which could be used—but it worked. He wrote: ‘To obtain isochronism an alternating current generator is coupled to the shaft of the transmitter and current from it controls the speed of a synchronous motor driving the receiving machine. To obtain synchronism the driving mechanism is rotated about the spindle of the receiver and the image comes correctly into view.’

There is no doubt that Baird’s system worked, as Le Queux was able to confirm in his Radio Times article. While this method enabled the transmitting and receiving discs to be mechanically de-coupled, the solution, of necessity, involved the separate transmission of the low frequency alternating currents, in addition to the signal currents which were of a higher frequency. Baird was not at this time working on the

Hastings 57

Figure 2.6

Baird’s patent no. 270 222 describes a method for improving the resolution of television systems based on the use of selenium cells. If the first derivative of the cell’s current is added to the cell’s current an improvement of image quality is realised

Source: British patent no. 270 222, 21st October 1925

problem of transmitting both the signal and synchronising currents as a modulation on a carrier wave. This had to wait several years for a solution. The above patent further illustrates Baird’s gift for reducing a problem to its basic statement and then finding an equally simple solution. Not for him were the complicated, fragile, and expensive mirror scanning systems of Szczepanik and of Mihaly, or the more robust but still costly mirror drums of Weiller. What could be simpler, stronger and cheaper than a Nipkow disc cut from an old hat box and pierced with a darning needle? Baird was short of finance and had to find answers to his questions using almost literally the inventor’s beloved sealing wax, string and glue. He could not have engaged in research work on cathode ray oscilloscope systems but had to make do with the meagre and crude facilities at

58

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 2.7

The basic receiver configuration of aperture disc scanner, neon tube, mask, and synchronising and phasing equipment used by the Bell Telephone Laboratories in its 1927 television demonstrations was similar to that employed by Baird from 1924 to 1925

Source: The archives/records management services unit, AT&T

his disposal. It is to his everlasting credit than he achieved any results at all when faced with such daunting difficulties. However, old electric motors and generators could be obtained from scrap metal merchants for a few shillings, so Baird, possibly using his experience as an assistant mains engineer with the Clyde Valley Electricity Power Company during the war years, tackled the problem of synchronisation and solved it, together with many others, so that by early May 1924 Amateur Wireless was incautious enough to state63: ‘So much progress has been made with television that we may regard it already as an accomplished fact . . . The main problem has been solved . . .’

Hastings 59 Baird’s work was not without its dramatic moments. On 26th July 1924 the Hastings and St Leonard’s Observer noted64: ‘Mr J L Baird who claims to be the inventor of television (seeing by wireless) met with an accident at his workshop in Queens Avenue on Thursday. A large explosion was heard and Mr Baird was found lying helpless on the floor. He had apparently been at work upon the machine when a short circuit occurred. He was hurled across the room by the force of the shock and was dazed [but was assisted by a Mr Colin McDougal]. The voltage carried by the wires was 1,000 [V]. Mr Baird’s hands were badly burned and he was much shaken. The apparatus was damaged.’

Baird described65 the sequel in his autobiography (of 1941). ‘Mr Twigg, from whom I rented the laboratory sent me a sharp note saying that my experiments, which were liable to damage his property, must cease forthwith, or I must instantly vacate his premises. I completely ignored this letter and one afternoon, while working in my lab, where I could be seen by anyone standing in the Arcade, I was astonished and very annoyed to find Mr Twigg standing in the Arcade, waving his arms and shouting at me. ‘ “What are you doing there? I told you I could have no further experiments carried out in my premises. You must stop this nonsense at once.” ‘I was very angry and marched downstairs to put the old gentleman in his place. “Excuse me, Mr Twigg, but this is scarcely the way to carry on; I am paying you rent for these premises and have a perfect right to use them without you standing there bawling and shouting at me.” ‘By this time a small crowd had collected. I did not wish a scene so I turned my back on him in a dignified fashion and marched off. I was rather astonished by a roar of laughter from the crowd, and a few minutes later I discovered that it was caused by the fact that, in thrusting my hands violently into my trouser pockets, I had strained this dilapidated garment and torn a large rent in the seat of my trousers. However Mr Twigg had his way; I received a letter from his solicitor instructing me that I must vacate his premises.’

Baird’s recollection (which was reported in the biographies written by Moseley and Mrs Baird) contains an error—the name of the landlord was not Mr Twigg but was Alderman Tree. Baird was not happy with the reporting of the accident; he took exception to the words: ‘Mr J L Baird, who claims to be the inventor of television . . .’, and felt they were both misleading and damaging. He wrote66 to the editor of the local paper and pointed out that early in 1924 he had demonstrated to the press and several experts ‘the actual transmission of moving outline images’. ‘The word ‘claims’ is, therefore, entirely out of place, and gives the wrong impression’, he wrote. A major advance in Baird’s work was contained in his letter to Day dated 16th June 1924. Baird to Day, 16th June 1924 Refers to television using reflected light, a major step towards achieving actual television. ‘I have just got the cell sufficiently sensitive to work by reflected

60

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

light—that is actual objects not transparencies . . . I feel quite certain that there are no insurmountable difficulties in the way of success. The system is certainly a sound one.’ Baird to Day, 23rd June 1924 States that he is experimenting with colloidal solutions to produce an improved type of cell, ‘. . .but I would rather be getting ahead with the new machine’. Day to Baird, 26th June 1924 Says the motor had to go back to Holland to be rewound. Mentions the Cinematograph Garden Party on 19th July and asks Baird whether he has anything on television to show. Baird to Day, 27th June 1924 ‘I won’t be ready for a demonstration in time for the Garden Party but I’ll do my best.’ Seems to complain that the charging of his accumulator costs too much— 3s. (15p) per charge. ‘Would you please get a Tungar rectifier for me the supply is 200 V, 100 cycles a.c.’ Day to Baird, 28th June 1924 ‘We will get a Tungar rectifier.’ Received a note about the 15 V motor. Baird to Day, 30th June 1924 ‘I will do all I can to get something for the Garden Party[. I]t would be a magnificent opportunity for publicity.’ Day to Baird, 1st July 1924 Acknowledges Baird’s letter. ‘I will not say anything to the committee until such time as I am assured you have everything really functioning correctly.’ Baird to Day, 4th July 1924 The Tungar valve [rectifier?] arrived this morning. ‘Pending the arrival of the motor I have been trying experiments with a relay in hopes of reducing the amount of amplification required and have had some success.’ Day to Baird, 5th July 1924 Acknowledges Baird’s letter of the 4th. Baird to Day, undated The ‘rest of the rectifier arrived today and it is now installed and charging up the accumulators[. I]t will prove a great boon.’ Day’s secretary to Baird, 7th July 1924 Acknowledges Baird’s lettercard of yesterday. Mr Day is away.

Hastings

61

Baird to Day, 7th July 1924 ‘I am very glad to hear that the motor will arrive shortly. . . . I have finished the drawings for the Patent office.’ Day to Baird, 14th July 1924 Acknowledges Baird’s letter. Baird to Day, 18th July 1924 ‘I have the model running, it runs splendidly. I am afraid however, I will have to alter the slots as they do not let enough light through but if I can get the lamp brighter it may not be necessary.’ (This refers to his light chopper.) Day to Baird, 24th July 1924 ‘. . . I am anxious to hear that all is working well.’ Baird to Day, 25th July 1924 Says he has managed to reproduce a shadow and hopes that more amplification will make it clearer. Mentions his electric shock from the 1000 V battery. Day to Baird, 25th July 1924 Concerned about Baird’s accident and suggests that he should wear rubber gloves. Day to Baird, 26th July 1924 ‘. . . you will be wise to obtain rubber gloves and not deal with these high voltages unless you have ample insulation for the future.’ Baird to Day, 27th July 1924 The accident ‘twisted me up and flung me across the laboratory. . . . nothing damaged. The doctor was surprised I was still alive.’ Baird to Day, 6th August 1924 ‘Can get moving shadows through but they are broken and indistinct. Will alter slots.’ Experiencing problems with the amplifier ‘howling’—a type of self-oscillation. Day to Baird, 8th August 1924 ‘I am extremely pleased to receive your very welcome letter to hand this day . . . It is very gratifying to think that you are getting towards the results we both look forward to . . .’ Baird to Day, 14th August 1924 ‘I have been experimenting with different sized slots and hope very soon now to have something worth showing you. ‘The trouble with the first slots was very peculiar [—] horizontal lines were

62

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

quite clear but vertical lines were almost invisible[. If] a piece of cardboard was held in front of the transmitting lens its shadow was quite clear at the receiving end—as long as it was held horizontal. ‘If it was turned to a vertical position it gradually faded[. It] was a rather puzzling phenomenon but I have now got the proper size of slots and am going ahead.’ (Baird’s punctuation was at times somewhat deficient.) Day to Baird, 15th August 1924 A note of impatience begins to be evident. ‘[I] trust that before long you will have something tangible to put before me.’ Day to Baird, 21st August 1924 Encloses ‘a statement of goods had by you, which we trust that you will see your way to oblige us with a remittance at an early date.’ Day to Baird, 6th September 1924 ‘You will have to be quite sure that the television effect is produced absolutely by wireless without a circuit in operation.’ ( At this time Baird was using a line link between his sending-end and receiving-end apparatuses and did not have a Post Office licence to transmit by wireless.) Day to Baird, 9th September 1924 Mentions that he has had a conversation with a Mr Burney, of the Sterling Telephone Company, who yesterday, with the company’s technical expert, Captain Cohen, visited Baird in Hastings. Day thinks Burney was impressed. Day to Baird, 26th September 1924 It seems that Baird had made a phone call to Day which caused him much unease. Day responded in fairly blunt language. This is the first note of discord between them. ‘I was rather surprised—and certainly extremely sorry—to hear from you regarding the matter of a loan, and your manner of expressing the request. I do not think you realize that you already have a substantial loan from me in the shape of the apparatus we have supplied to you; and for the benefit of yourself I may tell you that the agreement between us is that we pay one-third, (which we have done in the purchase of the apparatus), and you pay two-thirds, and yet you calmly talk about selling the apparatus. ‘This, of course, I strongly advise you not to do, otherwise I shall safeguard my interest in a manner that perhaps will not be of a very pleasant nature. ‘It is very unfortunate that you do not realize the facts as they stand, which are that you owe Messrs Will Day Ltd the sum of £78–10–2d for your share of the goods supplied; and as I mentioned to you at Hastings, we should be glad to receive payment of this amount to keep our books in order. You have not attempted to pay anything off this sum, which does not show a very reciprocal nature to have what I have tried to do. I am sure I have helped you always, and so far have nothing tangible in return. ‘I have not yet approached Mr Rutland, my solicitor, in this matter, but I have no doubt whatever in the manner he will treat this request, if I put the matter before them. I do not

Hastings 63 wish to do this, as of course it would mean a fresh expense, but I do not think it is necessary. I only think that you have not realized the position in which you stand—that you owe this firm a large sum of money and so far have not attempted to pay even a small portion of that sum—and yet you calmly ask for a loan of money as if it was my right and duty to let you have as much money as you required. This, I am sure is not a fair argument, or a reasonable arrangement. I might be inclined to take over your duty and pay you the balance to make up £100, if, instead of the present agreement, say for one third of the invention, we made the agreement one half. You would thereby be exempt from this payment of this sum of money now due to Messrs Will Day Ltd and receive the balance of the £100 in cash. Perhaps you would like to consider this and let me have your reply before I do anything further in this matter. ‘I have not yet heard from Mr Burney regarding my letter to him, so presume he is waiting for a board meeting for the directors to consider the matter.’

Day to Baird, 27th September 1924 It appears that Captain Cohen was not impressed with the demonstration at Hastings. ‘I should like to know what you have to say as I understood from you that Captain Cohen was thoroughly satisfied and was going to issue a satisfactory report.’ Baird to Day, 27th September 1924 Poor Baird, on top of all his technical and financial problems he now had to appease Day. ‘ I am sorry if my manner on the phone was abrupt my nerves have been very much on edge with worry. ‘You will recollect that when you were at Hastings on your first visit you told me that if I needed cash to carry on to be sure and let you know in view of this I was rather hurt by your refusal [Baird’s letter is not well punctuated.] ‘The apparatus I referred to was my own personal property I should not sell any apparatus in which you have an interest without your consent ‘With reference to the £78 although I have not paid any of this I have myself spent considerably more on Selenium cells, Photo Electric Cells, accumulators amplifiers, receiving machines and other apparatus and one-third of these costs will amount to a fair fraction of £78 ‘I have been giving my whole time to the invention paying laboratory rent, cost of patents and all sorts of incidental expenses without any salary I know you have helped me and am grateful for your assistance but it is scarcely fair to say I have not reciprocated. ‘I demonstrated to Mr Cohen the instantaneous transmission of clearly defined images between two separate machines and he stated before leaving ‘I am perfectly satisfied’ this seems to me a very tangible and creditable result particularly in consideration of the confined and ill equipped laboratory and the complete lack of experimental facilities,—It should be remembered that some of the best scientific brains in the world backed by highly trained staff with the whole resources of modern science and unlimited cash at their disposal have been engaged on this problem for years without solving it ‘The chemical inertia of selenium and the impossibility of synchronism are quoted by Professor Korn Dr Fournier D’Albe and others as impassible barriers ‘The models demonstrated to Mr Cohen that these barriers had been overcome in a simple and practical fashion

64

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

‘Up to the present the only other man who has been able to demonstrate anything has been C F Jenkins his machine is immensely expensive and the shadows he transmitted were blurred and hazy. I cannot say whether Jenkins was first or not but as our systems are quite different it does not much matter ‘I have spent every penny I possess on this invention and given my whole time to it and have produced results which have satisfied experts that the invention is thoroughly practical ‘About the one half share I will come up and discuss this with you on Wednesday if this will be convenient to you.’

Day to Baird, 29th September 1924 ‘[What] I did resent was your manner in phoning me and practically demanding a sum of money . . .’ Baird to Day, 29th September 1924 ‘It certainly is surprising and discouraging that Captain Cohen’s report is described as ‘Not very favourable’ when he was in Hastings. He appeared very pleased with the invention[; ] almost his last words on leaving were “I am properly satisfied . . .” ’ Baird to Day, 30th September 1924 ‘I hope you do not think I am inapprectiative [sic] of your assistance as this is very far from the case.’ Day to Baird, 30th September 1924 ‘. . . I do not think it is Mr Burney’s idea to haggle and try and get a lower offer, as there was no price ever mentioned . . . I do not feel inclined to pander to Mr Burney or anyone else regarding this matter . . .’ Day to Baird, 4th October 1924 Encloses a letter from Sterling Telephones. Day to Baird, 11th October 1924 Encloses a draft agreement together with a cheque relating to Day’s half share. ‘I am going to see a room which I am offered at Shepherds Bush next week.’ (This was for Baird.) Baird to Day, 13th October 1924 Agreement mentioned regarding sharing expenses, half each. This had been overlooked by Rutland. ‘I have been experimenting with chemicals and managed to make a liquid light sensitive cell, it is a novelty and may prove valuable. I will give you details on Wednesday. I don’t want to put them on paper until we have taken out a provisional.’ Liquid photoelectric cells were used in the 1920s and typically consisted of electrodes coated with silver bromide and immersed in an electrolyte of silver nitrate. None of Baird’s cells were ever seen by his associates.

Hastings 65

Day to Baird, 14th October 1924 ‘[It] was an oversight not to have put an item in to the effect that we share half the expense of developing the invention, but presume this was overlooked by Mr Rutland . . .’ Day to Baird, 17th October 1924 Encloses agreement and asks Baird to sign and return it. Baird to Day, 18th October 1924 Returns signed agreement. Day to Baird, 20th October 1924 Have received the agreement and ‘have now signed same and sent it on to Mr Rutland’. Day to Baird, 27th October 1924 Encloses a letter from Mr Rutland and ‘wants to know which provisional patents have been completed’. Day to Baird, 29th October 1924 Confirms premises available at 22 Frith Street, Soho, London at a rent of £2 per week. Day says the rent has been reduced from its original value. The rent starts next Monday. Baird to Day, 30th October 1924 Says Pickfords (the furniture removal company) will collect the apparatus next week. Day to Baird, 31st October 1924 Writes that he has received a letter from Mr Rutland, which he had received from Cross Picture, and which ‘has put this matter in order’. After Baird left Hastings for London he only made one return visit to Hastings. He accepted an invitation from Mills—presumably on behalf of the Hastings Radio Society—to present a lecture, ‘of a popular nature and illustrated with lantern slides and possibly a film’, on 6th October 1927. The lecture was held in the White Rock Pavilion. Naturally the good folk of Hastings were delighted that the first person anywhere to demonstrate, on 26th January 1926, a rudimentary system of television should have chosen their town for his pioneer experiments. Baird’s early work in Queen’s Arcade was commemorated by the town on 7th November 1929 when a tablet was erected on the building in which Baird had rented a small room. With Baird ensconced in his Frith Street work rooms fewer letters passed

66

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 2.8

Baird at the unveiling of the plaque by the Mayor of Hastings

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

Hastings 67 between the two associates since Day’s premises were just a few hundred yards away in Lisle Street.

References 1 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988) 2 BAIRD, M.: ‘Television Baird’ (HAUM, Capetown, 1973) 3 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952) 4 MCARTHUR, T., and WADDELL, P.: ‘The secret life of John Logie Baird’ (Hutchinson, London, 1986) 5 NORMAN, B.: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (British Broadcasting Corporation and the Royal Television Society, London, 1984) 6 Ref. 1, p. 42 7 LANGER, N.: ‘A development in the problem of television’, Wireless World and Radio Review, 11th November 1922, pp. 197–210 8 ANON.: ‘The Baird “Televisor” ’, a brochure of Baird Television Ltd, 1930, p. 2, personal collection 9 WALLER, C.: ‘This new wonder television’, Sunday Express, 26th February 1939 10 KEMPSELL, A.: ‘The man with many dreams’, Helensburgh Times, 3rd September 1975, p. 15 11 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Television’, Journal of Scientific Instruments, 1927, 4, pp. 138–43 12 Ibid. 13 JOLLY, W.P.: ‘Marconi’ (Constable, London, 1922) 14 Ibid. 15 ECKERSLEY, P. P.: quoted in Ref. 3, pp. 250–1 16 WILLIAMS, V.: ‘Baird in Hastings’, unpublished paper in Hastings Museum and Art Gallery, December 1994, 2pp. plus; appendix 17 HERBERT, R.: ‘J L Baird. The Hastings era, 1923–August 1924’, personal collection 18 ANON.: ‘How television began’, Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 4th November 1978 19 MILLS, V. R.: letters to the author, 1st October 1975 and 1st November 1975, personal collection 20 Press extract, source unknown, ‘Pioneered television’, press cuttings file, Hastings Museum and Art Gallery 21 Ref. 17 22 Press extract, source unknown, ‘John Logie Baird’, press cuttings file, Hastings Museum and Art Gallery 23 Ref. 3, p. 63 24 ANON.: ‘A coming wonder’, Helensburgh Times, 1923, press cuttings file, Hastings Museum and Art Gallery 25 ANON.: ‘When John Baird experimented in Folkestone’, Folkestone and Hythe Herald, 25th February 1961 26 ANON.: ‘Pioneer of television research’, Folkestone and Hythe Herald, 3rd July 1961

68

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

27 28 29 30

BENNETT, P. A.: private communication to R. W. Burns Personal Column, The Times, 27th June 1923 Ref. 1, p. 44 NIPKOW, P.: ‘Elektrisches Teleskop’, German patent no. 30 105, 6th January 1884 BAIRD, J. L., and DAY, W. E. L. : British patent no. 222 604, 26th July 1923 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Television, an international history of the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1998) ANON.: ‘Seeing by wireless’, Chambers Journal, November 1923, pp. 766–7 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘An account of some experiments in television’, Wireless World and Radio Review, 7th May 1924, pp. 153–5 Ref. 1, p. 44 PRIESTLY, H.: ‘The what it cost the day before yesterday book, from 1850 to the present day’ (Kenneth Mason, Hampshire, 1979) Ref. 20 ANON.: ‘Television. Amateur scientist’s invention. Secret plans. Outline of objects transmitted’, Daily News, 15th January 1924 Ref. 3, pp. 65–7 Ref. 1, pp. 44–5 Ref. 3, pp. 65–7 ANON.: ‘Television pioneer’, source unknown, press cuttings file, Hastings Museum and Art Gallery Ref. 2, p. 46 ANON.: ‘Seeing the world from an armchair. When television is an accomplished fact’, Radio Times, 15th February 1924, p. 301 Ref. 5, pp. 31–2. See also Television, April 1928, 1, pp. 19–20; and The Times House Journal, January 1958, 9, (4), pp. 63–4 ANON.: ‘Pictures by wireless. British invention tested’, Glasgow Herald, 10th April 1924 QUEUX, W. Le.: ‘Are you setting up wireless. Things you should know’, Popular Wireless, 17th June 1922, pp. 43–4 ANON.: report in the Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 26th April 1924 ANON.: report in the Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 12th April 1924 ANON.: ‘Television’, Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 3rd May 1924 LE QUEUX, W.: ‘Television—a fact’, Radio Times, 25th April 1924, p. 194 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘An account of some experiments in television’, Wireless World and Radio Review, 7th May 1924, pp. 153–5 ROBINSON, F. H.: ‘The radio kinema’, Kinematograph Weekly, 3rd April 1924, p. 53 Correspondence between J. L. Baird and W. E. L. Day, 1924–25, Hastings Museum and Art Gallery BAIRD, J. L., and DAY, W. E. L.: ‘A system of overcoming the time lag in a selenium or other light sensitive cell used in a television or like system’, British patent no. 235 619, 12th March 1924 HERBERT, R.: ‘The mystery of J L Baird’s light sensitive cell’, October 1998, private collection Ref. 1, p. 56 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Television. A description of the Baird system by its inventor’, Wireless World and Radio Review, 21st January 1925, pp. 533–5

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Hastings 69 59 ANON.: ‘Inventor describes his radio motion pictures’, New York Times, 25th April 1926 60 BARNARD, G. P.: ‘The selenium cell: its properties and applications’ (Constable, London, 1930) 61 BAIRD, J. L.: British patent no. 270 222, 21st October 1925 62 BRIDGEWATER, T. H.: ‘Baird and television’, Journal of the Royal Television Society, March 1967, 9, (2), pp. 60–9 63 EDITORIAL.: Amateur Wireless, May 1924 64 ANON.: ‘Inventor injured’, Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 26th July 1924 65 Ref. 1, p. 45 66 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to the editor, Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 9th August 1924

Chapter 3

Frith Street, London

From Hastings Baird moved to a small room at 22 Frith Street, London.1 The owner was Mr ‘Bertie’ Cross, a friend of Day. Lodgings were found by Baird in Ealing.2 He had the use of the ‘top floor front’, paid 8 shillings per week for the room and cooked his own food on a gas ring. Why Baird chose to lodge as far away as Ealing, which is 12 stations westward from Oxford Circus on the Circle Line, is not known. He had been living in digs for approximately ten years by 1924 so presumably he was a good judge of bachelor accommodation. In his autobiographical notes he wrote that the room was comfortable and quiet. The ‘digs’ seem to have had an especial attraction for Baird because 15 years later, in his notes, he was able to recall various minor details about his room: for example, on one of the walls there was a framed poem: ‘Short was the traveller’s stay, She came here but as a guest, She tasted life then fled away, To everlasting rest.’ — Elizabeth Brown passed away aged three months — Further along the wall was a photograph of an infant in a cot, evidently the dead body of little Elizabeth Brown. Other details which Baird remembered were the books on the table in the room. The authors were Charles Dickens, Silas Hocking, and Annie Swan. There was also a book of press cuttings from Tit Bits and Answers headed ‘Jokes and Teasers from Various Columns’. During the first night of Baird’s stay he was intrigued to see the door handle of his bedroom slowly and quietly turned. He watched spellbound as the door began to open. The door moved about two inches and then stopped; there was the sound of someone walking stealthily away and then complete silence. This procedure occurred every night. Baird eventually learnt that the landlady’s small boy slept next door and suffered from ‘night fears’; he wanted to have the door open for company. Throughout Baird’s entire stay ‘this pathetic little ceremony took place’.

Frith Street, London

71

In his workroom in Frith Street Baird continued his researches. These he described in a paper3 published in the January 1925 issue of Wireless World and Radio Review. Baird was now attempting to transmit the image of an object by reflecting light from it rather than by having a source of light behind the object. This was a problem of quite a different order of difficulty to the problem of the transmission of shadowgraphs. The latter problem requires the light cell to distinguish between total darkness on the one hand and the maximum intensity of the light source, possibly several thousand candle power, on the other hand. But in viewing an object by reflected light the photocell has to discriminate between darkness and the very small light flux reflected from the white parts of the object. As Baird noted in his paper: ‘The apparatus has therefore to be capable of detecting changes of light, probably at least a thousand times less in intensity than when shadowgraphs are being transmitted.’ Baird’s latest transmitting apparatus comprised an analysing disc containing a spiral of lenses, a serrated shutter, rotating at 500 r.p.m., placed behind the lens disc (see Figure 3.1), and a light-sensitive cell. The receiver included a synthesising disc, identical to, and synchronised with, the analysing disc, and a lamp. No details were given of the nature of the photocell or of the lamp, but Baird did mention that the cell was neither a photomissive nor a selenium cell, but a colloidal (fluid) cell of his own invention. From the diagram reproduced with Baird’s paper the lamp was of the filament type. The method of synchronisation used was that given in his patent of 17th March 1924. Baird was very modest in reporting the success he had achieved: ‘The letter H for example, can be clearly transmitted, but the hand, moved in front of the transmitter, is reproduced only as a blurred outline. A face is exceptionally difficult to send with the experimental apparatus, but with careful focussing, a white oval, with dark patches for the eyes and mouth, appears at the receiving end and the mouth can be clearly seen opening and closing.’

Figure 3.1

Baird’s television system, as described by him in his paper published in the Wireless World and Radio Review (January 1925). At this time Baird was using single spiral lens discs for scanning

Source: Wireless World of Radio Review, January 1925

72

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

The sequence and details of the continuous experiments that Baird pursued relentlessly during the 1923–26 period are not on record. He did not keep a laboratory notebook and the very few articles which he published were usually of an elementary character. J D Percy,4who later worked with Baird, has said: ‘It is true, I think, to say, that his mind worked too quickly for the satisfactory recording of his myriad of ideas. Explanations to those of us who worked with him was amplified only by rough sketches on the backs of old envelopes, by scrawling diagrams on walls (the Long Acre Laboratories were literally covered in these) or even on the table-cloths of restaurants and inns.’

However, there are the occasional press notices, the memories of a few of his colleagues, and some general recollections by Baird5 himself. His patents, which total 177, also record some of his thoughts. Baird’s financial position during his Frith Street tenancy was still in a parlous state. He was not earning any remuneration but had to subsist on his own savings, Day’s contribution of £200, and the few gifts which had been given by relatives and well-wishers. His outgoings were considerable—accommodation, food, travel expenses, clothing, and equipment and material costs. So, wishing to acquire some additional funding, he decided to call on Mr Andrew Gray, the General Manager of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company. Since Gray had once lived next door, at ‘Carisbrook’, to the Bairds in Helensburgh, it probably seemed to Baird that he would be accorded a sympathetic hearing. He was to be disappointed6. When he visited Marconi House he sent in his name—‘Mr Baird of Helensburgh’—and after a delay of half an hour in the waiting room he was shown into a large office where Gray sat behind a large, imposing looking desk. ‘Good morning’, said Baird. ‘Good morning’, replied Gray. ‘Are you interested in television.’ ‘Not in the very slightest degree, no interest whatsoever.’ ‘I am sorry to have wasted your time. Good morning.’ Baird immediately walked out in high dudgeon. It was as if, Baird wrote, he ‘had asked him if he was interested in brothels’. Gray maintained his lack of curiosity in television for several years. In October 1927 he sent a memorandum to Mr H W Allen, the Deputy Managing Director, and opined: ‘I should certainly recommend the Marconi Company to have nothing to do with television for many years to come.’ 7 Undaunted by Gray’s dismissive attitude, Baird felt that if he could obtain some further press coverage he might attract someone with capital. Accordingly he called at the offices of the Daily Express and requested a meeting with the editor. After a short delay he was ushered in8. ‘Are you interested in a machine for television—seeing by wireless?’, said Baird.

Frith Street, London

73

‘Seeing by wireless?’, replied the editor, somewhat taken aback. ‘Oh, yes’, said Baird, ‘an apparatus that will let you see the people who are being broadcast by the BBC or speaking on the telephone’. ‘Astounding’, said the newspaperman. ‘I am very busy at a meeting, but I will get one of my colleagues to take the story—very interesting’, and left the room. Shortly, ‘a large brawny individual came in, listened sympathetically and with great interest to my tale, assured me that it was a first call story, advised me to be sure and get the copy of next day’s Express, where I would get a first class show on the front page.’ With that promise and a friendly handshake Baird was escorted from the premises. No report was published. Some years later Baird was told, by the brawny individual himself, of the effect on the ‘Editor’ of Baird’s claim. The individual was sitting in the press room when one of the assistant editors had come running in. ‘For God’s sake, Jackson, go down to the reception room and get rid of a lunatic who is down there. He says he’s got a machine for seeing by wireless. Watch him carefully, he may have a razor hidden.’ A description of Baird’s early Frith Street apparatus has been related by W Fox9, who first met Baird in March/April 1924. ‘It was weird and wonderful. As an amateur mechanic I was amazed at what he had improvised out of the most unpromising material. String, cardboard and pieces of rough wood with Meccano parts, bits of bicycles and strange scraps of government surplus stores all combined to make a television machine which introduced me to television as an official fact. ‘When he started it up I expected to see the whole crazy contraption fly to pieces or else go up in a flash of blue flame. Nothing happened beyond a grunting and groaning as the various ill-assorted pieces worked together. After adjusting a number of rheostats Mr Baird said: “Now look in there and I will put my head in front.” I watched and sure enough when he had threaded a perilous way to the other end of his apparatus I saw a pale mask of a face appear floating as it were on a whirling black background.’

Later Fox assisted Baird in the organisation of the historic 26th January 1926 demonstration of rudimentary television to members of the Royal Institution, and was associated with Baird in either a part-time or full-time capacity from 1924 to 1930. Baird seems to have found Fox an agreeable colleague and often visited his home in Golders Green when he (Baird) was living in lodgings nearby. Fox has recollected: ‘It was common for the doorbell to go at midnight and to find Mr Baird on the doorstep looking as though he’d been dropped there and did not know how it had happened, or else he was bubbling with ideas. He would come in and sit for an hour without saying a word some nights; on others we discussed everything under the sun’.

One afternoon Fox and Baird spent a whole afternoon endeavouring to think of an alternative name for television than television—but without success. On another occasion Baird turned up in the middle of a Fox family party at

74

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 3.2

Baird in his Frith Street laboratory, c. 1925

Source: The Royal Television Society

Christmas. Leaving his guests, Fox went to discuss with his wife what to do with their unexpected visitor. On returning to the party Fox found that Baird ‘had made himself at home and had become the life and soul of the party. He had funny tales to tell and games to play’. ‘During the day it was not unusual to find him on a public seat at the end of the road looking like a tramp, lost, weary, and half dead. He was not, of course, but merely lost in the depth of the details of a new idea . . . Time and place meant nothing to him when his ideas were moving. ‘I found him a young man widely read, interested in many things but devoted to the idea of getting television on to a practical basis. To that end he worked in a fashion I have never seen in another man. His whole life and time were television. When he was working on the problem it was impossible to get sense out of him on any other subject. This was a peculiarity which puzzled many people and made them write him down as an impractical dreamer. But only a severely practical man could have taken up the bits and pieces of discarded apparatus and made them work to provide the answer to problems as Baird did.’

Fox found Baird to be ‘very secretive, especially over his work, but in a most erratic way. He would, and did, most carefully conceal certain basic facts from his friends and those who were trying to help him, only to present them

Frith Street, London

75

to perfect strangers who happened to come along and ask the appropriate question. Such actions naturally caused much difficulty and misunderstanding.’ In April 1925 the editor of the magazine Discovery attended a demonstration10 of Baird’s system and reported he ‘was very favourably impressed with the results. [Baird’s] machinery [was], however, astonishingly crude, and the apparatus in general [was] built out of derelict odds and ends. The optical system [was] composed of lenses out of bicycle lamps. The framework [was] an unimpressive erection of old sugar boxes and the electrical wiring a nightmare cobweb of improvisations. The outstanding miracle [was] that he [had] been able to produce any results at all with the indifferent material at his disposal. ‘The invention has now reached a stage when it should be properly developed and an adequate instrument built. In its present form it reminds one of some of the earliest rudimentary attempts to produce a cinematograph. These were then looked on as scientific novelties of no practical value, but have since developed into an enormous industry. Mr Baird is anxious to secure adequate financial backing for the development of the invention, and it is possible that the importance of the invention may appeal to some big industrial concern interested in its possibilities.’

The editor was shown ‘seeing by wireless’ and though Baird described his images as ‘very crude and very imperfect’ he stated that ‘a man with acute myopia and astigmatism is not called blind’. Apart from the occasional notices in the newspapers the general public first became aware of television in April 1925. Selfridge’s, the very large department store in Oxford Street, London, wanted an attraction for its Birthday Week celebrations and Gordon Selfridge had visited Baird. This surprising meeting between the wealthy store owner and the struggling inventor had come about because Baird’s next-door neighbour in Hastings had been a person called Bosdari, who was a friend of Selfridge. Bosdari consequently knew of Selfridge’s desire to have a special feature in his Oxford Street shop and told him of Baird’s work11. ‘One day I had two visitors. [One was] Mr Gordon Selfridge, junior, owner of the big London department store. He was on the lookout for an attraction for his Birthday Week celebrations and thought that television would be a startling exhibit. I ushered him in and showed what I could do. I was offered twenty pounds a week for three weeks to give three shows a day to the public in Selfridge’s store. I accepted the offer and spent a very trying three weeks demonstrating to long queues of spectators, most of them shoppers, but also a number of scientists who had come especially to see the show.’

Baird, of course, was not so much concerned with the publicity value of this enterprise: rather it was a case that he could not refuse the weekly cheque without which it would have been difficult for him to have carried on. In the store the shoppers were handed leaflets which read: ‘Television is to light what telephoning is to sound. It means the instantaneous transmission of a picture so that the observer at the receiving end can see, to all intents and purposes, what is a cinematograph view of what is happening at the “sending” end . . .

76

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 3.3

Baird viewing an image produced by one of his early televisors (c. 1925)

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

‘The apparatus here demonstrated is, of course, absolutely “in the rough”—the question of finance is always an important one for the inventor. But it does, undoubtedly transmit an instantaneous picture. The picture is flickering and defective, and at present only simple pictures can be sent successfully; but Edison’s first phonograph rendered that “Mary had a little lamb” in a way that only hearers who were “in the secret” could understand and yet, from that first result has developed the gramophone of today . . . ‘We should perhaps explain that we are in no way financially interested in this remarkable invention, the demonstrations are taking place here because we know that our friends will be interested in something that should rank with the greatest inventions of the century. Selfridge and Company Ltd.’

Selfridge’s comment12 on television to his Sales Manager was: ‘This is not a toy, Williams. It is a link between all peoples of the world. Great good can come of it.’ However, many members of the public and press treated the exhibit as little more than a novelty. The Daily Telegraph was an exception: ‘An exhibit that in years to come will be of historic memory is that of television . . .’ A vague description of the apparatus which Baird used for the demonstration was given in Nature13. The writer was uncertain about some aspects of the

Frith Street, London

Figure 3.4

77

Baird giving a demonstration of ‘seeing by electricity’ at Selfridge’s store (1925)

Source: The Royal Television Society

equipment. He referred to ‘a selenium or other photo-electric cell’ and ‘a disc with lenses or holes’ in his description. It would seem unlikely that Baird experimented with each of these possibilities during the hectic three weeks he spent at the store. Moseley has described how the strain of giving three shows a day with the rickety apparatus was too much for Baird and he was ill for several weeks afterwards14. The article in Nature does include an important fact, namely, that Baird was now using a neon lamp in his receiver instead of the arrangement described in his January 1925 article which included a filament lamp. Otherwise Baird’s television system was very similar to his earlier scheme. The utilisation of the neon lamp was a major breakthrough: it would enable Baird to demonstrate a crude form of television six months later on 25th October 1925. This breakthrough came about because the neon lamp can respond much more rapidly to changes of excitation than a filament lamp. The latter has a considerable thermal capacity which mitigates against a good response to television signals, but the neon lamp can flash on and off at frequencies of several kilohertz. The crudeness of the images hinted at in Selfridge’s handout was confirmed in the report published in Nature: ‘Mr Baird has overcome many practical difficulties, but we are afraid that there are many more to be surmounted before ideal television is accomplished.’ Baird’s apparatus went back to Frith Street and the research continued. On 4th April 1925 Day wrote to Baird: ‘I have been expecting a visit from you

78

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 3.5

Baird with his crude transmitter equipment in 1925

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

regarding the settlement of Whiteley’s [Selfridges] and to know what has been done with the prospect, to forming a projected company. I sent a large number of friends up to Whiteley’s from here so that something should certainly transpire.’ It was an anxious time for Baird. His financial situation was precarious and it occurred to him to advertise for a company promoter. Several respondents turned up to view the prospect but after looking at the ramshackle collection of bits and pieces that constituted his system decided, with one exception, a Mr Brooks15, to seek their fortunes elsewhere. He had the proper spirit, according to Baird, and thought the proposition before him was the finest he had ever had placed before him. All he required was an advance of £25 for his expenses and Baird’s fortune would be made. Brooks’s proposal was to send circular letters to all registered medical practitioners extolling the wonderful possibilities of the invention, and invite them to return an enclosed card which stated: ‘If you are interested please return this postcard and my representative will call.’ Baird was not prepared to accede to his pseudo-benefactor’s request for money, but it was agreed that some letters should be printed. Three thousand

Frith Street, London

79

letters were posted and from these six replies were received. Brooks called on the six and collected £75. He claimed his expenses amounted to well over this sum and wanted to retain the total amount. ‘However, we finally settled for £25 and two double whiskies.’ On 24th April 1925 Day wrote to Baird: ‘I have lately been considering matters regarding your patent of Television, and I think for the future of this invention it will be better for someone with more time, and perhaps more money at their disposal, to help you in this great work. Undoubtedly you have accomplished much, but there is still much remaining to be done, and I would rather, if you could find someone to purchase out my share in your patent, that you do so. My accountants tell me that I have spent the sum of between £400 and £500 so far, and I would be willing to accept the sum of £500 if you think you can find a purchaser. I will give you the option of dealing with this for four weeks from this day, and trust in that time you will have found someone that will be able to help you further the patent and your ideas for Television.’

Four days later Day asked Baird if he had received a cheque from Selfridges. Baird’s replies are not available. The extant letters dated 7th May 1925 and subsequently describe the relationship between the inventor and benefactor. Day to Baird, 7th May 1925 ‘Notwithstanding your several promises to call and pay back the money loaned to you and also settle the share regarding the cheque you have received from Selfridge’s we have never yet had the promised call from you. I should have thought, after all I have done to try and assist you, that it would have been first in your thoughts to have called and paid back the money advanced to you at your urgent request, instead of which although I have received your promise to do so, nothing has transpired. ‘Might I ask you to give this matter your early attention and at least keep faith with your obligations?’

Day to Baird, 11th May 1925 On the 11th Day sent by registered post a long letter to Baird. ‘I deeply regret to have heard from you personally this day in the manner I did, regarding your foolish idea that you can put down any sums you like on paper, and say to me that you think it only right and fair that you should receive payment of such sums, without any agreement whatever from me for so doing. ‘Might I refer you to my letter to you of September 26th 1924? I make the whole matter quite clear in that letter, that the money I paid you was for the share of the patent, and not to go on experimenting in the manner you have. ‘I have assisted you in answer to your many requests, and your promises that you were going to achieve a definite result, which would mean that you had produced a commodity that would at least be marketable; but so far nothing has a transpired, and you now bring before me a foolish statement charging me with all manner of items of which I know nothing whatever, and to which I am certainly not going to be made a party. ‘I will just refer you to the fact that you had borrowed a sum of money from this firm,

80

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

which we loaned to you on account of the receipt of the money from Selfridge’s, which was agreed to be honestly shared between us. ‘If I am to get nothing for my services and you are to have the lot, I fail to see the fairness of your remarks; and so disgusted am I with you in your manner of dealing with money and accounts that I beg to give you notice that you cannot call on me for another penny piece to help you in your unfortunate speculations. ‘I have given Mr Cross one week’s notice this day that my liability with regard to the rent at 22 Frith Street must cease definitely, and, as I informed you this day, I will not be responsible for a penny more spent, and I also beg to give you notice that unless you return the money you have borrowed from this firm and the account you owe for goods, I shall take legal proceedings to recover these amounts forthwith. I beg to advise you also that you must never forget that the half share of all the goods and chattels at Frith Street belongs to this firm, and that you cannot deal with same without giving me notice as to any removal of the goods and the premises they are going to; and also although I have requested it from you on several occasions you have never yet favoured me with your private address, which I now ask you to do. ‘It would be best for all concerned if you agreed to purchase my holding in the patent of Television forthwith, which option you already have in your possession, dated by me April 24th last. ‘I feel that you have told me a direct untruth when you state that you had no knowledge that I would not put any more money into your invention. I made this matter very clear on more than one occasion and if you will look through the letters you have received from me you will find in every one regarding money matters I have made the position quite clear to you. My agreement with you was to purchase first of all one third of your patent, and then when you began to owe this firm so much money I agreed to write off the amount and pay you the balance, making up the money £100 in cash for half share of your patent. ‘I heard on several occasions that Mr Sreed [Creed?] of Croydon has called on you with the object of purchasing my share in this patent, but that you have never been in to see him. There were also vast numbers of other callers at Frith Street that have failed to see you, so that I hardly think you can say you have done your best towards forming a company or disposing of my share in your patents of Television. ‘However, if you think your policy is a good one, I do not, and remember you will do nothing whatever with this patent unless you have my sanction so to do in writing. I will rely no more on word of mouth, as I find that you are not a man of your word. I am very sorry to say this, but it is unfortunately proved to me on recent occasions regarding the matter of repayment of loan and my share of the monies received from Selfridge’s. ‘Perhaps you will be good enough to let me know what your intentions are regarding this invention for the future. I have sent this letter by registered post, so that there shall be no query this time as to your receiving a letter and understanding the full purport of same.’

Baird’s response to this missive was to request an interview with Day. This was held on 12th May 1925. Following the interview Day agreed to waive his right to a share in the fees from Selfridge’s because of the state of Baird’s finances; but he put pressure on Baird to seek support elsewhere16. The immediate action taken by the participants after the 13th May 1925 is not known: however on 11th June 1925 the first of the companies associated with

Frith Street, London

81

Baird was formed. It was called Television Ltd. The witness to the registration was a Mr R Brooks of the Midland Hotel, Liverpool. The objective of the company17 was ‘to purchase or otherwise acquire from any person or persons lawfully entitled to dispose thereof the whole or any part of the right, title and interest in, or appertaining to the inventions relating to “A system of transmitting views, portraits and scenes by telegraphy or wireless telegraphy” comprised in and covered by the registered patents no. 222 605 and no. 230 576; also the provisional specifications nos. 4 800, 6 363 and 6 774 of 1924; and nos. 48 and 911 of 1925 . . .’ Baird (‘electrical engineer’) and Day (‘merchant’) were the subscribers of 20 Founders’ shares and the nominal capital of the company was £3000. This was made up of 2900 ordinary shares of £1 each and 2000 Founders’ shares of 1 shilling each. The registered office of Television Ltd was initially at 22 Frith Street, W1, and the first Directors were Baird and Day. Later the company moved to Motograph House, Upper St Martins Lane, WC (15th February 1926), and then to 133 Long Acre, WC (9th February 1928). Following the establishment of Television Ltd, Baird and Day entered into an agreement with the company (on 12th June 1925), the pertinent points of which were: 1

2

The Vendors shall sell and the Company shall purchase the whole of the Vendors right, title and interest in or benefit of the Patents and Inventions . . . The consideration for the said sale shall be the sum of £100 which shall be paid and satisfied by the allotment to the Vendors or their respective nominees of 2000 Founders’ shares of 1s. each in the capital of the company—(1000 shares to J L Baird and 1000 shares to W E L Day)— and £500 to be paid by the company after £1500 in shares had been sold and paid for at which time the directors, J L Baird and W E L Day may draw upon the company for all or any part of this sum (£500) as they mutually agree.

Baird had few competitors in 1924–25 in this country, and consequently, whenever television was mentioned in the press, Baird’s name tended to be coupled with the report. He was the only experimenter who was able to give demonstrations of television equipment able to show the transmission of crude outlines. But during the month that Baird gave his Selfridge shows, Dr Fournier d’Albe, who had made a name for himself by his invention of the optophone— an instrument which allowed blind persons to read—was giving a private demonstration of his television apparatus at his laboratory at Kingston upon Thames. He patented his ideas in January 1924 in a patent18 titled ‘Telegraphic transmission of pictures and images’ and a few months later in October he adapted the equipment to record and reproduce sounds. D’Albe’s method was doomed to failure. Whereas Baird had adopted, along with most other investigators, a sequential scanning arrangement, d’Albe experimented with a system for transmitting, simultaneously, information about the luminosity of all the

82

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 3.6

Diagrammatic representation of Dr Fournier d’Albe’s television scheme, patented in January 1924

Source: British patent no. 233 746, 15th January 1924

elements of a picture. His apparatus, therefore, belonged to the same group as those of Carey and Lux. The general arrangement of d’Albe’s original method is shown in Figure 3.6. An essential feature was the inclusion of a ‘means of breaking up the light’. This consisted of seven transparent cylinders each divided into seven sections which were split up by opaque parts as indicated by black lines. Each section had twice as many sections as the preceding section and the cylinders rotated at different speeds. The effect of this was to produce alternate ‘brightenings and darkenings

Frith Street, London

83

in the light transmitted across it’. The light was then collected by a lens and projected onto a selenium cell. ‘The medley of electrical impulses produced in the selenium’ was subsequently ‘converted into sound by any of the methods usual for this purpose’ and transmitted to the receiver. Here they excited a loudspeaker and ‘the medley of sounds’ was analysed by a set of resonators equal in number to the number of patches in the original picture or image, each resonator responding to only one pitch. The resonators were so constructed that they produced a luminous patch on a screen when a note of their own pitch was contained in the acoustic output of the loudspeaker. This was achieved by having reeds, to which were attached small mirrors, fixed to the resonators so that when the resonators sounded the reeds vibrated in sympathy with them. The light reflected from the reeds was then directed on to a screen in such a way as to correspond to the original patches of the picture transmitted. The apparatus which d’Albe demonstrated on 18th April 1925 represented a further stage in his development of a system which would allow the elements of a picture to be simultaneously transmitted. The account given in Nature19 described the system as follows: ‘An image of the object to be transmitted was projected on a revolving siren disc provided with thirty concentric circles of holes. An image of the disc was in turn, projected on a transmitting screen studded with thirty small selenium tablets, arranged so that each tablet was exposed to a different audio frequency of intermittent light produced by the disc. The selenium tablets were connected in parallel with a two-valve amplifier, and the sound produced in a loud speaker at the receiving station was allowed to act upon thirty compound resonators, each of which responded to its own note when it occurred in the medley of sound transmitted. The response manifested itself by the appearance of a luminous patch on a ground glass screen reproducing an element of the original object both as to position and intensity. As the response occurs within a twentieth of a second, it is claimed that the apparatus transmits six hundred signals per second.’

The report did not indicate whether the image of the object or transparency was successfully reproduced. The writer did mention that ‘the complete transmission of an object such as a changing face requires at least ten thousand signals per second’ and that ‘there is still a considerable gap to be filled’. D’Albe hoped to do this by increasing the number of resonators and their selectivity, or, in the last resort, by transmitting over more than one wire or on more than one radio wavelength. It seems surprising that a person of d’Albe’s ability should have chosen the preceding method. Either he was not aware of, for example, Shelford Bidwell’s calculations on the number of elements necessary to achieve good television, or he chose to ignore them. D’Albe’s system was severely restricted, by the response of the loudspeaker used, to audio frequencies, whereas Baird’s use of the Nipkow disc did allow, by an increase in the number of holes, and an increase in the rotational speed of the disc, an extension to high-definition television. More than ten years after Baird’s initial use of the disc it was still being employed, in the world’s first, high-definition, television station, as a film scanner. This example shows, again, Baird’s considerable insight into the

84

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

difficulties associated with seeing by electricity. The solutions which he adopted in the 1923–26 period were probably the only ones which could lead, with the technology known at that time, to a practical demonstration of television. Baird’s exhibit at Selfridges produced a number of unexpected gifts for him. Shortly after his show, he was visited by a representative from Hart Accumulators and a few days later received £200 worth of batteries. ‘It was a bright spot in the darkness of anxious days’, wrote Baird. GEC, too, made him a present of £200 worth of valves soon after this. The gifts, of course, were vitally welcome and together with £500 put up by a cousin named Inglis enabled Baird to continue his researches. Baird was most grateful for the GEC donation and later said, ‘for hard headed business men to give £200 of goods to a dilapidated and penniless crank in a garret is a phenomenon worth recording’20. During his experiments Baird used the head of a ventriloquist’s doll as an

Figure 3.7

‘I was vastly excited and ran downstairs to obtain a living object. The first person to appear was the office boy, a youth named William Taynton, and he rather reluctantly consented to subject himself to the experiment.’ Taynton was televised in October 1925

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

Frith Street, London

85

object. This had been given to him by Mr ‘Bertie’ Cross and became known as ‘Bill’ or ‘Stookie Bill’. One day in October 1925—the 2nd—Baird noticed that when he viewed the head of the dummy in his receiver there was light and shade: he had achieved crude television by reflected light with tone graduation. Baird, later, described this landmark accomplishment in a radio broadcast21 given in 1931 in New York: ‘In 1925 television was still regarded as something of a myth. No true television had ever been shown—only crude shadows. At that time I was working very intensively in a small attic laboratory in the Soho district of London. Things were very black; my cash resources were almost exhausted [Baird was down to his last £30] and as, day by day, success seemed as far away as ever I began to wonder if general opinion was not after all correct, and that television was in truth a myth. But one day—it was, in fact, the first Friday in October—I experienced the one great thrill which research work brought me. The dummy’s head . . . suddenly showed up on the screen not as a mere smudge of black and white, but as a real image with details and graduations of light and shade. ‘I was vastly excited and ran downstairs to obtain a living object. The first person to appear was the office boy from the floor below, a youth named William Taynton, and he, rather reluctantly, consented to subject himself to the experiment. I placed him before the transmitter and went into the next room to see what the screen would show. The screen was entirely blank, and no effort of tuning would produce any result. Puzzled, and very disappointed, I went back to the transmitter and there the cause of the failure became at

Figure 3.8

O G Hutchinson, Stookie Bill, and Baird in the Frith Street workroom, c. December 1925

Source: Mr R M Herbert

86

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

once evident. The boy, scared by the intense white light, had backed away from the transmitter. In the excitement of the moment I gave him half-a-crown, and this time he kept his head in the right position. Going again into the next room I saw his head on the screen quite clearly. It is curious to consider that the first person in the world to be seen by television should have required a bribe to accept the distinction.’

Baird’s success posed a dilemma for him. He urgently needed publicity and funds, but feared that there was a danger of television being exploited and developed by powerful interests. Three months were to elapse before Baird had the courage to demonstrate his results in public. As he himself said: ‘I was extremely nervous in case while I waited someone else achieved television— terrified that someone would copy my work, and particularly frightened that big wireless concerns would take up television research and use my work as a guide. . .’ Fortunately, during this period of indecision Baird met, by chance, Captain O G Hutchinson, with whom he had had talks in 1922 about a merger of their soap businesses. Hutchinson agreed to buy Day’s interest in Television Ltd.

References 1 DAY, W. E. L.: letter to J. L. Baird, 29th October 1924, private collection 2 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’, (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 47 3 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Television. A description of television by its inventor’, Wireless World and Radio Review, 21st January 1925, pp. 533–5 4 PERCY, J. D.: ‘The founding of British television’, Journal of the Television Society, 1950, pp. 3–16 5 Ref. 2, p. 55 6 Ref. 2, p. 48 7 GRAY, A.: memorandum to H. W. Allen, 18th October 1927, Marconi Archives 8 Ref. 2, pp. 48, 51 9 FOX, W. C.: recollections published in Television, April 1928, 1, pp. 19–20; The Times House Journal, January 1958, 9, (4), pp. 63–4; and B. Norman, ‘Here’s looking at you’ (British Broadcasting Corporation and the Royal Television Society, London, 1987) pp. 31–2 10 EDITOR: Note by the Editor, Discovery, April 1925, p. 143 11 WALLER, C.: ‘This new wonder television’, Sunday Express, 26th February 1939 12 HONEYCOMB, G.: ‘History of Selfridges’, Selfridge’s store archives, p. 57 13 ANON.: a report in Nature, 4th April 1925, pp. 505–6 14 Ref. 2, p. 51 15 Ref. 2, p. 52 16 Day, W. E. L.: letters to J. L. Baird, 13th May 1925, private collection 17 Company file, Television Ltd, Public Record Office

Frith Street, London

87

18 D’ALBE, E. E. F.: ‘Improvements in apparatus for recording and reproducing sound’, British patent no. 233 746, 15th January 1924 19 ANON.: report in Nature, 25th April 1925, p. 613 20 Ref. 2, pp. 52–3 21 BAIRD, J. L.: Broadcast lecture on WMCA and WPCH Radio, New York, 18th October 1931

Chapter 4

The first demonstration of television

In a letter1 to Baird dated 18th November 1925 Day confirmed his wish to sell out for £500. ‘This will represent about the sum of money I have put into the undertaking but does not represent a penny piece for the great amount of time it has absorbed.’ Presumably Baird at this date had not informed Day of the success which had been achieved on 2nd October 1925, otherwise Day might not have been so keen to part with his holding in Television Ltd. Day’s interest was purchased by O G Hutchinson and a friend of his, Captain Broderip, and Day resigned his directorship on 16th December 19252. He made a substantial profit, according to Baird, from his sponsorship of Baird’s work. Hutchinson became Baird’s business manager. The association enabled Baird to concentrate on laboratory work and to devote all his energy and inventive skills to the furtherance of television development without being encumbered by the need to attend to business matters. Hutchinson’s first task was to obtain some much needed extra financial assistance for Baird’s endeavours. This he did by reorganising the nominal capital of Television Ltd, and persuading various persons and bodies to take up shares in the company. The special resolutions which were needed to accomplish the reshaping of the company were passed on 15th February 1926 and confirmed on 4th March 1926. They provided that3: 1 2 3

4

the 2900 Ordinary Shares in the company shall in future be called and known as First Participating Cumulative Preference Shares; the 2000 Founders Shares in the capital of the company shall in future be called and known as Ordinary Shares; the capital of the company be increased to £9050 by the creation of 6000 new First Participating Cumulative Preference Shares of £1 each and 1000 new Ordinary Shares of 1s. each; and the rights specified in the articles of association of the company be attached to the said First Participating Cumulative Preference Shares and to the Ordinary Shares respectively.

The first demonstration of television

Figure 4.1

89

Baird and ‘Stookie Bill’ being televised in the early days of ‘floodlight’ television

Source: The Royal Television Society

Table 4.1 Nominal capital of Television Ltd Pre-4th March 1926

Post-4th March 1926

£3000 2900 ordinary shares of £1 each 2000 Founder shares of 1s.

£9050 8900 FPCP shares of £1 each 3000 ordinary shares of 1s. each

Thus the nominal capital of Television Ltd changed as shown in Table 4.1. By 7th September, 7320 FPCP shares and the 3000 ordinary shares had been taken up. Some of the holdings of these shares by certain individuals are shown in Table 4.2. Altogether another 43 persons or organisations had an interest in Television Ltd less than one year after Hutchinson became Baird’s business partner. The Inglises referred to in Table 4.2 were wealthy shipbuilders and were cousins of Baird—his mother’s name was Inglis. Broderip was a colliery proprietor. Prior to Day’s departure, Baird and his friends had arrived at a solution to the dilemma which faced them after the successful rudimentary televising of William Taynton. A compromise was suggested—only selected individuals

90

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Table 4.2 Shareholders in Television Ltd Ordinary shares Baird Hutchinson Broderip Baird, Hutchinson, Broderip Bishopgate Nominees Ltd G A Inglis J D Inglis

1,125 625 625 625 2,000

FPCP shares

10

500 750

would be given a demonstration of television. Invitations were sent out to members of the Royal Institution, and to The Times to represent the press, which would give dignity and importance to the occasion. The chosen date for the first public demonstration of television was Tuesday, 26th January 1926 (Baird in his notes incorrectly gave the date as Friday the 27th January4). The Times report5 for 28th January was the only press statement obtained first-hand of this historic event. ‘Members of the Royal Institution and other visitors to a laboratory in an upper room in Frith Street, Soho, on Tuesday saw a demonstration of apparatus invented by Mr J L Baird . . . ‘For the purpose of the demonstration the head of a ventriloquist’s doll was manipulated as the image to be transmitted, though the human face was also reproduced. First on a receiver in the same room as the transmitter, and then on a portable receiver in another room, the visitors were shown recognisable reception of the movements of the dummy’s head and of persons speaking. The image as transmitted was faint and blurred, but substantiated a claim that through the ‘Televisor’, as Mr Baird has named his apparatus, it is possible to transmit and reproduce instantly the details of movement, and such things as the play of expression on the face.’

More than forty members of the Royal Institution accepted Baird’s invitation and forgathered in full evening dress in Frith Street. They had to climb three flights of narrow stone stairs and then stand in a narrow draughty passage while groups of about six at a time entered the two tiny attic rooms which constituted Baird’s laboratory. ‘In one room was a large whirling disc, a most dangerous device, had they known it, liable to burst at any minute and hop round the room with showers of broken glass. However, all went well except for two small incidents. One of the visitors who was being transmitted had a long white beard, part of which flew into the wheel. Fortunately, he escaped with the loss of a certain amount of hair. He was a thorough sportsman and took the incident in good part and insisted on continuing the experiment and having his face transmitted. The whole assembly here were given an opportunity to be televised and I [Baird] was certainly gratified by the interest and enthusiasm. The audience were [for] the most part men of vision and realised that in these tiny flickering images they were witnessing the birth of a great industry.

The first demonstration of television

Figure 4.2

91

J L Baird standing by a model of the apparatus which he used to demonstrate rudimentary television on 26th January 1926. The apparatus is now in the Science Museum, London

Source: The Science Museum, London

‘One of the party, who had made a study of a television and [had] carried out many experiments himself, was heard to remark, ‘Baird has got it. The rest is merely a matter of £.s.d. These were great days.’

Though The Times reporter was the only national newspaper journalist present on the above occasion, another demonstration had been given a few days earlier, on 7th January 1926, to a reporter of the Daily Express6. This had consisted of the transmission by wireless of a moving picture of Captain O G Hutchinson. The Daily Express, and Evening Standard, dutifully observed that this transmission had taken place not many yards away from the Soho house where in 1889 another British pioneer, William Friese-Green, had shown the world’s first moving pictures to a few friends. News of Baird’s success travelled fast, for two days after the demonstration the Press Photonachrichtendienst7 of Berlin wrote to the General Post Office requesting details of the Baird system. Captain Hutchinson, ‘the dashing, romantic, impetuous Irishman’, as Moseley8 called him, did not waste time in taking advantage of Baird’s achievement. ‘So far are the experiments completed’, he told the Evening Standard reporter9, ‘that we are now having made 500 television receiving machines, which will not cost more than £30. Each of these, if connected to an ordinary wireless set, will enable the purchaser to “look-in”, just as now he can “listen-in” ’. Unfortunately,

92

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Hutchinson’s publicity remarks were to cause difficulties for the Baird companies before the end of the decade. His methods in both business and public relations were such as to stir A A Campbell Swinton10 to write privately in 1928 to P P Eckersley, the BBC’s Chief Engineer, and make scathing and defamatory remarks about Baird and Hutchinson which had they been published might have been held to be libellous. However, Baird was still very short of money and no doubt Hutchinson thought that he could fan the flames of public interest by making sweeping statements to a gullible public. Following the demonstration at Frith Street to members of the Royal Institution, arrangements were made for a private demonstration to be given to a Mr E G Stewart. Stewart’s very interesting report, written in April 1926, only came to light in 1948 when Mr L Harden11 discovered it among some documents and sent a copy to the BBC. Stewart, an engineer, was able to describe details of the equipment and give some impressions which were not mentioned by The Times reporter. ‘The subject, which in the demonstrations was limited to a size about 10′′ by 8′′ is brightly illuminated, about 500 candle power being used at one foot distance, and placed before an optical device of revolving lenses which continuously explores the whole surface in 32 vertical bands, each 0.25′′ width is thus treated as being uniform . . . At the demonstration the received image was one ninth the area of the subject being 3.25′′ by 2.5′′ before magnification.’ [The lenses had a diameter of c. 50 mm and a focal length of c.150 mm.]

Stewart described the quality of reproduction as follows: ‘I found it possible to distinguish between two human faces I had previously seen in the life whilst opening and closing of the mouth, protusion of the tongue, orientation of the head and passing of the hand over the face could clearly be followed. ‘At the same time it would be very difficult to recognise an individual previously unknown from the television representation . . . The inventor agreed however that the image was distorted and attributed it to, (1), inferior optical equipment and, (2), to insufficient sub-division of the pictures. He assured me that his lenses now were only lantern condensers and cycle lamp bull’s eyes. This would certainly not add clarity to the picture and it would be interesting to see the effect of properly ground and treated lenses. With regard to sub-division of the picture the inventor has planned to divide the existing picture into four squares. This will quadruple the number of transmitted impulses and inevitably add detail. The amount however of detail will then only bring the image to the order of one 30th of the detail for perfect perception.’

So far as is known Baird did not pursue this latter possibility, which not only would have considerably complicated his apparatus but in addition would have required a frequency band four times as great as that which he was using. Stewart’s report showed that Baird was again using a scanner having 32 bull’s eye lenses, a number which was indicated in his first provisional patent with Day, but which was changed to 18 in the complete specification and further altered to 8 in the case of the lens discs of a later patent. Baird used discs having 30 holes for his broadcast transmissions because this was effectively the maximum number which could be used at a picture frequency of 12.5 pictures per second when transmitting on the medium wave band.

The first demonstration of television

93

Since Baird was concerned that his ideas should not be exploited by any large firms, he had his apparatus ‘entirely enclosed except for the input lens’ when giving his early demonstrations. Stewart wrote: ‘He has definitely decided to give the minimum of information upon the details of construction and operation to anyone.’ In particular, the light-sensitive cell which Baird used was ‘a closely guarded secret of the inventor and he told me only sufficient of its construction to demonstrate that it was entirely different from existing cells on the market’. One year after the Royal Institution demonstration, ‘the exact nature of [Baird’s] light sensitive device [was still] being kept private’, but in a lecture given in January 1927 Baird commented: ‘I have not so far found it necessary to use more than one cell.’ On the future of television, Stewart felt from his observations and discussions with Baird that, if satisfactory assurances could be given by the inventor on his ability to produce better images, the invention would be worthy of financial encouragement and development—assuming, of course, that successful television was a needed and a valuable invention. He also considered that it would be an error of judgement if the inventor placed his application on the market in its present state—which was what Hutchinson wanted. ‘The apparatus as now developed gives a crude image which is not even physically pleasant to view. Again distortion is present and only comparatively small fields of view (e.g. the face) can be presented. While the existing type of apparatus would undoubtedly achieve a temporary market the public would heartily tire of the results and would either expect a rapid improvement or failing such improvements leave the idea in disgust resulting in a severe check to a desirable invention both in regard to sales and to capital. Those well-known personalities whom the public would most desire to see would be scared off television by the present reproductions so that deserving developments later on would be hampered in securing support. The development of broadcasting by the gramophone lends colour to this view.’

Stewart’s carefully written report is the most important document available on the state of Baird’s system during the early part of 1926. He did not explain why he went to Frith Street except that he was following instructions. It is possible that his employer was interested in financing Baird’s invention, but like Odham required assurances from an expert that the system was worth supporting. Stewart made it clear that the time was not appropriate for the sale of televisors to the public even if permission was given for television transmissions. The question arises: How can Baird’s achievement be assessed objectively rather than subjectively? The approach adopted in this book is to compare Baird’s work and attainments with those being undertaken and obtained contemporaneously elsewhere in well equipped research laboratories. Unknown, in 1926, to the general public, the UK’s Admiralty from 1923 had been concerned with the television problem and had investigated experimentally certain aspects of it at its Research Laboratory, Teddington. Dr R T Beatty was the researcher who carried out the investigations. Though he worked in an establishment which was well endowed with very good workshop and laboratory facilities, he did not obtain any noteworthy successes. The Admiralty’s work is

94

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

of some importance since it allows Baird’s endeavours to be properly appraised. On 18th November 1924 an article on ‘Aeroplane with eyes’ was published in the Daily Express. It related to the use of television in aircraft and set forth some views of Dr W H Eccles, of the Inventions Board. The article was seen by Mr W Sydney Smith, the Superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, and in a letter12 to the Secretary of the Air Ministry (Directorate of Technical Development) he mentioned that for ‘some time the possibilities of television and also the particular application of television to which the article referred [had] been under consideration and discussion in the Wireless Department of [the] Establishment and that the conclusion come to [had] been that there would be no insuperable difficulties in obtaining a system of television though its application to aircraft would of course require subsequent development’. Smith shared Eccles’s views and felt that the time had now arrived when experimental work should be started on television. He concluded: ‘It would appear desirable that in dealing with the problem we should keep in mind that the successful solution of television problems would be of use between ground stations though its application to aeroplanes [would be] the ultimate problem to be solved.’ Smith’s letter was read by H E Wimperis, the Acting Director of Scientific Research, Air Ministry, and on 5th December 1924 he wrote13 to F E Smith, Director of Scientific Research, Admiralty, and asked whether a visit could be arranged to the Admiralty Research Laboratory, at the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, as he understood that experimental work on television was in hand. The visit14 took place on 15th January 1925 and a report was prepared by Dr J Robinson of the RAE. The object of the Admiralty in conducting experimental work on television was ‘for spotting at sea with the use of aeroplanes’. Dr C V Drysdale, the Superintendent of ARL, described the problem as ‘difficult’ but felt that it could be solved ‘with money and staff’15. Approximately 17 months later he referred to the ‘extreme difficulty of finding a practical solution’16. No demonstrations of rudimentary television were given during the visit of Wimperis and his colleagues, but they were given demonstrations of ‘certain apparatus’ by Beatty, and were informed of the lines of attack on the problem. These were associated with the scanning devices, the light-sensitive cells and the means for converting the ‘electric impulses’ into ‘light impulses’. The problem of synchronisation had not been investigated, nor had the transmission, by either wireless telegraphy or line, of the electric impulses been examined. It seems that ARL, Teddington was ‘not supposed to deal with wireless matters’. The difficulties described by Drysdale and Beatty did not deter Wimperis and in April he wrote17 to Colonel H G K Wait, of the Royal Engineers Board, and to Mr F E Smith, of the Admiralty, and suggested a talk on the ‘possible utility to the three Fighting Services of methods of television in combination with wireless telegraphy’. Wait agreed, as did Smith, but Smith observed18: ‘The possible utility of the method mentioned by you has been considered by the Admiralty for the past two years [i.e. since 1923, the year Baird commenced his work]

The first demonstration of television

95

and work is in progress. The item is listed and has been before the Physics Board.’ The meeting was held on 22nd April 1925 and was attended19 by: Mr H E Wimperis (in the Chair) Wing Commander J B Brown Dr J Robinson Mr Sinclair Mr F E Smith Colonel H G K Wait Major A C Fuller

Director Scientific Research (Air Ministry) DDR (I) Royal Aircraft Establishment representing DOSD Director Scientific Research (Admiralty) War Office War Office

‘It was . . . decided that the Director of Scientific Research (Admiralty) should take up the question of accelerating the development of [television] with the Admiralty as the next step, it being agreed in general that co-operation by the three Services was essential.’ Unfortunately the pertinent files in the Public Record Office do not contain any relevant papers for the period June 1925 to November 1925, so it is not possible to determine what action was taken on the above mentioned issue. The files do include a detailed (34-page) report20 on television by Beatty which deals with the progress made at ARL to December 1925. This report is of very considerable historical importance, for it is the only report which is readily available which contains a critical review of the state of development, at that time, of some of the components needed for a television system, together with some design details and experimental results. The report gives an indication of the factors which, probably, had been considered by Baird. Beatty’s investigations were thorough and comprehensive. He was familiar with the various television systems which had been proposed and had examined scanners involving moving mirrors and moving lenses, as employed by Jenkins and Baird, as well as those using oscillating mirrors which Mihaly had utilised. In addition, Beatty had examined the possible applications to television of vacuum photoelectric alkali cells, gas-filled photoelectric alkali light cells, selenium cells and thalofide cells. Of these he noted that vacuum p.e. alkali cells, and gasfilled p.e. alkali cells gave currents of the order of 10-10A and 10-7A respectively, that selenium cells were frequency-sensitive, and that the ‘most promising results were obtained from thalofide cells’. Beatty had also carried out detailed design and experimental work on possible ‘light valves’ for converting the varying electrical signals into varying light fluxes. These ‘light valves’ included magnetic receivers with either unpolarised or polarised moving armatures, moving coil galvanometer receivers, electrostatic vibrators, piezo-electric receivers, electro-optical and magneto-optical receivers in which the televised signals caused either the rotation of the plane of polarisation, or double refraction, of a light beam when it traversed either a tube containing carbon bisulphide, or nitrobenzene, or certain crystals, and neon lamp receivers and cathode ray tube receivers.

96

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

On electro-optical and magneto-optical receivers, Beatty found from his experiments that receivers made using liquids were ‘less robust and efficient than any of the other receivers [investigated]’, while with those using crystals ‘it had not yet been found possible to utilise the effect in a satisfactory manner’. His comments on cathode ray tube receivers are worthy of note. He wrote: ‘Although this method sounds attractive the practical difficulties are so great that little progress has been made by experimenters on these lines. Firstly, since the regular displacement of the spot is not proportional to the voltage applied, and owing to the curvature of the fluorescent screen, considerable distortion of the picture takes place. This is increased by the fact that the deflecting voltages are sinusoidal instead of being [a] linear function of time. Secondly, the modulations produced in the anode voltage for the purpose of increasing the luminosity cause radial displacement of the spot, whereby serious confusion of the picture is produced. In the third place the successive pictures will not register unless the amplitudes and frequencies of the simple harmonic motion deflecting voltages are regulated with great accuracy. Until these three sources of error have been removed the oscillograph method seems to rank as inferior to the devices already described.’

Beatty noted that Baird employed a neon lamp in his receiver and observed that the method had the merit of simplicity though it required a very large amplification. Nevertheless, he felt that the possibilities of gas discharge tubes should not be neglected, since they ‘may still be operated at frequencies of 50 000 [Hz] or so, a region where no mechanical vibrator can be expected to function’. For this reason an arrangement whereby the main luminous discharge was produced by a separate generator, while the desired intermittent effect was produced by potential signals applied to an external electrode, was under examination at the ARL. Subsequent to Baird’s 26th January 1926 demonstration to members of the Royal Institution, Dr Beatty requested that a demonstration should be given to him. By 16th February the system had been seen by Dr Beatty21 but not by a representative of the Air Ministry, although the Superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Establishment had suggested to the Air Ministry the desirability of an official demonstration. Beatty appears to have been influenced by Baird’s work. In his December 1925 report Beatty described transmitting and receiving apparatuses as shown schematically in Figures 4.3a and 4.3b. Both equipments used rotating mirror scanners, machined from solid discs of stainless steel 20 cm in diameter by 15.7 mm in thickness, each having 40 optical flats ground and polished on the curved surfaces. Successive flats were inclined at 13.5° to each other so that only one mirror scanner was needed to scan a two-dimensional scene. The flats were produced with the aid of a special jig designed and machined at ARL and the maximum error of any scanner did not exceed a quarter of a minute of arc. At the transmitter, light from an arc lamp or Pointolite lamp passed through a condensing lens and was reflected from the scanner so as to come to a focus on a diagram drawn in opaque material on a transparent surface. A second lens focused an image of the illuminated mirror flat onto a photoelectric cell,

The first demonstration of television

a Figure 4.3

97

b Schematic diagrams showing (a) the transmitting, and (b) the receiving apparatuses used by Dr R T Beatty at the Admiralty Research Laboratory, Teddington

Source: The Public Record Office, Kew

probably of the thalofide type, and the output of this was amplified and made to modulate a carrier wave. In the receiver, the detected modulating signal caused a vibrating mirror type of light valve, with associated stop, to vary the light flux from the lamp in accordance with the amplitude of the detected signal. The intermittent beam of light so produced then passed through a lens onto the rotating scanner. This enabled a reproduction of the diagram at the transmitter to be obtained, provided the two scanners were driven synchronously and were synphasal. Beatty seems to have employed a scanning rate of 10 pictures per second and noted that his thalofide cell would respond to 20 000 impulses per second if resistance-capacitance amplifiers were used. His report does not describe the overall results which he obtained; his work was limited to the reproduction of diagrams without tones. Baird and Jenkins had demonstrated the reproduction of black and white televised images in April 1925 and June 1925 respectively. By the end of May 1926 Beatty, following his visit to Baird’s laboratory, had replaced the mirror scanners of his earlier apparatus by steel Nipkow discs, 28 inches in diameter, having 40 holes of one millimetre diameter drilled in a spiral form, and had substituted a neon lamp of the Osglim-beehive type for the light valve. A gas-filled (helium) light-sensitive cell, made at the National Physical Laboratory, having a coating of rubidium and a sensitivity of 3.3 × 10-6 amperes per lumen, permitted the system to operate at up to 8 000 to 10 000 modulations per second. The received picture size was 4 cm by 4 cm and the scanning rate was five pictures per second. Lieutenant Colonel H P Lefroy22 of the Air Ministry, and Captain E C Horsley23 were given a demonstration of this equipment on 27th May 1926. The diagram transmitted at the demonstration consisted of a grid of three bars of cardboard, each ‘about 0.25 in wide and 0.25 in apart’. Lefroy observed that ‘this could just be recognised at the receiving end, but the reproduction was very crude’.

98

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Beatty told Horsely and Lefroy that he considered television apparatus of the type he was using would be unsuitable for aircraft because ‘it would probably require a telescope, 3 ft long, with a 12 in objective, and a very powerful valve amplifier, for work in England’. He pointed out that, in the tropics where the light was very intense, the apparatus might possibly be rather lighter. Lefroy concluded his report by observing ‘that there was no chance of useful practical results being obtained with the apparatus presented to us’. His interesting report shows clearly, first, that Beatty had modified his television system since December 1925 and was now using the basic television scheme of Baird and secondly, that Beatty had not advanced the state of development of television beyond that which had been demonstrated by Baird in April 1925 when he showed crude black and white television images of opaque objects. Since Beatty employed transparencies, and hence used transmitted light to activate his light-sensitive cell, it appears surprising that his equipment was not capable of reproducing better images than those seen. In April 1926 Stewart, as previously noted, in his report had observed: ‘I found it possible to distinguish between two human faces I had previously seen in the life . . .’. Baird at this time was working with reflected light and yet was able to reproduce simple half-tone images. He had been engaged on the television problem for approximately the same length of time as Beatty but, whereas Beatty, with the staff and equipment resources of the Admiralty Research Laboratory to aid him, had investigated a considerable range of system components, Baird had been greatly limited by a lack of adequate facilities and necessarily had had to restrict himself to Nipkow disc scanners of various types, tungsten filament and neon gas discharge lamps and other easily obtainable components. Possibly this concentration of effort on the use of a limited range of sub-systems gave Baird the advantage which he had over his competitors and enabled him to be the first person to demonstrate a rudimentary system of television. The Admiralty’s interest in the use of television in aircraft, for spotting purposes was described by Lefroy to Hutchinson on 2nd June 1926 when Lefroy24 visited Television Ltd to determine the company’s latest television developments. He outlined a scheme in which an observer in a ‘spotter’ plane would be provided with a map or photograph of an enemy target and of the ground surrounding it, and an observer on the ground would also be provided with an exact copy of the same map or photograph. Then, when a shell burst on the ground, the air observer would place a pointer on his map or photograph at the position at which he observed the shell burst. This position would be televised and indicated immediately on the corresponding map, or photograph, in the ground receiver. Consequently, if such a proposal could be introduced the ground observer would not have to make an estimate of the distance between a shell burst and the target. Lefroy suggested that the indication on the receiver’s map would probably be a spot of light which would remain on as long as the observer kept his pointer on his map, but would disappear directly he raised it from the map. Furthermore, if small marks were made on the receiver’s map as each spot occurred, and if the marks were numbered in sequence, a record could

The first demonstration of television

99

be obtained for fire control purposes. Hutchinson pointed out that Baird’s present apparatus was very crude and bulky—the transmitter occupied ‘about [a] 10 ft cube’—and could not be carried in an aircraft. Nevertheless, Lefroy told Baird and Hutchinson they should consider the possibility of designing special apparatus which would be light and compact enough to be used in an aircraft and which would be suitable for artillery observation work. The radio transmission and reception of diagrams and photographs had engaged the attention of Beatty at ARL for some time and during a visit to the laboratories in May 1926 Captain Horsely25 and Lieutenant-Colonel Lefroy were shown apparatus for this purpose. Beatty felt that his work showed ‘good promise of final success, but the apparatus though not very heavy, [was] still too bulky for aircraft use’. Lefroy noted that the method of reception appeared ‘very clumsy’ and ‘Dr Beatty agreed that it was so, and regretted that [he] had not, as yet, been able to devise any traversing relay to control, automatically, the movement of the receiving pointer . . .’. As with the television equipment, the chief use for such a ‘radio tele-writer’ was for spotting work by aircraft cooperating with the Navy. The receiver described by Beatty to Lefroy and Horsely required a trained operator to adjust two capacitors so as to track the path taken by the transmitter pointer. It was hoped that it would be possible to train operators to make these adjustments efficiently, in a three-month course. But with an appropriate television system the need for the operators would disappear. The Air Ministry, too, was interested in ‘radio tele-writers’ and aircraft television and in June 1926 instructions27 were given to the Air Ministry Laboratory, at the Imperial College of Science, London, ‘to consider how far it was possible to devise a rapidly scanning device compact and light enough for use on an aircraft, in connection with any television schemes which might, later, come into use, and whether such an apparatus could give enough impulses per second to yield a reasonable picture’. Later Wimperis26, 28 told the Superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Establishment that the scanning apparatus would be completed ‘early in the New Year’ and asked for any information on the experimental work on photoelectric cells which was being carried out by No. 10 Section. It was anticipated that these would be used for ‘night photography’. On 6th October 1926 a conference29 was held at Motograph House—Baird’s new headquarters—which was attended by Beatty, Lefroy, Baird, Hutchinson and a Mr Whitcomb. The conference followed a meeting between Hutchinson and Lefroy, on 4th October, at the end of which Lefroy had concluded that the design for the spotter had evolved into a sufficiently practical form to be of interest to the Air Ministry. The conference considered Baird’s proposals and were informed that the spotter could be made with approximate dimensions of 1 ft × 1 ft × 6 in and mass of 12 lb, and that it would be self-contained as regards driving mechanism and would only require an ordinary wireless transmitter to be used with it. Baird put forward a method for ‘spotting’ in British patent no. 295 210 (application date 9th August 1927). A demonstration of the proposed equipment was suggested as follows: ‘On

100

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

the transmitting machine at Motograph House there will be fixed a map. A pencil will be placed on any desired point of this map and on a similar map on [a] receiver, at Harrow, a spot of light will appear instantaneously on a corresponding point. The demonstration will be by wire or wireless as desired.’ Hutchinson on behalf of Television Ltd suggested that if the tests were satisfactory the company should make ten sets for £2000, and if after a three-month test period, from the date of delivery, the Government decided to adopt them the company was ‘to receive a cash payment of £20 000 in return for the sole rights in the invention and a further 100 complete sets’. Whether these conditions were felt to be reasonable or otherwise is not clear from the papers in the Public Record Office, but a few days later on 19th October 1926 Smith30 informed Wimperis that a decision had been reached that experimental work on television should not be carried on further by the Admiralty since there was a feeling that other systems were likely to meet the Admiralty’s requirements. He also believed the Air Ministry had no interest in television. Here Smith was incorrect, for Wimperis31 said he would be ‘sorry to say that the Air Ministry [had] no interest’ since apart from spotting and other naval possibilities there were also those connected with reconnaissance work for the Army. However, advantage could be taken of commercial developments. Two months later Wimperis32 asked Smith to consider Baird’s proposals. Although the Admiralty appears to have terminated its television activities sometime towards the end of 1926, the Air Ministry continued with its efforts. These were undertaken principally at the Air Ministry Laboratory, Imperial College of Science, but in April 1927 R O King, the Acting Superintendent, had to report33 that television work had stopped on 2nd February ‘on account of the urgency of the bombsight work in hand here’. Little is known about their television developments: King referred in his memorandum to seven rotating prism mounts, an oscillating prism, and 24 (sic) gear wheels. No other details were given. The Admiralty’s decision to suspend work on television towards the end of 1926 probably stemmed from the greater progress which Baird was making. He was most anxious to establish a strong commercial base for his activities and this necessitated patenting every apparatus and method he devised34. As a consequence he was not able, with the limited resources available to him, to perfect any given system. As soon as he had devised or demonstrated a particular piece of apparatus or principle he had to move on and establish himself in a new branch of television. One week after Lefroy had discussed with Hutchinson some practical details of the spotting apparatus, Lefroy was telephoned35 by Hutchinson and informed that considerable improvements had been made since 27th September ‘in regard to seeing by invisible beams’. This work is considered in detail in the next chapter; suffice to say here that Baird was now using infra-red radiation to illuminate his objects and subjects. After witnessing a demonstration, Lefroy satisfied himself’ that he could ‘distinguish the features of a human face, seen in profile or in full face, and could observe the opening and shutting of the mouth, and the

The first demonstration of television

101

placing of a hand on the forehead . . .’. Lefroy was aware that if these developments could be perfected they could have various wartime applications. In the October 1927 issue of the Bell System Technical Journal there appeared a series of papers on the exceptionally well engineered television system devised by the engineers of the Bell Laboratories. The system36 was most impressive, in many regards: it is likely that the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, as the premier communication organisation in the United States of America, felt it had a duty to investigate to the utmost of its resources the possibilities posed by television. Demonstrations were given of both small-screen and large-screen displays with the signals sent via line and radio links. Because of the comprehensive nature of these tests, Wimperis37 thought it was ‘doubtful if there was a need for the Air Ministry to do much at the present time’. Thus by the end of 1927 neither the Admiralty nor the Air Ministry were actively engaged in advancing the application of television to warfare and by the end of 1929 only the Signals Experimental Establishment, Woolwich Common had maintained an interest in this field. Colonel A C Fuller, of the Royal Corps of Signals, and a member of the Royal Engineers Board, had put into operation in 1929 the ‘area system of telegraphy’ in order to determine its usefulness for military purposes38. This was an elementary television system in which a message was written on a tape which was then passed in front of an aperture, scanned, and the resulting signals transmitted to a receiver. The image consisted of 600 elements and the scanning rate was 12 images per second. Tests showed the method had ‘a rather greater freedom from interference than an ordinary high-speed telegraph system’ and gave ‘quite a large measure of secrecy’ as the constants of the system could be changed from time to time according to a pre-arranged code. Both the Baird and Marconi companies investigated similar systems39. Nothing came from these initiatives. Meanwhile, during the period when discussions were taking place between the Services and Hutchinson, Baird had continued his experiments and demonstrations, including one which was reported in Nature by Dr Alexander Russell, FRS, the Principal of Faraday House. He was agreeably surprised by the progress made in solving the television problem and stated40: ‘We saw the transmission by television of living human faces, the proper gradation of light and shade, and all movements of the head, of the lips and mouth and of a cigarette and its smoke faithfully portrayed on a screen in the theatre, the transmitter being in [the studio on the top floor] of the building. Naturally the results are far from perfect. The image [viewed on the receiver situated in a small theatre two floors below the studio] cannot be compared with that produced by a good kinematograph film. The likeness, however, was unmistakable and all the motions are reproduced with absolute fidelity . . . This is the first time we have ever seen real television, and, so far as we know, Mr Baird is the first to have accomplished this marvellous feat.’

Another visitor was Professor E N da C Andrade, a noted physicist. He wrote a ‘very fair’ account of what he had seen for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, an American-owned publication. Much to the disappointment of Baird, the next

102

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

edition contained an article on television written by Dr H E Ives, of the AT&T Company. The article gave full prominence to the television efforts of that company but completely ignored the fact that Baird was the first person anywhere to demonstrate publicly true television—albeit a rudimentary form of true television. Numerous visits to Baird’s laboratories at Frith Street and later Motograph House were made by press representatives, government officials, scientists and others. All of this was most welcome since, as Baird confirms in his notes, he was doing everything in his power to attract public attention to his work. He could not experiment in isolation, funds were needed and these could only come from public participation in publicly formed companies. Confirmation of Baird’s achievement came from a number of sources. The New York Times41 gave a whole page to the subject and said ‘no one but this Scottish Minister’s son has ever transmitted and received a recognisable image with its gradations of light and shade . . . Baird was the first to achieve television.’ Later, in September 1926, the Radio News42 (of the USA) sent a reporter to investigate Baird’s claims. ‘Mr Baird has definitely and indisputably given a demonstration of real television . . . It is the first time in history that this has been done in any part of the world.’ During his work Baird carried out investigations to determine the minimum number of lines necessary to transmit a clearly recognisable image of the human face, and the optimum aspect ratio needed to display such an image without

Figure 4.4

J L Baird shows his televisor to two visitors

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

The first demonstration of television

103

wasting the space available. He made numerous measurements and ultimately decided that the aspect ratio should be 7 (vertical) by 3 (horizontal). He determined the number of lines by making drawings from photographs divided into strips from 15 upwards. He concluded that 30 strips and a picture frequency of 12.5 per second gave the best compromise between the conflicting requirements of image detail and image flicker with the very restricted bandwidth which circumscribed his endeavours. Baird naturally wished to experiment in broadcasting television signals from one of the BBC’s transmitters if the objectives of Television Ltd were to be realised. He therefore communicated with H L Kirke, an engineer of the BBC, who was later to become its Senior Research Engineer. ‘Kirke was very interested and helpful’, wrote Baird43. Several transmissions were arranged, the television picture being sent by telephone line from Baird’s laboratory at Frith Street to a BBC studio. Kirke then put it on the air through the BBC’s radio transmitter and Baird received it again by wireless at his laboratory. ‘Complete success was achieved by this method.’ Only three experimental transmissions were given, but though Baird recorded that ‘the picture came through the BBC practically unaltered’, the BBC’s view was that the three experimental transmissions were unsatisfactory and they came to an abrupt end. ‘Someone “up above” at the BBC, Kirke would not say who, had ordered the transmission to cease.’ The prospect which faced Baird in 1926 was much more daunting than that which faced Marconi in 1895–96. Marconi had the advantage that his invention had an immediate application in military and naval operations and, when his demonstrations before Service officers proved successful, his future seemed assured. Additionally, Marconi obtained valuable support for a short but critical period from W Preece, the Engineer-in-Chief of the General Post Office, who had himself been experimenting on signalling through space without wires44. On the other hand, Baird’s invention had no immediate application to warfare or safety, and he received no patronage from the BBC, the one body which could assist him. There is no readily available evidence to show that Baird approached the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for a development grant: possibly he wished to remain independent of this organisation. So, in 1926, the only source of money for his purpose seemed to be the general public. But the general public had to be given an indication that investment in the new form of broadcasting was worthwhile. Hutchinson was certainly keen to start television broadcasting, notwithstanding the faint and blurred images, and consequently applied45, on 4th January 1926 on behalf of Television Ltd, to the Postmaster General (PMG) for a licence to transmit from London, Glasgow, Manchester and Belfast. Baird told a Daily Telegraph reporter46 that as the law stood at that time there was no need for a licence to broadcast movement, but to have matters in order they had applied to the PMG. This was a new problem for the General Post Office and careful consideration had to be given to Baird’s and Hutchinson’s request. The Post Office sought the

104

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

advice of its solicitor, Sir Raymond Woods. After a considerable delay the GPO wrote to Television Ltd saying: ‘We are now in a position to grant you permission to install wireless experimental transmitting stations at Motograph House, and at the Green Gables [a villa about eight miles away in Harrow] subject to the power and wavelength being fixed at 100 W max. and 270 m respectively. It would also be a condition that transmission should not take place during broadcasting hours of the London Station.’47

These conditions were not those which Hutchinson had originally requested, namely, a power of at least 250 W and a wavelength between 150 and 200 m. He wrote48: ‘We had our plant designed at considerable expense to work on a 200m wavelength and to attempt alteration at this juncture would put us in a very backward position apart from the financial loss entailed’. He appealed to the ‘national point of view’ and on 15th July 1926 heard that the Postmaster General had given his permission, for the use, for experimental purposes, of a wavelength of 200 m and a power of 250 W49. He was later to say that he was unable to state what wavelength could be allocated in the event that a licence for a television broadcasting service was granted50. The experimental transmission licences for 2 TV (Motograph House) and 2 TW (Green Gables) were dated 15th August 1926. Work now commenced on the installation of the first antenna, in the UK, to be used wholly for television broadcasting. Fortunately the roof of Motograph House was flat, and lead-covered, and was well above the roof line of the buildings in the immediate neighbourhood. The building possessed two reasonably well spaced flag poles and these became the supports for the new antenna. Baird was without any full-time technical assistance at this time, so necessarily Hutchinson was obliged to labour for Baird under Baird’s supervision. No suspicions were raised when the antenna was raised since in the middle of the 1920–30 decade aerial installations had to be erected as high as practicable to enable satisfactory signals to be received from the BBC’s sound broadcasting stations. Soon, Baird was transmitting from Motograph House to Green Gables and on 10th August the Morning Post noted51: ‘Almost nightly, pictures are being sent from London to Harrow, generally of the faces of the operators, for testing purposes, and the time is not too far distant when broadcasting of television should become as popular as broadcasting at the present time.’

Note 1 Baird’s light-sensitive device Baird, from c. 1924 to c. 1927, was highly secretive about his light-sensitive device and no writer has yet ventured to suggest what type of cell he might have utilised. However, using the laws of physics, the known state of Baird’s financial position during this period, and the experimental facilities at Baird’s disposal, it is possible to deduce some details about the nature of his cells.

The first demonstration of television

105

Light-sensitive devices can be classified as 1 photoemissive cells (commonly known in the 1920s as photoelectric cells); 2 photoconductive cells; and 3 photovoltaic cells. The key fact which enables some knowledge of Baird’s device to be obtained is his demonstration of noctovision, i.e. television using infra-red radiation. From simple theory, the work function of a photoemissive cathode is given by 1240 / λ0 where λ0 is the threshold wavelength for photoemission, i.e. it is the longest wavelength of the incident radiation at which electrons can be emitted from the cathode’s surface. Thus if λ0 is 750 nm the work function of the surface must be equal to 1.65 eV for photoemission to occur. No pure metal has such a low work function, and therefore cells for use in the infra-red region of the spectrum must have composite cathodes. A cathode surface which comprises a thin film of caesium deposited on oxidised silver has a good infra-red response, but this surface was not developed—by Campbell and Koller independently— until 1928. GEC first marketed this type of cell in 1929. Baird did not possess either the thin film deposition, vacuum, and glass-blowing facilities or the knowledge to fabricate composite cathode photocells in the 1924–27 period. He could not have employed photoelectric cells for his noctovision work. This is confirmed by Baird’s statements. He never referred to these cells but always used the term ‘light sensitive device’. Such a device could have been a photoconductive device. It is known that in his very early work Baird utilised selenium cells. These cells, as Baird soon discovered, have a very poor frequency response. Moreover they are insensitive in the infra-red region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thallium sulphide cells, which had been investigated by Case in 1920, are highly sensitive in the infra-red region and, additionally in the 1920s, could be manufactured to have a frequency response to intermittent radiation which extended to at least 20 kHz: this was sufficient for use in a low-definition television system. Furthermore the cells could be fabricated as easily as selenium cells. A suspension of graphite in water is painted on a glass plate to form two interlocking combs. When the combs are dry, semi-conducting thallium sulphide is spread over them in a thin layer: the combs then act as electrodes, bridged by the many strips of the sulphide in parallel. Thallium sulphide photovoltaic cells also have a good infra-red sensitivity, but they were not commercially available until after 1950. Their construction would have been beyond the capabilities of Baird’s resources. From the preceding facts and Baird’s successful demonstrations of noctovision during the autumn of 1926, it can be inferred that Baird was utilising a thallium sulphide photoconductive cell for his noctovision experiments. Also, since such a cell has a good reponse in the visible region of the spectrum, and because there is no evidence that Baird engaged in experimental work in 1926 to fabricate a cell especially for his noctovision work, it may be further inferred that Baird employed a thallium sulphide cell in his earlier investigations. If this surmise is correct, the question arises: When did Baird begin to use such a cell and how did he learn of its existence? Baird’s use of selenium cells, from 1923, is confirmed in several published papers. Baird experimented with a photoelectric cell (obtained from Elwell Ltd)

106

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

in May and June 1924, but informed Day that he preferred to use a selenium cell—they were very much more sensitive than photoelectric cells. Baird’s investigation of colloidal solutions to produce an improved type of cell is first mentioned in his correspondence with Day in a letter dated 23rd June 1924. Later, on 13th October 1924, he told Day: ‘I have been experimenting with chemicals and managed to make a liquid light sensitive cell, it is a novelty and may prove valuable. I will give you details on Wednesday. I don’t want to put them on paper until we have taken out a provisional [patent].’ Baird’s cell was never patented, it was not seen by any of his associates, and no information exists about its construction. However, Baird did fabricate a colloidal selenium cell. In his January 1925 article published in the Wireless World and Radio Review he wrote: ‘The cell which I have been using is neither a photo-electric nor a selenium cell, but a colloidal (fluid) cell of my own invention.’ Later, in December 1925 in an article published in Radio News, A Dinsdale reported that Baird’s cell was ‘of the colloidal type, that is, made up of extremely finely divided selenium held in a suspension in a liquid’. This would have been possible with the facilities at Baird’s disposal. The method of preparing a cell of this type is ‘to dissolve a very small quantity of selenious acid in pure distilled water in a very clean beaker. To this it is best to add a small quantity of gelatine solution as a “protective” agent. The solution is heated to boiling point and a few drops of hydrazine hydrate solution added. There should result in a few minutes, after cooling, a perfectly clear red solution. (There must be no trace of cloudiness.) The solution should be kept in a clean stoppered bottle in the dark.’ Another account states that colloidal selenium is a red solution obtained by mixing a dilute aqueous solution of selenious and sulphurous acids. In use the solution is contained in a glass vessel provided with two electrodes. The advantage of a colloidal selenium cell over a selenium cell of the conventional type would seem to arise from the much increased surface area of the colloidal particles compared to the surface area of the same quantity of selenium used in a conventional cell. This increase according to one report may be as much as 7000 times greater. Presumably the sensitivity is thereby increased, although the poor response of the selenium cell may be unaffected. In his patent application no. 270 222 Baird described a method to ameliorate this property of the cell based on the use of the first derivative of the selenium cell’s current and the current itself. He referred to this method in his autobiography and wrote: ‘Now I decided to build a second amplifier, battery coupled but with one transformer coupled stage, so that one amplifier could give me the time/current curve, and the second the time/rate of change of current curve. I would then mix the two until the time lag was corrected. And this I proceeded to do. This, that and the other went wrong, but I saw enough to realise I was on the right track.’ The date of this patent, 21st October 1925; the recollections of Baird; the known limitations of selenium cells; and the closeness of the date, 2nd October 1925 (Baird’s first successful demonstration of crude television), to the patent’s date, indicate that Baird almost certainly employed a colloidal selenium cell for this and his 26th January 1926 demonstrations. Three months later, on 27th April 1926, he gave a press demonstration at which it was reported the image ‘was far brighter, clearer and larger than it was at the demonstration three months ago . . .’. These improvements could have

The first demonstration of television

107

come about by the use of a cell having a more extended frequency response than the colloidal selenium cell. Such a cell could have been a thallium sulphide cell; they were commercially available by 1926. It is known that Dr R T Beatty, of the Admiralty Research laboratory, visited Baird and was given a demonstration of his apparatus before 10th February 1926. Furthermore in his extensive report dated December 1925 Beatty referred to his investigations of selenium, photoelectric, and thalofide (thallium sulphide) cells. He had concluded that these were: (a) of ‘great inertia’; (b) of ‘no inertia but [small sensitivity]’; and (c) ‘suitable up to 20 000 impulses per second’ respectively. Beatty reported ‘that for sensitivity and rapid response thalofide cells [were] superior to selenium’. The author suggests that Beatty and Baird discussed the merits of these cells at their meeting; that Beatty told Baird of his experiences with the thallium sulphide cell; and that Baird subsequently utilised this type of cell for his television and noctovision experiments. From 1927/28 it is likely that Baird used a GEC potassium hydride gas-filled photoelectric cell.

Note 2 Baird’s honeycomb structure The honeycomb structure illustrated in Figure 4.5 was patented by Baird on 15th October 1926 and comprised a 17 × 20 array of uniform parallel metal

Figure 4.5

O G Huthinson being televised with the aid of Baird’s honeycomb structure device, May 1926

Source: Mr R M Herbert

108

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

tubes, each having a length of c. 2 in and a diameter of c. 0.1 in, arranged so that their ends were in alignment. The object of the device was to produce an image without the use of a lens. Baird described its modus operandi as follows. ‘If an object be placed opposite the open ends of the tubes, the axes of the various tubes define a plurality of points on the object, and light emitted or reflected from each of these points can pass through the tubes only in a parallel axial direction. The result is that the screen placed at the other end of the bank of tubes receives illumination only by light passing through the tubes in a parallel axial direction, and consequently each point on the screen is illuminated from only the corresponding point of the object and these varying degrees of illumination provide a real optical image of the object.’

Baird’s invention does not seem to have been a success. He hinted at the reason for this in his patent when he noted that the best results were obtained when the object and the screen were placed as close as possible to the ends of the bank of tubes—a very serious constraint—otherwise a ‘slight blurring effect is obtained’. The patent is of some note, for it mentions the use of ‘thin rods or tubes of glass quartz or other transparent material’ in place of the metal tubes, and states that the rods ‘need not necessarily be straight but could be bent or curved, or in the case of very fine quartz fibres, could be flexible’. Optic fibres are now extensively employed in communications engineering.

References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

DAY, W. E. L.: letter to J. L. Baird, 18th November 1925, private collection DAY, W. E. L.: letter to J. L. Baird, 16th December 1925, private collection Company file, Television Ltd, Public Record Office BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 59 ANON.: report, The Times, 26th January 1926 ANON.: report, Daily Express, 8th January 1926 Press Photonachtrichtendienst, letter to the GPO, 28th January 1926, Minute 51/1929, file 1 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘Broadcasting in my time’ (Rich and Cowan, London, 1935) ANON.: report, Evening Standard, 8th January 1926 CAMPBELL SWINTON, A. A.: letter to the BBC, file T16/42, c. 1928 HARDERN, L.: letter to N. Collins (Director of Television, BBC), 15th April 1948, BBC file T16/214 SYDNEY SMITH, W.: letter to the Secretary, Air Ministry, 25th November 1924, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office WIMPERIS, H. E.: letter to the Director of Scientific Research, Admiralty, 5th December 1924, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office SMITH, F. E.; letter to H. E. Wimperis, 8th February 1924, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office ROBINSON, J.: ‘Television, a statement of the present position’, 15th January 1925, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office LEFROY, H. P.: minute, 9th June 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office

The first demonstration of television

109

17 WIMPERIS, H. E.: letter to Colonel H. G. K. Wait, 3rd April 1925, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 18 SMITH, F. E.: letter to H. E. Wimperis, 6th April 1925, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 19 WIMPERIS, H. E.: letter to the Superintendent, Royal Aircraft Establishment, 14th April 1925. Also an undated memorandum, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 20 BEATTY, R. T.: ‘Report on television’, parts 1 and 2, 34pp December 1925, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 21 SMITH, F. E.: letter to Wing Commander G. P. Grenfell, 10th February 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 22 Ref. 16 23 HORSLEY, E. C.: ‘Report on inspection of certain television apparatus made at the ARL’, A.M.L. report no. T.V.1, June 1926, 4pp, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 24 HALLOWAY, B. E.: letter to the Secretary, Admiralty, 29th February 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 25 Ref. 23 26 WIMPERIS, H. E.: letter to F. E. Smith, 29th October 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 27 GRENFELL, G. P.: letter to the Superintendent, Royal Aircraft Establishment, 16th February 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 28 WIMPERIS, H. E.: letter to the Superintendent, Royal Aircraft Establishment, 12th August 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 29 HUTCHINSON, O. G.: letter to H. P. Lefroy, 7th October 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 30 SMITH, F. E.: letter to H. E. Wimperis, 19th October 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 31 WIMPERIS, H. E.: letter to F. E. Smith, 29th October 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 32 WIMPERIS, H. E.: letter to F. E. Smith, 15th December 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 33 WIMPERIS, H. E.: letter to E. C. Horsley, 14th November 1927, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 34 BURNS, R. W.: ‘J. L. Baird; success and failure’, IEE Proc., Vol. 126, (9), September 1979, pp. 921–8 35 LEFROY, H. P.: ‘Report on television’, 23rd October 1926, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 36 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Television, an international history of the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus London, 1998) 37 WIMPERIS, H. E.: letter to E. C. Horsley, 14th November 1927, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 38 BARTON, F. S.: ‘Television’, report no. W.Y.226, 18th November 1929, AIR 2/ S24132, Public Record Office 39 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Early television development in the Marconi Company’, Conference publication, 7th IEE Weekend Meeting on the History of Electrical Engineering, July 1979, pp. 97–114 40 A. R.: ‘Television’, Nature, 3rd July 1926, 118, pp. 18–19 41 ANON.: report, New York Times, 6th March 1927

110

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

42 ANON.: report, Radio News, September 1926, p. 283 43 Ref. 4, p. 72 44 BAKER, E. C.: ‘Sir William Preece, FRS’ (Hutchinson, London, 1976), chapter 26 45 HUTCHINSON, O. G.: letter to the Postmaster General, 4th January 1926, Minute 4004/33 46 ANON.: report, Daily Telegraph, 11th January 1926 47 WISSENDEN, J. W.: letter to Television Ltd, 7th July 1926, Minute 4004/33 48 HUTCHINSON, O. G.: letter to the Secretary of the GPO, 8th July 1926, Minute 4004/33 49 PHILLIPS, F. W.: letter to Television Ltd, 15th July 1926, Minute 4004/33 50 WISSENDEN, J. W.: letter to Television Ltd, 5th August 1926, Minute 4004/33 51 ANON.: report, The Morning Post, 10th August 1926

Chapter 5

Noctovision and phonovision

In his early experiments with television, Baird had great difficulty in reducing the intensity of the light used to illuminate his subjects without impairing the results achieved by his apparatus. The photocells which were available in 1926 were small cells which had a high ambient noise level. This, together with the parasitics introduced by the then dull-emitter valves which were used in the amplifiers, caused the received picture to have a very poor signal to noise ratio. Baird accordingly set out to select cells whose colour response matched the luminosity–wavelength characteristic of his floodlights and this led him to experiment with various coloured lamps and filters. According to J D Percy1, it was during these tests that the lamps were masked, as an experiment, with wafer thin ebonite sheet so that all visible light was cut off and only infra-red radiation played on the subject. ‘Much to Baird’s surprise, the picture was not only visible at the receiver, but the signal/noise ratio, since he was using red sensitive cells, was surprisingly good.’ Baird had earlier tried ultra-violet rays but these had proved to be very objectionable for the subject and had the added disadvantage that the lenses used attenuated the radiation very considerably. Infra-red rays, on the other hand, did not cause any discomfort and therefore ‘noctovision’, as Baird named his latest discovery, came into being and occupied much of his attention for the next five years. These experiments have been graphically described by Baird2 in the following words: ‘At this time my only assistant was the office boy imported from Hutchinson’s soap works. He was ignorant but amiable. The ultra-violet rays hurt his eyes, but he did not complain, but I got a fright and tried the infra-red. At first I used electric fires to produce these infra-red rays which are practically heat rays. I could not get a result and added more fires until Wally was practically roasted alive. Then I put in a dummy’s head and added more fires until the head went up in flames. ‘I decided to try another tack and used the shorter infra-red rays. To get this I used ordinary electric light bulbs covered with thin ebonite which cut-off all light but allowed

112

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

the infra-red to pass. Wally sat under this without discomfort, and after one or two adjustments I saw him on the screen although he was in total darkness. That again was a thrill, new and strange. I was actually seeing the person without light.’

Baird gave demonstrations of the use of infra-red rays, for television, to naval, military and air force officials, and to Dr A Russell, Mr R W Paul and Mr Creed, late in 1926, and followed these by extending an open invitation to members of the Royal Institution to witness the results on 30th December 1926. Approximately forty members of the Institution were invited to Baird’s laboratories3. Following some criticism of Baird in the editorial of the 15th January 1927 issue of Nature, Russell sent a letter4 dated 28th January 1927 to the journal and described Baird’s latest experiments. An extract from this letter reads: ‘One of us stayed in the sending room with a laboratory assistant in apparently complete darkness. In the receiving room, on another floor, the image of the assistant’s head was shown brilliantly illuminated on a screen, and all the motions he made could be readily followed. These images were not outlines or shadowgraphs but real images by diffusely reflected rays. The application of these rays to television enables us to see what is going on in a room which is apparently in complete darkness. So far as I know, this achievement has never been done before. ‘We had the impression that the image on the screen was not quite so clearly defined as when visible rays were used, but we easily recognised the figures we saw, and made out their actions. The direct application of Mr Baird’s invention in warfare to locating objects apparently in the dark seems highly probable, but I hope that useful peaceful applications will soon be found for it.’

For normal television the use of infra-red radiation had certain disadvantages. First, it was generally inconvenient for the subject to sit in total darkness, and secondly, with the early type of photoelectric cells the correct colour tones were difficult to render; red appeared as white while blue did not appear at all. The effect, therefore, was to give a rather ghostly appearance to the image of the person being transmitted. An added difficulty, aptly put by Sir Oliver Lodge, who attended the December demonstration with his daughter, was that it was very hot. Hence, although when noctovision was demonstrated at the British Association meeting in Leeds in 1927 it proved such a popular scientific exhibit that the police had to be called in to regulate the queues, it really represented no advance for television. Seeing in the dark, however, did seem to have one unusual, and amusing, effect. One day at the small residential hotel where Baird was staying he was approached by a young female resident and asked whether he had an apparatus that could see through brick walls and in darkness. On replying in the affirmative the young lady said: ‘That explains the queer tickling sensation I had last night.’5 The possession of such apparatus would need to be carefully controlled, according to an editorial6 in the Daily Mail. ‘It would, for example, never do for nervous maiden ladies to realize that they could no longer rely on being able to go to bed in the dark.’ Among the visitors to Long Acre who were ‘noctovised’ were the Prime

Noctovision and phonovision

113

Minister (Mr Ramsey McDonald) and Lord Parmoor. At first the Prime Minister was sceptical of Baird’s ability to televise a person who was in total darkness, so Lord Parmoor sat as a subject. ‘I see you again’, said Mr McDonald, ‘are you really in the dark?’ ‘Absolutely black!’ said Lord Parmoor, over the phone. ‘I am moving my hand in front of my face and I can’t see it.’ ‘I can’, said the Prime Minister, and he needed no further proof of the apparatus’s application. The ideas contained in the preceding invention formed the basis of Baird’s patent 288 882, dated 15th August 19277. This was formed from three provisional patents, the first of which was applied for on 26th January 1927. Taken together, the patents show that Baird was still using a light interrupter, in conjunction with a Nipkow disc, and glow discharge lamp. Some of the diagrams contained in the complete specification do not show the interrupter, but in the text Baird stressed the need for its continued use: ‘It is important that the radiation should be interrupted, as the intermittent impulses thereof which impinge on the sensitive receiving device are most readily controllable and rendered operative, by amplification, in that arrangement.’ One of the more significant concepts mentioned in the patent was the use of a single Nipkow disc for both transmission and reception purposes. Baird had in mind the utilisation of the device for the location of ships in fog, as well as its use in warfare. In this case the object would be illuminated by natural light, or a searchlight rich in infra-red emission, and the object would be viewed by means of a glow discharge tube positioned at the receiving device. The equipment could be made mobile and mounted on a stand, allowing both azimuthal and elevating motions. Hutchinson thought the scope of the new apparatus in war-time was difficult to estimate8. Any troops and attacking aircraft approaching under cover of darkness would be exposed by searchlights radiating invisible rays. Then, when they were within range they would find themselves overwhelmed by gunfire— even on the darkest night. Actually the use of infra-red methods of detecting objects at night had been investigated in 1918. The earliest known example of the detection of aircraft by infra-red apparatus dates from that year when Hoffman9, of the US Signal Corps, undertook some experimental work in this field. Trench warfare on the Western Front in the First World War necessitated the frequent use of night patrols. Early in 1918 Hoffman began work on the problem of detecting, in the dark, men and other objects that were at a higher temperature than their background. He found that men could be easily detected at 180 m, with apparatus comprising a Hilger thermopile, mounted at the focus of a 36 cm silvered parabolic mirror, and a D’Arsonval galvanometer. Other tests showed that aircraft could be detected on clear nights, at ranges ‘well over 1.6km’. Hoffman observed that, as long as clouds did not drift across the field of view, the galvanometer reading was admirably steady, but the ‘slightest whiff of cloud gave a warm indication as large as a plane would give’. The Admiralty10, during an extensive programme of investigations of infra-red science and technology undertaken in the 1920s, confirmed Hoffman’s

114

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

conclusions. Its researches in this and other fields date from around 1920/21 and included: methods of secret signalling using infra-red and ultra-violet radiations; investigations of the transparency of mists and fogs for various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation; the use of a fog-piercing searchlight to give improved visibility at sea; the detection of icebergs and wrecks by acoustic methods; the detection of, and means of recording, invisible radiations from vessels; the development of transmitters rich in either infra-red or ultra-violet radiation; the measurement of the absorption coefficients of infra-red and ultraviolet screens and filters; the development of receivers for detecting invisible radiations; and the investigation of means (including infra-red photography) for giving direct visual indications of invisible rays. The Admiralty’s programme of R&D was certainly comprehensive and was undertaken partly at HM Signal School, Portsmouth; partly at the Admiralty Research Establishment, Teddington; and partly at its South Kensington laboratory. The programme was urgent and aspects of it were rated as being of Priority 1. Apart from the experimental investigation of secret signalling, the Admiralty’s objective was to develop methods and means of improving visibility at sea during misty or foggy conditions so as to prevent marine disasters of the type which befell the SS Titanic in 1912. Later, from about 1924, the applicability of these methods and means to the evolution of a pilotless, homing missile code named ‘Hornet’ for the defence of HM ships against hostile enemy aircraft was given much consideration. By 1924 the ship-borne defences which could be brought to bear, at sea, against enemy aircraft comprised anti-aircraft guns, catapult-launched aircraft, smoke screens (to obscure the aims of the enemy machines) and fixed obstructions such as moored balloons and nets. The effectiveness of these defences was contingent on, to a large extent, the time interval between the first warning of an attack and the near approach of the hostile aircraft. In 1924 the only means of detecting, at a distance, and determining the course of an invisible aircraft, were acoustic in nature, but sound mirrors were too large to be accommodated onboard ships. Consequently, in 1924, there was no satisfactory method of obtaining onboard ship an adequate warning period, and defending gunners were absolutely dependent on visual sighting and following. In the USA, trials conducted from 1921 to 1924, using some ex-German First World War naval ships and some old American battleships, showed that the largest capital ships could be attacked from the air and rapidly sunk. This vulnerability was highlighted on many occasions in the Second World War—for example, at Pearl Harbour, at Cape Matapan, and during the great Pacific US– Japanese naval engagements. However, until the beginning of 1924, no antiaircraft research was in progress in the UK, by either the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force, except that which was directed on known lines towards the perfection of gunnery methods (such as sights and predictors) and work on the acoustic detection and location system. These considerations appeared to the Director of Scientific Research,

Noctovision and phonovision

115

Admiralty, to be so weighty that, in 1924, he submitted a memorandum to the Controller, Royal Navy, and requested that authority should be given for the initiation of research work on novel methods of defeating aircraft attacks on ships. The DSR’s ideas were approved and arrangements were made to accommodate some Admiralty scientists at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough. An underlying notion in all the proposals was the use of small, cheap, fast and quick-manoeuvring aeroplanes laden, if necessary, with explosives, or gas, or smoke-producing mixture, which could be sent up from a ship and steered by radio control towards an enemy bomber or torpedo plane. A second underlying idea was that the radio control should be removed when the small aeroplane was near enough to be able to steer itself automatically towards an enemy, by virtue of the effects due to one or more forms of energy emitted by an enemy machine, or by some form of ‘reaction’ method which was independent of any characteristic of the enemy aircraft. A third point was ‘to increase our knowledge of the manner in which energy is developed and transferred during the flight of the machine, and the forms which this energy takes. Complete information on these factors will point the way to successful detecting instruments which will not necessarily be based on the reception of sounds, as at present.’ The requirements for the apparatus were that it had to be directional, quickacting and independent of the operation of the enemy aeroplane. It was also desirable that the control signals should be detectable at as large a distance as possible (not less than 60 m) and should increase in strength as the distance decreased. The methods which were investigated by the Admiralty included the detection of the CO2 content of the exhaust gases, the temperature of the exhaust gases, the air eddies in the wake of an aeroplane, the ionisation in the exhaust gases, the electrical inter-capacitance between two aircraft in flight, the acoustic radiation from an aeroplane, changes in the visible radiation from the sky due to a moving target, the infra-red radiation emitted by an aircraft and the infra-red radiation from a ground source reflected by an aeroplane. Of these methods, only those based on the measurement of infra-red radiation showed any promise. Following one series of night trials using a 0.91 m mirror, a Moll thermopile and a Paschen galvanometer mounted at distances of up to 2.0 km from a tethered aircraft, the Admiralty noted: ‘Definite deflections were obtained but disturbances (probably due to cold and gusty winds blowing over the thermopile) were frequent and of the same order of magnitude as the aeroplane effect . . . Under the conditions of the experiment it would not have been possible to detect the aeroplane without some previous knowledge of its approximate position.’ On the active method, a report dated 7th February 1927 noted: ‘Preliminary experiments with invisible radiation of wavelengths near 1μm and using thalofide cells show that the intermittent radiation is very readily detected . . .

116

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

ranges of several miles are easily obtained.’ These ranges seem to have been achieved over a direct searchlight–receiver link rather than over a searchlight– aeroplane–receiver path. An appraisal of the ‘Hornet’ project was undertaken in 1927 and, as a result of the deliberations of the Controller, Royal Navy, and the Committee for Imperial Defence, work on the project was stopped sometime during the latter half of 1927. Essentially, the concept of a guided, homing, pilot-less aircraft was in advance of the technology demanded for its implementation. Electronics had not progressed to the stage where very small direct thermoelectric or photoelectric currents could be amplified to a level which would enable them to control relays and the like. Moreover, the thallium sulphide cells used had a frequency response which was not ideally suited for the detection of the infra-red radiation from an aeroplane’s engine or exhaust. Nevertheless, experimental work on fog penetration by infra-red radiation continued to be undertaken by the Admiralty: it was a subject of considerable importance to safety at sea as well as signalling at sea during poor visibility. However, in 1934 a decision was taken to discontinue this effort because ‘the sensitivity of existing detectors was not great enough to give a range of sufficient use for aircraft.’ Contemporaneously with the Admiralty’s endeavours, the National Physical Laboratory, early in 1932, was asked by the Director of Scientific Research (Air Ministry) to investigate the problem of fog penetration by infra-red radiation. J S Anderson carried out the work. His experiments on the quenching of phosphorescence by infra-red radiation led to a ‘somewhat feeble effect at a distance of 50 yards. The conclusion reached was that, although the effect might be utilised over quite short ranges, it would not be of any use for the main purpose of the investigation, namely, the detection of sources over much longer ranges.’ Anderson also tried using a modulated source of radiation and focusing the beam on to a photoelectric cell. It was hoped that by amplifying the alternating voltage generated in the cell a signal could be detected at a considerably longer range than 50 yards. Various cells were examined. ‘It was found that in the presence of fairly dense fog no signals could be obtained, indicating that the fog did not transmit over the range [670 yards] as much as 1/10 000 of the radiation in the region of wavelengths for which the caesium cell is sensitive.’ Further investigations on infra-red detection were carried out by Dr R V Jones11, of the University of Oxford, from 1935 to 1938. He evolved an airborne infra-red receiver and achieved a ground-to-air detection range of about 3.2 km. However, because of the increased noise level from microphonic disturbances, the in-flight range was under 800 m on single-engined aircraft; a Vickers Vincent (with a 635 hp engine) could be observed broadside-on at 500 m. The disadvantages of Jones’s equipment were an inability to work through cloud and its lack of provision of range information. In 1937 R V Jones and J S Anderson at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough showed12: first, that the exhaust gases from an aircraft engine do not produce sufficient infra-red radiation for detection purposes except within a

Noctovision and phonovision

117

few centimetres of the exhaust manifold; secondly, that only the infra-red radiation from the exhaust manifold can be detected at a distance; and thirdly, that a screened exhaust manifold negated the observation of this radiation. These important results led to a cessation of work in the UK on infra-red methods of aircraft detection. The Admiralty’s, the Air Ministry’s and the National Physical Laboratory’s conclusions on the difficulty of detecting infra-red radiation at a distance are consistent. They may be compared with the statement made in one book on Baird that he ‘of course, had been using his noctovisors to detect aeroplanes above London from 1927 onwards . . .’. None of the Admiralty’s endeavours could have been known to Baird. On 23rd April 1927 Hutchinson wrote to the Admiralty and offered to give unconditionally a demonstration of ‘seeing in darkness and through fog’. The test was to have been held on 4th May, and was to have been viewed by eight representatives from the Admiralty, Air Ministry, and War Office. For unknown reasons it was postponed. Baird13 certainly thought his noctovisor had great potential, particularly to penetrate fog, and work continued for several years. G B Banks, of Baird’s staff, was the principal investigator and around June 1929 he was asked by Baird to design a navigational aid version of noctovision. Banks was joined by P Hobson, who had left school in 1928 at the age of 17 years, and together they designed the apparatus illustrated in Figure 5.1. An account of a demonstration of noctovision, given in August/September 1929, to representatives of the Admiralty has been given by Hobson14. At this time Baird was living at Swiss Cottage, a house situated at the top of Box Hill, Surrey, which overlooked the town of Dorking about 1.5 miles away. The demonstration was timed for 11.00 p.m. ‘Banks and I followed what had by then become a standard routine. Early in the evening I drove down to the Red Lion Hotel in Dorking (long since demolished) and turned on our “powerful headlamp” mounted on the roof of the porch. As of course we knew the precise bearing, I then put the filter in place, and went back uphill. For the demonstration the plan was to search for, and find the bearing of, the lamp from the scale provided on the instrument. But by about 10 o’clock the first of the autumn mists was beginning to form, and to our consternation we could get no response when on the known bearing. I dashed down hill, and had some difficulty getting back after having removed the filter, as the mist was developing rapidly. The worst had happened; we had a real fog to deal with, and we could not find the light! Banks had the nasty job of telling Mr Baird, and he must have had an even worse one telling his guests.’

Afterwards, in late 1930, Hobson again worked on noctovision with equipment which another member of staff, McEwan, had employed in Portsmouth in an attempt to determine the cause of the failure of the Box Hill demonstration. ‘Using McEwan’s equipment on the roof at Long Acre, and after several abortive efforts to chase evening mists down the Chelsea embankment in the company’s bull-nosed Morris driven by Wally Foulkes, I came to the conclusion that I needed a controllable fog in the laboratory, and designed a “fog machine”.

118

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 5.1

J L Baird with his ‘noctovisor’

Source: London News Agency Photos Ltd

‘Steam from a suitable boiler was forced through an old car radiator with a big fan behind it to produce a fog at about room temperature. The fog then travelled down a long wooden “tube” and was dispersed at the far end with a hair dryer working in reverse. The tube was closed by glass at each end, with a light source at the front end and a lens and photo-cell at the other. An adapted form of Wheatstone bridge was used to balance out the ambient temperature so that changes in the photo-cell output due to light penetration could be measured. One of my reports states that “the apparatus is sufficiently sensitive to detect the radiation from a lighted cigarette at a distance of 16 feet”.’

Hobson’s final report, dated 21st January 1931, concluded that noctovision as ‘a navigational aid would not work unless very expensive quartz glass lenses were used, and until photo-cells became available which were much more sensitive to the infra-red wavelengths which did penetrate fog’. It seems that the last major demonstration of noctovision was given to Sir Ambrose Fleming on 26th February 1931.

Noctovision and phonovision

119

Noctovision apparatus could be utilised either passively or actively. Baird seems to have had in mind three applications, namely: 1. 2. 3.

to display an image of an extended scene illuminated by unfocused infra-red radiation, as in television; to determine the direction (in bearing and elevation), of a point source of infra-red radiation; and to detect a suitable object illuminated by focused infra-red radiation, and to determine the object’s position in bearing and elevation.

In these applications Baird used unmodulated infra-red rays: there is no evidence that he modulated by any means the source of the infra-red radiation. Consequently he could not determine the distance of an object from the infrared transmitter. This is an important point since it has been argued—quite strongly and extensively—that Baird’s noctovisor was a type of radar and that ipso facto Baird was a radar pioneer. The argument is false. Radar is an acronym for RAdio Detection And Ranging. Distance measurement of a target/object is a characteristic of all radars with the exception of Doppler radars, which measure a target’s radial velocity towards a transmitter. It is impractical to determine the distance (d) of a target from a radiator when continuous electromagnetic waves (of wavelength λ) are employed (excluding the trivial case where d < λ). For unambiguous target/object range measurement the transmitted radiation must be modulated, for example pulse modulated or frequency modulated. If a continuous wave source were used, distance measurement would be ambiguous and in error by nλ, where n is, in practical cases, an exceedingly large and unknown integer15. Radar is not the same as television. The former technology (excluding Doppler radar) gives the position coordinates (in three dimensions) of an object; the latter technology displays in two dimensions a three-dimensional scene. Stereoscopic television can give an illusion of depth in a scene but it does not provide information about the distances from a datum of the objects which constitute the scene. Target-range measurement would be possible if two noctovisor receivers, separated by an appropriate distance apart, simultaneously detected the infra-red emission given off from the target. Then, from the two measured bearings of the target and the known base-length, the range could be determined by trigonometry. This was the method employed, between the two World Wars, when sound mirrors and detectors were the only means of providing early warning of hostile aircraft. An alternative approach to the use of infra-red radiation to shield a subject from the intense light of the floodlights employed in a television was the use of the ‘spotlight’ method, which Baird patented in January 192616. Figure 5.2 shows the ‘floodlight’ and ‘spotlight’ systems. In any method, such as that shown at the top of Figure 5.2, which depends upon scanning an image, as formed by a lens, of the object, the efficiency of the system is ultimately limited, for any given size of the image that can be scanned,

120

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 5.2

Diagrams showing the principles of floodlight and spotlight scanning

Source: R. W. Burns, ‘British television, the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1986)

by the ratio of the aperture to the focal length of the lens. Experiments showed that with the best lens then available to form a one-inch-square image, it would be necessary to illuminate the subject with a 16 000 candle power arc at a distance of about four feet in order to secure an image bright enough for the photoelectric cell to give an output current above the noise level of the amplifier17.

Noctovision and phonovision

121

Baird reversed this process as follows: ‘At the transmitter the scene or object to be transmitted is traversed by a spot of light, a light sensitive cell being so placed that light reflected back from the spot of light traversing the object falls on the cell.’ 18 This method of scanning permitted two very large gains to be made in the amount of light flux available for producing the photoelectric current. First, the transient nature of the light allowed a very intense illumination to be used without inconvenience to the subject, and secondly, the optical efficiency of the system was not limited by the apertures of the available lenses but could be increased by using large photoelectric cells or more than one cell all connected in parallel. Baird applied for provisional patent protection for this very important principle on 20th January 1926 and submitted a complete specification for patent 269 658 on 18th November 1926. His patent was accepted on 20th April 1927. These dates are of some interest, for on 16th April 1927, Electrical Research Products Inc. applied for patent protection for the same principle in the United States of America and made an application for a similar patent, 288 238 in the United Kingdom, on 18th January 1928 (accepted 18th April 1929). Baird’s application was thus made before that of the American company, but notwithstanding the similarity of the first two claims of Baird’s patent with the first claim of the ERP patent, the latter was not invalidated by the Comptroller General of the Patent Office. The relevant claims are as follows: Baird 1. ‘In a television or like system using a high intensity of illumination of the object whereof an image is to be transmitted, the method of illuminating the object with an intensity so high that if the illumination were continuous on any one part the object would be damaged (i.e. burned), which method consists in traversing over the object a spot of light of the desired high intensity.’ 2. ‘In a television or like system the combination with means for illuminating the objects set forth in claim 1, of a light-sensitive cell so placed that light reflected back from the spot of light traversing the object falls on the cell.’ ERP 1. ‘A television or like system in which the object, or subject is scanned by means of a beam of intense light which is moved rapidly so as to cause a cyclical point by point illumination of the object—the light reflected from the object being received directly on a photo-electric cell or cells of wide aperture, there being no obstruction between the cell and the object or subject.’

Apart from the inherent value of the ‘spotlight’ principle, the idea is important as it probably stemmed from the practice which obtained in the field of picture telegraphy: therefore it represents another application of the techniques of this branch of electric telegraphy to television. Several proposals had previously been made by inventors for scanning a transparency by a spot of light so that the transmitted light influenced a photosensitive cell. Korn19 had put forward this method for phototelegraphy purposes in 1904 and in 1923 the

122

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company included in its patent no. 225 55320 an arrangement whereby a spot of light produced on the screen of a cathode ray tube by fluorescence was used to scan a moving film and thus cause a varying signal to be produced by a photocell placed behind the film. Actually, although both Baird and ERP were probably inspired to put forward their ‘spotlight’ patents by events which had taken place in picture telegraphy, the original claim for the principle was made by Ekstrom in a Swedish patent no. 32 220 dated 24th January 1910. Neither Baird nor ERP made reference to this little known (in 1926–27) patent, and it is unlikely that they knew of its existence. One of the difficulties associated with spotlight scanning lay in the random reflection and scattering which occurred from an opaque object. Both Baird and ERP referred to the solution to this problem in their patents, namely, the use of several light cells. This solution was necessary so that as much of the reflected and scattered light as possible could be utilised. For their 1927 demonstration of television, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company used photosensitive cells 15 inches long by 3 inches in diameter—then the largest in the world. Even so, very special precautions had to be taken to ensure a satisfactory output from the cells21. The spotlight system was used for the next ten years and was an essential feature of the Baird installation at Alexandra Palace in 1936–37. Another invention of 1926 was the phonovisor, an apparatus for recording television signals. Baird has written22: ‘In testing out the amplifiers I used to use headphones and listened to the noise the vision signal made. I became very expert in this and could even tell roughly what was being televised by the sound it made. I knew, for example, whether it was the dummy’s head or a human face. I could tell when the person moved. I could distinguish a hand from a pair of scissors or a matchbox, and even when two or three people had widely different appearances I could tell one from the other by the sound of their faces.’

As usual Baird patented his idea (patent 289 104, dated 16th April 1929)23. His provisional patent was taken out on 15th October 1926, less than two months after a Mr R Hall had made an application for a patent24 to protect his ideas. The complete specification of this (280 630 dated 17th November 1927) made reference to the recording of the received fluctuations in current from the transmitter in the form of sound impulses on a gramophone recording machine. Hall gave no details of his idea and his patent was essentially concerned with a novel form of scanning disc, but the closeness of the two dates shows that other people were thinking along similar lines to Baird, although in the case of most patent applications from private persons there seemed to be a lack of perseverance in developing the ideas contained in them. Baird’s recording system made provision for both vision and sound signals to be recorded on a gramophone disc by means of two spiral tracks. The novel aspect of the system concerned the reduction of the two recorded grooves to one: ‘It also lies within the scope of his invention to combine the two records in a

Noctovision and phonovision

Figure 5.3

123

Baird spotlight transmitter as supplied to the BBC in 1936

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

single groove, using the side walls for, say, the sound record and the bottom of the groove for the sight record.’ Baird appears to have had in mind a recording process which combined lateral and hill-and-dale recording techniques. Several patents on phonovision were filed by Baird, but nothing of immediate usefulness came out of them. He later wrote: ‘I had a gramophone record made of the sounds and found that by playing this with an electric pick-up and then feeding the signal back to a television receiver I could reproduce the original scene. A number of such records were made but the quality was so poor that

124

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 5.4

A dummy’s head being used as the subject for producing a phonovision record

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

Figure 5.5

A phonodisc, c. 1928

Source: Mr R M Herbert

Noctovision and phonovision

125

there seemed no hope of competing with the cinematograph. If the cinema had not been invented, phonovisor, as I called the device, might have been worth developing.’

His ideas and patents on magnetic recording also came to nought. During the past 15 years Mr D F McLean25–28 has undertaken much work in restoring, by modern computing and filtering methods, the images recorded on the known phonovision discs. These discs29 are shown in Table 5.1. (Miss Pounsford was not a member of Baird’s permanent staff at the Long Acre laboratories and until 1993 her association with the company was unknown. In 1993 a copy of the 65-year-old recording was shown in a Channel 4 television documentary together with an appeal for information and this produced a response from a lady living in Hartfield, Sussex. She wrote to say that Miss Pounsford was her great aunt Mabel who, in 1928, worked for a secretarial agency, situated close to the Baird studios, and that she often worked at the studios. Subsequently, photographs confirmed the identification.) Some of the discs have a Columbia Graphophone Company Ltd ‘Test record’ label and each disc has a reference number for the recording session and ‘take’ consistent with the company’s practice. Disc SWT515–4 is of some importance. It was the only disc to survive the Second World War bombing of Ben Clapp’s house, and it was also one of the few that Baird used to transmit test signals from Clapp’s house in Coulsdon to New York during the trans-Atlantic television transmissions30. The disc shows a test signal—a simple white bar—and the head of one of Baird’s ventriloquist dummies. The ‘Wally’ discs of January 1928 are the earliest recordings of a human face. They have the word ‘Wally” scratched on the disc surface and the images bear a close resemblance to Wally Foulkes who was one of Baird’s laboratory assistants. McLean’s exhaustive analysis of the available phonovision discs shows that Baird decreased his television frame rate from 12.5 frames per second to about 4 frames per second to give a disc cutter recording speed of 78 to 80 r.p.m. The aspect ratio was 7 : 3, the number of lines per frame was 30, and the Nipkow disc—which had a diameter of c. 1.5 m—was mechanically coupled to the drive Table 5.1 Images recorded on phonovision discs Reference no.

Date

Content discovered after restoration

SWT515–4 RWT620–4

20th Sept. 1927 10th Jan. 1928

RWT620–6

10th Jan. 1928

RWT620–11 RWT115–3

10th Jan. 1928 28th Mar. 1928

operator’s hand and ‘Stookie Bill’ over-modulated recording of ‘Wally’ Foulkes’s head ‘Wally’ Foulkes’s head in motion (marred by amplifier oscillation) ‘Wally’ Foulkes’s head in motion Miss Pounsford—smoking a cigarette

126

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 5.6

‘Mabel Pounsford is pictured on the left many years after her short spell as a temp to Baird. The label on the disc incorrectly says “Woman smoking a cigarette”. The “cigarette” is, in fact, her chin suffering massive timebase distortion. Restoration converts her to a non-smoker (right).’

Source: Mr D F McLean

shaft of the recorder via 3 : 1 gearing. With a 50 cm record disc McLean has determined that the image size would have been 17 mm by 7 mm. The prospect of ‘television by gramophone’ led to a Punch columnist musing on the possible consequences of the new invention31: ‘I can easily imagine a Sunday evening in 1950 in the suburbs of London (near presentday Guilford). There will be none of the usual indecision as to whether to have a little music—“my daughter plays so nicely now”—or whether to show the visitor the family photograph album backed by remarks like: “Yes, that’s Harry at Brighton in July, 1920— or was it August now?” The two alternatives will, by 1950, simply be combined, since the

Noctovision and phonovision

127

family portraits can be played over to the visitor on the gramophone. In which case the accompanying conversation will go like this: “Now Mrs Smith, that noise like a rusty hinge with a bereaved saxophone obligato is Uncle James . . . Here’s another of him . . . you can hear the difference at once. That harsh, dry rattling is his beard; he’s toned it down several octaves now! Silent beards are so much more becoming, don’t you think!” ’

References 1 PERCY, J. D.: ‘The founding of British television’, Journal of the Television Society, 1950, pp. 3–16 2 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 65 3 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Television’ (a letter), Nature, 5th February 1927, 119, pp. 161–2. Also ANON.: ‘Television in dark room’, New York Times, 30th December 1926 4 RUSSELL, A.: ‘Television’ (a letter), Nature, 5th February 1927, 119, pp. 198–9 5 Ref. 2, p. 66 6 NORMAN, B.: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (The BBC and the Royal Television Society, London, 1984), p. 46 7 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Apparatus for providing a visible image of an object which is in darkness’, British patent no. 288 882, 15th October 1926, 26th January 1927, and 10th March 1927 8 ANON.: ‘Searchlight that can’t be seen. Television discovery. Probable effect on future warfare’, Daily Mail, 16th December 1926 9 HOFFMAN, S. O.: ‘The detection of invisible objects by heat radiation’, Phys. Rev., 1919, 14, (2), pp. 163–6 10 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Aspects of UK air defence from 1914 to 1935: some unpublished Admiralty contributions’, IEE Proc., November 1989, 136, Pt. A, No. 6, pp. 267–78 11 JONES, R. V.: ‘Infrared detection in British air defence, 1935–1938’, Infrared Physics, 1961, 1, pp. 153–62 12 ANDERSON, J. S., and JONES, R. V.: ‘Infrared radiation from aeroplanes’, 18th November 1935, AIR 20/145, Public Record Office 13 McARTHUR, T., and WADDELL, P.: ‘The secret life of John Logie Baird’ (Hutchinson, London, 1986), p. 222 14 HOBSON, P.: ‘The story of noctovision’, British Vintage Wireless Society Bulletin, December 1988, 13, (3), pp. 2–34 15 SKOLNIK, M. I.: ‘Introduction to radar systems’ (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962), p. 72 16 BAIRD, J. L. and Television Ltd: ‘Apparatus for the transmission of views, scenes or images to a distance’, British patent no. 269 658, 20th January 1926 17 GRAY, F.: ‘The use of a moving beam of light to scan a scene for television’, JOSA, March 1928, 16, pp. 177–90 18 Ref. 16 19 KORN, A.: ‘Uber Gebe und Empfangsapparate zur elektrischen Fernubertragung von Photographien’, Physikalische Zeitschrift, 1904, 5, (4), pp. 113–8

128

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

20 GARDINER, J. E., and HINELINE, H. D.: ‘Improvements in and relating to television systems’, British patent no. 225 553, 25th November 1924 21 GRAY, F.: ‘Production of television signals’, Bell Syst. Tech. J., October 1927, 6, pp. 560–603 22 Ref. 2, p. 63 23 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in or relating to the recording of views of objects or scenes, or optical images or the like’, British patent no. 289 104, application date 15th October 1926 24 HALL, R.: ‘Transmitting and receiving apparatus for a television system’, British patent no. 280 630, application date 17th August 1926 25 MCLEAN, D. F.: ‘Dawn of television’, Electronic World, September 1998, pp. 745–9 26 MCLEAN, D. F.: ‘Restoring Baird’s image’, Electronic World, October 1998, pp. 823–9 27 MCLEAN, D. F.: ‘First frames’, Electronic World, November 1998, pp. 943–6 28 MCLEAN, D. F.: ‘Looking in . . .’, Electronic World, December 1998, p. 1031 29 Ref. 27 30 Ibid. 31 Quoted in Ref. 6, p. 46

Chapter 6

Company formation and long-distance television

Baird desperately needed money and facilities to develop television. ‘Luckily for him’, Moseley wrote1, ‘television was born at a time when company promoting was running rather wild. Speculators, greedy for fat profits and quick returns, were ready to gamble on very slim chances.’ One speculator who was persuaded to take an interest in television was Colonel Ian Anderson, then a partner in the firm of Vowler and Company. He has told how he first met Baird:2 ‘I originally met Mr Baird about the beginning of 1927 on the introduction of Captain O G Hutchinson. Hutchinson told me about Mr Baird’s ideas and asked if I would go and see his small laboratory on the top floor of the building in Long Acre [actually Motograph House in Upper St Martins Lane]. Hutchinson told me that he had known Mr Baird and/or his family in Glasgow and that he had met him walking in the Strand and asked him where he was going; he said he was walking home to some address, which I forget, in the East End of London. Hutchinson asked him why he did not take a bus and he said he had no money and could not take buses. Hutchinson asked him what he was doing and he said he was working on television. Hutchinson decided to finance him in a very small way, as he could afford nothing more, and had taken the little laboratory for him in Long Acre and helped him to get some very primitive equipment. ‘I went to Long Acre with one of my partners and met Mr Baird, who gave us a demonstration of television, using both electric light and infra-red; he televised me on a screen in another room connected by wire where my partner could watch, and then he televised my partner so that I could see him. The whole of his equipment was a most Heath Robinson affair, tied together with bits of string, bits of wire, old bicycle lamps, etc. I was tremendously impressed with what I saw and felt certain there were enormous possibilities in the invention. ‘There and then, having heard from Hutchinson that the amount required to buy some reasonable equipment would be £50,000, I decided to raise £100,000 provided he (Hutchinson) could raise one-third of the sum, i.e. about £33,000. Hutchinson went up to Glasgow to see various friends of his and within a week came back with promises to put up £33,000. [In addition Baird wrote to his cousins, the Inglises, and again enlisted their support. This proved a vital turning point in the enterprise. By return of post they agreed

130

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

to take up £5000.] On 27th April 1927 we made the issue, which raised for the Company approximately £100,000.’

Sir Edward Manville was the first Chairman of the Company. He was Chairman of the Daimler Company, was Vice-President of the CBI, and had directorships with about 20 other companies including BSA (Birmingham Small Arms). The other directors were Sir James Percy, ‘a tower of strength, good sense and good spirits’ and an old friend of Hutchinson’s, Francis A Shortis, a VicePresident of the Guaranty Trust of New York, J L Baird and O G Hutchinson3. Baird and Hutchinson were Joint Managing Directors, with identical salaries and contracts—five years at £1500 per annum. The other Directors’ remuneration was fixed at £300 per year after the deduction of tax. The object of the new company, Baird Television Development Company, was essentially ‘to develop commercially the Baird television and other inventions’ and to achieve this the company acquired from Television Limited the sole right to exploit the inventions in the United Kingdom and a 66.66 per cent interest in the net proceeds arising from and payable to Television Ltd in respect of the sale and exploitation of the foreign and colonial rights. The purchase price was £20 000 and this was paid and satisfied by the allotment to Television Ltd of 300 000 fully paid up deferred ordinary shares of one shilling each. A nominal capitalisation of £125 000 was set for the size of the company divided into: 100 000 preferred participating ordinary shares of £1 each 500 000 deferred ordinary shares of 1 shilling each

£100 000 £25 000

Each of the two classes of shares carried the same voting rights, and as 300 000 of the deferred ordinary shares had to be allotted to Television Ltd, the latter company had an important stake in the new enterprise. Provided this company retained its holding in the newly formed company, Television Ltd had the right to appoint half of the directors of Baird Television Development Company, one of whom if so required could be the Chairman of the Board of Directors. When the shares of the new company became available for purchase, there was no shortage of buyers: Hutchinson had certainly succeeded in acquainting the general public of the accomplishments of Baird. (By around 1929 the cash held at the bank was about £40 000.) Several possibilities existed by which the new company could profit from Baird’s inventions: (1) from the sale of apparatus constructed by the company or its licensees; (2) from an annual licence fee charged to users of the apparatus; (3) from the two-thirds net proceeds arising from the sale and exploitation of the foreign and colonial rights in the Baird inventions; (4) from the manufacture and sale of parts; (5) from fees paid for the transmission of images, photographs, scenes and so on by private and commercial users; (6) from fees paid by theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainment for special or exclusive transmission of scenes, films and so on; and (7) from fees paid for exclusive and other government work. On the day following the new issue, the national newspapers reported on the

Long-distance television

131

successful television transmission, from Washington to New York, by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (see Chapter 11). Baird’s monopoly was broken and Vowlers felt they had been cheated. However, Baird convinced them that he was quite unaware that his monopoly in television would end so soon; he himself was taken aback, but the development was only to be expected. He wrote:4 ‘Our demonstrations and the whole system, with drawings and details of our apparatus, had been given the widest publicity. Every big electrical concern had been aroused and their experts put to work. It was surprising that we had so long a run as 14 months.’

The statutory meeting of the Baird Television Development Company was held on 18th July 1927 with Sir Edward Manville in the chair, the Secretary being Mr T W Bartlett5. The Chairman announced that it was the Board’s intention to implement the following initial programme: 1. 2.

3.

to acquire more extensive premises in a suitable locality; to have manufactured for them certain component parts required for new and improved television apparatus and experiments in connection therewith; and pending the acquisition of new premises and the construction of new apparatus, to endeavour by means of telephone lines to demonstrate television over a much longer distance than had heretofore been possible.

At the meeting, Manville commented on both the American Telephone and Telegraph Company’s demonstration and that of Baird. He referred to the former as a crude form of television and noted the number of Baird features which it contained and the patent position concerning some of Baird’s patents— including the spotlight scanner and the large-screen. On the latter he said: ‘This, however, was also patented by Mr Baird in July 1923, nearly four years ago, and is protected by patents the property of this Company, though not in the United States, but we have no intention of using this system since it is, in our opinion, far too complicated a device and our present system for effecting the same results is, we believe, greatly superior.’

Notwithstanding this comment, Baird was to use the ideas contained in the 1923 patent for a demonstration of large-screen-television at the London Coliseum on the 28th July 1930. Baird did not enjoy the Board meetings of the new company—they were long palavers to be slept through. He had no patience with the reading of minutes and the propositions common in business. In the boardroom Sir Edward Manville sat at the head of the Board and Baird, as befitted his position as the Founder and a Managing Director of the new company, sat facing Manville at the other end of the table. Manville’s ‘booming voice’ and his appearance, like ‘a florid sunset seen through a cloud of cigar smoke’, made a lasting impression on Baird6. ‘What abject nonsense was talked around that table! Sometimes in the early days I raised

132

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

a feeble squeak of protest, but an angry booming and clouds of cigar smoke from the chair soon put me in my place. ‘The meetings had the solemn dignity of a religious observance. The chairman commenced the service by asking the Secretary to read the minutes of the last meeting, and when this long rigmarole had been read through, after a brief but solemn pause, he put the question to the meeting, “Gentlemen, is it your pleasure that I sign these minutes?” All hands were raised in assent. Tommy Bartlett, the Secretary, then read the first item on the agenda. He was well primed beforehand with what course we wished the Chairman to pursue, and being a past master at guiding chairmen, usually got the meeting through with decisions more or less in line with what Hutchinson and I had previously agreed upon. ‘I was busy with my wheels and pulleys and soon I came to regard board meetings as analogous to going to Church, functions to be slept through. Sometimes I woke up with a start at some of the antics at these meetings and thought “God help the shareholders of public companies”. However, after a few squeaks, I relapsed again into dreams of further permutations and combinations of wire and mirror drums and lamps.’

Life in the new laboratories was hectic: no sooner was one of Baird’s ideas past the experimental stage than he was on to the next, leaving the staff to perfect earlier ideas as best they could. Hours and holidays meant nothing to Baird and time was always too short for the implementation of the many thoughts which occurred to him. Baird was the kingpin of the organisation and after the formation of the public company the directors were much worried about this: if anything happened to Baird, who did not enjoy good health, the company would collapse. The solution was to insure Baird for the sum of £150 000 for one year at a premium of £2000. As he put it: ‘[My] technical staff consisted of half-a-dozen or so new men who had not yet attained a mastery over the many weird contrivances which I then used. There were no television engineers in those days, and to the wireless experts much of my apparatus contained features completely strange . . . So it was decided to insure me for £150 000. I was extremely unwilling and nervous about this, I remembered my [wartime] card, “Unfit for service”. Suppose the insurance company turned me down—the Directors might refuse to carry on. However the Chairman insisted, he was very good at insisting; “I am adamant on this point” was his pet phrase. Two doctors prodded me about, they whispered together, did more prodding and listening, whispered again, obviously they did not like the proposition, also obviously they were reluctant to turn down such a magnificent piece of business . . . Finally, the insurance company decided to take the risk for twelve months at a whacking premium, £2,000 I think it was and the situation was saved.’7

Soon after the formation of the company, and the disheartening effect of AT&T’s impressive demonstrations, Baird endeavoured to re-stimulate interest in his system by attempting to emulate the success of the American company, albeit in a rudimentary way and on a smaller scale. On 24th and 26 May 1927 he transmitted television signals, by telephone line, between London and Glasgow8. Not for Baird the several hundred engineers and technicians used in the AT&T tests: he used two operators, one at the transmitting end and one at the receiving end of the link. His apparatus was placed in the sitting room of the Central Station Hotel,

Long-distance television

133

Glasgow and was seen by leading scientists and public figures of Glasgow. Professor E Taylor Jones, who held the Chair of Physics at Glasgow University and who was received by Hutchinson, described the demonstration in an article 9 published in Nature: ‘The receiving apparatus was set up in a semi-darkened room, the lamp and shutter being enclosed in a case provided with an aperture. The observer looking into the aperture saw at first a vertical band of light in which the luminosity appeared to travel rapidly sideways, disappearing at one side and then re-appearing at the other. When any object having contrast was placed in the light at the sending end, the band broke up into light and dark portions forming a number of images of the object. The impression of sideways movement of the light was then almost entirely lost, and the whole of the image appeared to be formed simultaneously. The image was perfectly steady in position, was remarkably free from distortion and showed no sign of the streakiness which was, I believe, in evidence in earlier experiments. ‘The size of the image was small, not more than about 2 inches across when the object was a person’s face, and it could be seen by only a few people at a time. The image was sufficiently bright to be seen vividly even when the electric light in the room was switched on, and I understand that there is no difficulty in enlarging the image to full size. I was told that arrangements will soon be made for transmitting larger objects, and for increasing the number of appearances of the image per second. ‘The amount of light and shade shown in the image was amply sufficient to secure recognisability of the person being televised, and movements of the face or features were clearly seen. At the second demonstration some of those present had the experience of seeing the image of Mr Baird transmitted from London while conversing with him (over a separate line) by telephone. ‘My impression after witnessing the demonstrations is that the chief difficulties connected with television have been overcome by Mr Baird and that the improvements still to be effected are mainly matters of detail. We shall doubtless all join in wishing Mr Baird every success in his future experiments.’

Possibly, sentimental considerations dictated Baird’s choice of Glasgow as the setting for the greatest trial to which his apparatus had been subjected. He was hailed by the Glasgow Herald as a brilliant young inventor and accorded a long report on his work.10 Shortly afterwards Baird was invited to give a public address, on television, in St Andrew’s Hall—the largest hall in Glasgow. The occasion was a triumph for the local native from Helensburgh. Many civic dignitaries graced the event and the chair was taken by the Duke of Montrose. On the platform Baird’s father, his sister and his cousins, the Inglises, sat with the Lord Provost and other notables. The Duke introduced Baird and ‘did it wholeheartedly’. He was a keen amateur wireless enthusiast and had followed the progress of television. ‘Scotland’, he began, ‘has introduced many great pioneers. We have given the world James Watt, the inventor of the steam engine, Henry Bell, the pioneer of the steamboat, and tonight we have with us John Logie Baird from the same town as Henry Bell, and the inventor of the great marvel of the age—television. Mr Baird was the first man to see by television. This marvellous feat is what he is going to tell us about . . .’11

134

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Baird had the faithful Denton to assist him with the setting-up of some simple experiments to demonstrate the properties of light-sensitive cells and ‘similar phenomena’. He told his audience about selenium, photoelectricity, scanning and synchronism, all illustrated by lantern slides, with ‘abstruse diagrams’, but it was a completely unsuitable lecture in Baird’s opinion. The audience was ‘dazed but dauntlessly enthusiastic’. ‘It was, I learned later, absolutely incomprehensible gibberish to the bulk of the audience, however, I was happily unaware of this at the time.’ Nevertheless the lecture was ‘immensely gratifying, even Papa was impressed’. ‘The lecture finished, a vote of thanks was proposed by the Lord Provost and received with prolonged applause. Friends and admirers and press representatives thronged on to the platform, and the occasion came to an end in a blaze of glory.’

Another lecture on television was given by Baird at the 1927 British Association meeting held in Leeds12. During the vote of thanks W G W Mitchell, a member of the BA, suggested that a ‘Television Society’ should be formed. This was seconded by Lt. Col. J R Yelf, another BA member, and was supported by the chairman of the meeting, Dr Tierney. At a subsequent informal meeting the 45 signatories to the proposal became the founder members of the Television Society of Great Britain, set up ‘to form a common meeting ground for the assistance of the amateur’s need, for lectures, and for professional research workers and others interested in the progress of television’. Denton and W G Mitchell wanted Baird to be President, but he felt it would be more appropriate if an independent person of high standing in public life could be persuaded to accept the position. Lord Haldane of Cloan (the creator of the Territorials and an exponent of idealist philosophy) was invited and he agreed to become the society’s first president. When he died in 1928, Sir Ambrose Fleming, a staunch supporter of Baird, succeeded to the presidency. The elected Vice-Presidents were Professor Magnus Maclean, Alderman W T Patrick, Sir James Percy and Sir John Samuel, and the Council of the Society comprised Professor Cheshire, J J Denton, A Dinsdale, W C Keay, Admiral M Kerr, Professsor Lees, Dr W Martin, W G Mitchell, Professor Magnus Maclean, Sir James Percy, Miss Mary Proctor, J Cameron Rennie, Sir John Samuel, Dr C Tierney and Lt. Col. Yelf. For many years J J Denton and J Keay were the General Secretary and Treasurer respectively. In the UK, Baird was without equal at that time in the television field and naturally wished to be associated with the society. He could not be an ordinary member, given his contributions, so the articles of the society were written to provide that there should be only one Honorary Fellow, Baird. The society had its early headquarters at the Engineers’ Club, Coventry Street, London but later moved to larger premises in Duke Street and then to the home of its secretary in Lisburne Road, Hampstead, London. On the second Wednesday in each month the Society held meetings at University College so that papers could be read and technical discussions initiated. The lectures were rather more technical than popular and the Society published some of these in

Long-distance television

Figure 6.1

135

J. L. Baird (third from the left) standing with Professor Magnus McLean, Sir John Samual and another person (unknown)

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

its quarterly journal. Special features of the society’s annual programme were its exhibition and the first lecture of each session, which dealt with the progress of television in Germany.13 On 29th December 1927 Dr Tierney wrote to BTDC and requested that the company’s patents should be freely available to amateurs who wished to experiment with television apparatus. ‘I would point out that this course was adopted by the Marconi Company when wireless was in its infancy, and has resulted in every way beneficial.’ BTDC concurred and on 23rd January 1928 Bartlett, the Secretary, in a letter to Tierney said solicitors had been instructed to prepare a draft of the proposed licence for his approval. By 1934 the Television Society had a ‘live membership’ of 350 who paid an annual subscription of £1 per year. Dr Tierney described its membership as comprising independent users—persons ‘who know what they are driving at and what they hope to achieve’. Baird was now (1927–28) a celebrity. Shortly after the creation of the Television Society W C Keay arranged for him to be present as a guest of honour at the Annual Dinner of the Caledonian Club. He was proposed for membership of the Club by Lord Angus Kennedy and became a member early in 1928. Kennedy was one of the Club’s older members and was a great admirer of

136

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Baird’s work. The introduction led to Baird giving a private demonstration of television to the Prince of Wales, later King Edward VIII. A receiver was installed at the Club and a special programme, which featured Gwen Farrar, was transmitted from the Long Acre studio.14 ‘I [Baird] dined together with the other members of the Club at a dinner given to the Prince of Wales. After dinner, in the usual sweat of apprehension, I went up to the reception room. The image was coming through well. The Prince of Wales was ushered in by Lord Inverforth complete with double chins, bay window, pompous affability and a large cigar . . . ‘The gathering, after twenty minutes, departed in an atmosphere of cigars, white waistcoated corporations and a faint aura of old brandy. The cordial boomings and throaty laughter faded down the corridor. “Damn good thing they have gone”, muttered the engineer who was looking after the apparatus, “the b . . . . y motor’s nearly red hot”.’

Baird received numerous invitations of various sorts; they were nearly all turned down. He was thoroughly absorbed in his work, he now had the facilities he required and, following the formation of BTDC, he was able to enjoy a lifestyle which fame and new wealth could provide. Baird has described how his lifestyle changed. ‘I had been accustomed for many years to living on a very frugal diet; breakfast, bread and tea, lunch, milk with a dash, a scone and two pats of butter, and in the evening, dinner, sausages and currant bread and tea, and some days no sausages. Now with money no object and the Ivy, London’s most luxurious restaurant, opposite our office door, I tasted for the first time the joys of luxurious living . . . Fine wines were introduced to a virgin palate, and the superb dishes of rich and strange foods for which the Ivy is noted, to a stomach trained on sausage and mash. I plunged headlong into and wallowed in the joys of good living, all unaware of the terrible dangers that lurk in the apparently harmless pleasures of eating and drinking. ‘Hutchinson and I lunched together; it was the high spot of the day. Commencing with cocktails we went through hors d’oeuvres, rich pea soup, fritto misto, curried chicken and Bombe Gladys Cooper, washed down with copious draughts of Chateau V’quem, followed by coffee and petit-fours washed down with Bisque d’Bouche brandy. Gorged and bloated and belching, we tottered over to Motograph House and awaited afternoon tea. Those were the days!’15

Such rich living could not last. When the cold weather arrived and Baird caught his usual winter chill it was complicated by liver and other disorders and rather alarming symptoms manifested themselves. His nose swelled to ‘twice its normal size and became a vivid crimson’, and he suffered acute catarrh. He consulted a specialist. The specialist’s advice was simple: Baird had to avoid rich food and all wine and return to a more basic regime of eating—the days of dining at the Ivy were over. Gradually on a diet of boiled fish, soda water and toast his nose was restored to its pre-Ivy dining days. The only incubus which disturbed Baird’s blissful state was Sir Edward Manville, an engineer who felt it his duty, as Chairman of BTDC, to determine what Baird was doing and why.

Long-distance television

137

‘So, ever and again, I was interrupted by the intrusion of [Manville’s] portly figure. He boomed [Baird had an attachment for the verb ‘to boom’] at me through a cloud of cigar smoke, [asked] innumerable pointless questions, and, what was worse, he made impossible suggestions, and when I tried to explain that they were impossible his booming became angry and ominous, and he glared indignantly and overbearingly at me over his façade of double chins.’16

In December 1927 BTDC gave up its accommodation in Motograph House and moved to 133 Long Acre, not far from the Covent Garden tube station. The new premises were needed to extend the existing laboratory facilities and allow more powerful and accurate transmitting machinery and apparatus than the original experimental apparatus to be constructed, and so permit the broadcasting of vision signals to a greater distance and with greater fidelity. The move gave Baird an opportunity to terminate Manville’s visits. He had the door to his laboratory made just wide enough to allow himself to enter—he was very slim in those days—but not the overweight figure of his Chairman. ‘The first time he appeared there was a most heart-rending and embarrassing scene—he was an obstinate and determined man—he got through! But he lost several buttons from his waistcoat and dropped his cigar and tramped on it in the process.’ Manville’s visits now became a remembrance of the past. Soon after the London–Glasgow demonstration, Hutchinson endeavoured to establish a subsidiary Baird company in the Argentine, and Mr L Smith was appointed the local agent of BTDC in Buenos Aires. In a letter dated 5th August 1927 to Smith, Hutchinson wrote17: ‘Since our interview on Wednesday last our wireless operator reports having got into wireless telephony communication with a wireless station in Buenos Aires and we may decide to send a televisor out there and give a demonstration of television.’ BTDC’s suggestion was for the formation of a company having a capital of £30 000 divided into 30 000 7.5 per cent non-cumulative preferred ordinary shares of £1 each, and 30 000 deferred shares of 1s. each, the profits thereafter being equally divided and with each class of share having equal voting rights. For the patent rights BTDC would require £10 000 and the right to purchase all the deferred shares. At that time BTDC owned more than 40 patents in the field of television. Hutchinson’s ‘roughly outlined proposition’ was a basis from which Smith could float a local company. On 19th September 1927 Smith visited Commander Lloyd Hirst who was in Buenos Aires to give a Rotary Club lecture on ‘Radiotelephotography’. Hirst immediately sent a telegram to Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Company Ltd in the UK:18 ‘baird television contemplate formation argentine company possible competitors transradio please bring information their relations with us.’

Hirst followed his telegram with a letter in which he said it was ‘most important to Transradio, which [had] a definite programme of the commercial development of radiotelephotography, that a competitor should not come in the market

138

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

and even more important that the Cables—[Cables and Wireless?] or Susini should not compete with Transradio in this respect . . .’ His letter was passed to A Gray, Chief Engineer of the Marconi company, for comment, but his opinion on television had not changed since the time, in 1924, when Baird called on him. ‘I should certainly recommend the Marconi Company to have nothing to do with television for many years to come.’19 It is not known if this view was passed to Smith: unfortunately the files do not contain any further notes or letters on the formation of a BTDC subsidiary company in the Argentine. The episode is of no importance except it highlights the view of a great wireless communications concern to the progress of a new form of radio broadcasting. Baird’s transmission between London and Glasgow did not satisfy his desire for publicity which would be beneficial to his companies and for many months in 1927 he worked with others in secret for a television transmission across the Atlantic ocean. In his autobiography he has described how this came about20. ‘Early in 1927 two men visited our little laboratory in Motograph House, an elderly American gentleman with a pretty young wife, and a stout and amiable young gentleman from London. This young gentleman was a Mr B Clapp, the elderly gentleman was a representative of the Woolworth Company. [Clapp had his own amateur radio business and was experimenting, for Wanamakers, an American company, on long-distance radio propagation between the UK and the USA. It seems that he went to see Baird so that he (Clapp) could answer some questions, posed by Wanamakers, on television. The two visitors’] suggestion was that we should transmit television from London to the Woolworth Company at New York. Mr Clapp was an amateur wireless fan who had an experimental wireless transmitter and had suggested to Woolworth that they should approach us. Nothing came of it at the time, but Clapp himself was an attractive fellow and shortly afterward when he gave up his wireless business, I engaged him as my second assistant. I had by that time two other assistants, the ever-obliging and appreciative Mr Denton, whom I had met at Hastings, and the invaluable Wally.

Baird’s chronology is imprecise; Clapp joined him in November 1926. Clapp recalled21: ‘I [Clapp] had a small room at the back of the place where we built amplifiers on the lines that he [Baird] suggested. “Shall we do this Mr Clapp: shall we do the other: shall we try this Mr Clapp: shall we try the other?” He always called me Mr Clapp. And I’d do it and he would take them into the lab where he had his transmitter/receiving equipment and try them out.’

The facilities for research were minimal. ‘We just had an ordinary wooden bench. There were no mechanical tools, just soldering irons, hand drills, no lathes or anything like that. We just had to do everything ourselves. We had certain people outside who would make things for us but they didn’t know what the things were for, they merely worked to instructions that were given to them.’

The first inkling that some experiments were being conducted for transatlantic television working appeared in April 1927 in several newspaper reports22. The Daily Telegraph carried a column headed ‘Faces across the sea’; its report

Long-distance television

Figure 6.2

139

The antenna used for the transatlantic demonstration of television, at Mr B Clapp’s house

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

described the propagation of television signals via a short-wave station in Coulsdon, Surrey, which were being picked up regularly in New York. The Morning Post in a short paragraph on 22nd April described the station in slightly more detail: ‘A wireless telephone transmitter, capable of delivering an electrical power of one kilowatt to the aerial, which has a vertical wire about 35 feet long, was used.’ The wavelength mentioned was 45 m and the installation took up the whole of a bedroom. According to Baird, the new company, Baird Television Development Company, purchased Clapp’s transmitter and decided ‘to have a shot at transmitting across the Atlantic’. Baird was convinced that it was possible. Clapp has recorded a delightful anecdote about this venture and Baird’s method of working. ‘He came into my lab one day and said to me: “Mr Clapp, can you go to America tomorrow?” And I said, “What for?” And he said: “Well, we’d like to get a picture across the Atlantic.” The idea was that I should go and rig up a receiving station in America, with an amateur possibly, if I knew one, and transmit the picture from a landline from Motograph House to my house in Coulsdon where I had my transmitter and someone would operate that transmitter and I would try and receive it in New York. That was about April 1927.’

140

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 6.3

The amateur radio station, G2KZ, of Mr B Clapp was used for the transmission early in 1928, of television signals across the Atlantic ocean. The photograph was taken in April 1927 at 40 Warwick Road, Coulsdon, Mr Clapp’s house

Source: Mr R M Herbert

News of Baird’s impending tests soon leaked out, for the New York Herald Tribune in a July 1927 edition carried the headline ‘Transatlantic Television Soon Possible’. However, the summer was not an ideal period for long-distance radio propagation and it was decided to wait until the winter months before an actual attempt was made: conditions would then be more favourable for such a transmission. Clapp left for the USA in September 1927 and arrived in New York, with the receiving equipment, on 5th October23. He stayed with a fellow radio amateur, Robert Hart (call sign W2CVJ), in his home in Hartsdale, New York. The equipment, which Clapp built himself, comprised the 30-hole Nipkow disc scanner, the amplifiers, the motor and synchronising means to run the disc, and the neon lamp lens assembly. Meanwhile Clapp’s transmitter (see Note 1) was in the care of Harold Smith (who had been best man at Clapp’s wedding), Len Luger from the Marconi wireless station at Croydon Aerodrome, and Frank Barford. A fourth member of the operating team was Gwen Clapp, an enthusiastic supporter of her husband’s amateur wireless activities, whose duties were to maintain the station’s schedules, organise messages—and provide numerous cups of tea during the long periods of testing and waiting. Later in December she joined her husband in New York and assisted with the final preparations for the demonstration.

Long-distance television

141

Baird and Denton meanwhile spent many nights in Motograph House working on the project, for this was the only time the work could be carried out. The plan was to send, by telephone line, the low frequency television signals generated in Baird’s laboratory to Clapp’s house in Coulsdon where they would modulate the 2 kW, 45 m transmitter. Inevitably problems arose—fading, interference and inadequate signal strength—principally caused by the smallness of the power transmitted and the synchronising means. Tests were conducted three times a week. On 20th September 1927 Baird endeavoured to transmit an image (recorded on a gramophone disc) of Stookie Bill, but this was not successful because of problems associated with the synchronising arrangements. These tests are recorded in the station log book (of 316 pages), which still exists. A unique entry was made on 7th October 1927, at 00.01 GMT, when the operator wrote in telegraphese: ‘R ok. Pse stand bi for TV record’ 24. During these experiments the small company moved from Motograph House to 133 Long Acre. Here BTDC had the whole of the first and second floors and part of the roof: the available area was eight times greater than that in Motograph House. Two impressive masts were erected on the roof of the laboratories, an antenna was installed and the experiments continued. Some success followed; Clapp reported having seen the image of the dummy’s head and Baird decided to hold a press show. By February 1928 Baird felt that he was in a position to announce his experiment. The first attempt was a failure, as Baird has related in his autobiography.25 ‘All was arranged and [the actress] Elissa [Landi’s face] was to be the first face [to be] sent across the Atlantic. She arrived with her agent and we waited to hear from New York that our signals were coming through; we waited and waited, but something had gone wrong. Elissa Landi and I spent the night together; I did what I could to console her with sandwiches and champagne, but it was to her a disappointing night. However, it enabled me to tell my friends that I had spent the night with Elissa Landi and create a momentary sensation, until the circumstances were explained.’

The following night the signals were strong and Elissa Landi’s place was taken by a Mr Howe, who was clearly seen. Immediately afterwards, the Television Society issued a special report on the event:26 ‘There assembled at the offices of the Baird Company in Long Acre a small party of Press representatives and privileged guests. The transmission commenced at midnight, London time, or 7 p.m. New York time. In order to give watchers at the New York end an opportunity to adjust the receiving apparatus, the image of a ventriloquist’s doll was first transmitted. The image sound produced by this doll . . . was sent over a telephone line to the company’s private experimental wireless station at Coulsdon. From the station the image sound was then flashed across the Atlantic on a wavelength of 45 metres. ‘On the American side, the signal was picked up by an amateur receiving station at Hartsdale, a suburb of New York. After amplification the signal was then applied to the receiving televisor upon the ground-glass screen on which the image appeared. This screen measured about two inches by three inches. ‘Four watchers were anxiously gathered round the apparatus [in the cellar of Hart’s

142

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 6.4

Antenna masts erected on the roof of the Long Acre laboratories

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

home]. They were Captain O G Hutchinson, the Joint Managing Director of the Baird Company, who had gone to New York specially to conduct the experiments, Mr Clapp, one of the company’s engineers, Mr Hart, the owner of the amateur station at Hartsdale, and Reuter’s Press representative. ‘When the image of the doll’s head had been satisfactorily tuned in, Mr Hart started up his transmitter [which worked on 37 m], called a receiving station operator at Purley, near London, and asked that Mr Baird should take his place before the transmitter instead of the doll. This message was telephoned from the receiving station to the laboratories at Long Acre. ‘For half an hour [from 01.35 GMT] Mr Baird sat before the transmitter, moving his head this way and that until the message came through from New York that his image had come through clearly. [Baird was followed by Bill Fox, a Press Association journalist, and then by Mia Howe, the wife of the AP representative in London.] ‘. . . The demonstration proved quite conclusively that if a much higher power transmitter had been employed the image would have been received in New York entirely free from atmospheric and other disturbances. An important feature is that only two operators were required to attend to the television transmission, one at each end of the circuit.’

At the end of the transmission Harold Smith entered in the log book for 9th February 1928, ‘Station closed 04.38’.

Long-distance television

Figure 6.5

143

Mrs Howe being televised on 9th February 1928 during transatlantic television experiments

Source: The Royal Television Society

Tribute soon came from the New York Times, which on 11th February 1928 said27: ‘Baird was the first to achieve television at all, over any distance. Now he must be credited with having been the first to disembody the human form optically and electrically, flash it piecemeal at incredible speed across the ocean, and then re-assemble it for American eyes. ‘His success deserves to rank with Marconi’s sending of the letter “S” across the Atlantic—the first intelligible signal ever transmitted from shore to shore in the development of transoceanic radio telegraphy. As a communication, Marconi’s “S” was negligible [and was not independently confirmed]; as a milestone in the onward sweep of radio, of epochal importance. And so it is with Baird’s first successful effort in transatlantic television . . . All the more remarkable is Baird’s achievement because he matches his inventive wits against the pooled ability and vast resources of the great corporation physicists and engineers, thus far with dramatic success . . .’

The quality of the images received was naturally not perfect. ‘It could be made out’, said The Times’s New York correspondent, ‘that the man turned his head from side to side and opened his mouth, and that the woman showed first the full face, then a profile. The features were too blurred and dim to be recognisable as those of particular persons.’ The imperfections were caused by atmospherics and fading and by interference

144

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

from other short-wave stations in Paris and Mexico City. A report in the New York Herald Tribune28 drew a pointed comparison between the resources of American and British television pioneers. It is said that probably 1 000 engineers and laboratory men were involved in the American (Washington–New York) tests’, the report mentioned; then it noted ‘only a dozen worked with Baird’. Much to their credit the US newspapers gave the historic event wide coverage. By, contrast, the reportage by the British press was meagre. Wireless World, which might have been expected to applaud the occasion, grudgingly described the feat in just three sentences. This lack of generosity led the editor of Television to write:29 ‘It is regrettable that so many people in this country should find it necessary to rush into print either to “damn with faint praise” or adversely to criticise and belittle the pioneer work of Mr J L Baird. It is refreshing, therefore, to read the whole-hearted admiration of the American press . . . Truly “a prophet hath no honour in his own country”.’

A few days after the transatlantic television transmission, on 2nd March 1928, Hutchinson and the Clapps departed from New York on board the Cunarder, SS Berengaria30. Shortly before embarkation, Hutchinson had arranged, with the enthusiastic support of the captain of the liner, Sir Arthur Rostron (the Commodore of the Cunard Line), and his ship’s officers, for the television gear to be set up on board the Berengaria so that a mid-Atlantic Ocean television transmission could be attempted. The experiment took place during the evening of 6th March 1928 using the same wavelength, 45 m. The images were seen by a small group of people, including passengers and ships officers, crowded together in a small reception cabin. Mr W Sutcliffe, staff chief engineer of the liner, described what they saw in the May issue of the Television magazine31: ‘On looking at the screen of the televisor I saw rapidly moving dots and lines of orange light which gradually formed themselves into a definitely recognised face. This image varied from time to time in clarity, but movements could be clearly seen, and the image, when clear, was unmistakable.’

Another witness of the experiments was Mr S W Brown, chief wireless operator of the ship, who recognised on the screen the image of his fiancée, Miss I Selvey, who had been specially invited by the Baird Company to sit before the transmitter in London. Mr Brown recognised Miss Selvey first by her characteristic style of hair dressing, but was later convinced of her identity when she turned to show her profile32. Notwithstanding the crude nature of the images which could be produced at this time, certain American businessmen were sufficiently impressed by what could be achieved to enter into negotiations for patent rights with the Baird company33. Two such businessmen were Mr N Feldstern and Mr H Z Pokness who represented a group of American financiers. The announcement that they had acquired the American rights for certain patents of the Baird television system

Long-distance television

Figure 6.6

145

Television signals were received, during the night of 6th March 1928, on board the SS Berenaria, in mid-Atlantic

Source: The Royal Television Society

was made at a dinner at the Savoy Hotel on 19th April 1928 by Sir James Percy, one of the Directors of the Baird Television Development Company. In responding to Sir James’s proposals for their health, Mr Pokness said that ‘they came, saw, and were conquered, but did not get “it” as cheaply as they wanted’. ‘There had been a great deal of publicity devoted to television in the United States’, he declared, ‘but we found you folks owned the rock bottom foundation of it, it was with that knowledge we negotiated and made the deal. They were now perfectly satisfied, he said, ‘and were in a position to do a hundred per cent job’. The people who were with them were people who ‘really controlled the radio situation in America’. These were happy days for Baird. He delighted being in his laboratory ‘surrounded by his bits and pieces, trying this and trying that’. But dark clouds were gathering on the horizon and ominous rumblings were becoming audible, although they were still far off in the distance. ‘The trouble started with an estrangement between Hutchinson and myself [Baird]. First of all Hutchinson took to sitting at the head of the board room table and using the board room as his office, relegating me to a little room. I resented being made to look like his subordinate while he, I think, resented my monopolising the limelight. Jealousy was at the root of our trouble; it came to a head when the name of the new public company came to be settled. I wanted it called Baird Television Ltd, and he wanted it called British Television Ltd. I lost my temper and told him he could form his own company and call it

146

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

what he d....d well liked and I would form my company and call it Baird Television. That was the last I heard of British Television, but relations were hopelessly strained. The company was split into two camps, a house divided against itself.’

Fortunately for Baird he would soon meet a person, S A Moseley, who would become his staunch ally and friend. Vowlers, the stock broking firm, were delighted with Baird’s achievements and successes and arranged to underwrite a new company, Baird International Television (BIT). This was launched on 25th June 1928 and the subscription list closed on 26th June. The company was formed with the object of acquiring from Television Ltd, the vendors, their rights and interests in the Baird inventions and patents, comprising (1) 300 000 fully paid deferred ordinary shares of one shilling each in the capital of the Baird Television Development Company (BTDC); (2) one-third of the net proceeds, whether in cash, shares or other securities, payable to Television Ltd in respect of the sale and exploitation of the foreign and colonial patents and rights, the BTDC being entitled to the remaining twothirds of such net proceeds. The intention was to form or collaborate in the formation of overseas manufacturing and marketing companies in countries which seemed to offer the best opportunities for the commercial exploitation of television and other inventions. It was stated that negotiations ‘with interests of first importance [were] in hand for the commercial exploitation of the inventions relating to facsimile telegraphy and photovision’34. The share capital of the company was £700 000 divided equally into ‘A’ and ‘B’ shares of five shillings each. When the subscription list was closed it was heavily over subscribed, with the result that the shares were allocated according to the number originally requested. (By about 1929 the cash held at the bank was in the region of £225 000.) The purchase price payable to Television Ltd was satisfied by an allotment of all the 1 400 000 ‘B’ shares of five shillings each credited as fully paid. As a consequence only the ‘A’ shares of five shillings each were available for issue and of these the vendors were entitled to the call of 400 000 until 31st December 1928 at a price of six shillings per share. Thus 1 000 000 ‘A’ shares were on issue to members of the public. After Television Ltd sold its 300 000 deferred ordinary shares to the Baird International Company the shares remained in the name of Television Ltd following the execution of a Declaration of Trust of such shares in favour of BIT. This permitted Television Ltd to retain its right to the appointment of half of the directorate of BTDC but, of course, it could only exercise such a power of appointment or removal as directed by BIT. Under the Articles of Association of BIT, Television Ltd was entitled, provided it retained at least 750 000 ‘B’ shares, to appoint, remove and reappoint one-half of the Directors of BIT, one of whom if so required by Television Ltd could be Chairman of the Board. The consequence of this was that Television Ltd (which had Baird, Hutchinson and Broderip as Directors) had absolute control of BIT and, through that company, BTDC and all other companies

Long-distance television

147

formed abroad in which 50 per cent of the shares were held by the British companies35. Lord Ampthill was appointed Chairman of the new company and the other directors were Sir Edward Manville, Lieutenant Colonel George B Winch, J L Baird, and O G Hutchinson. Short-term speculators who had acquired shares in Baird International Television were richly rewarded: the 5 shillings shares were quoted at 12 shillings or exactly double their issue price by 9th July 1928. It appears that this rise was induced mainly by the knowledge of the signing, on the previous Friday, of two contracts for the flotation of a United States subsidiary and a Canadian subsidiary (with the parent company retaining a half interest in both). An additional reason for the advance was the progress which Baird was making on the technical side; he had succeeded in televising objects in daylight and had demonstrated colour television. The daylight demonstrations took place towards the end of June 1928. They were brought about because Baird had obtained some photoelectric cells of improved sensitivity. Sir Ambrose Fleming, President of the Television Society, wrote an account of this achievement in the Television magazine for July 1928. ‘The writer has had the opportunity of seeing in a practical operation in Mr Baird’s laboratory a very striking advance in the apparatus for television which has been recently made by Mr Baird. ‘In this vast improvement it is not necessary for the face or object, the image of which is to be transmitted for television, or ‘televised’ (if one may venture to coin such a word), to be scanned by a brilliant beam of light traversing it, or to be flooded by powerful infrared rays . . . The object whose image is to be transmitted can be simply placed in diffused daylight, just as if the ordinary photograph of it had to be taken. The transmitting apparatus is then placed near to the object, and the image of it appears on the screen at a distance when proper synchronism is secured. The advantage of this important advance will be clear. It means that the face of a singer or speaker can be transmitted by television at the same time that the voice is being picked up by a microphone for ordinary wireless broadcasting. It means a great step forward in the possibility of transmitting to a distance.’

Baird’s work had an amusing interlude. Some of his daylight television experiments were conducted from a small cabin which had been erected on the roof of the Long Acre building. A very large lens see (Figure 6.7) protruded from an opening in the cabin and focused images of everyday London scenes onto the scanning apparatus within the cabin. At night powerful floodlights were used to simulate the daytime conditions. Soon afterwards the presence of what seemed to be a telescope peering out from a closed cabin alerted the local filles de joie. The instrument was obviously not pointed at the heavens but seemed to them to be directed towards their bedroom windows. They thought that a peeping Tom was using the lens to spy on their professional nocturnal activities. They called the police and Baird was visited and requested to account for his actions. ‘Baird’s reaction was immediate and typical and, following a convivial rooftop party to which the police and

148

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 6.7

Jack Buchanan, the actor and a friend from his school-days of J L Baird, being televised in daylight on the roof of the Long Acre Laboratories

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

several of the protesting ladies were invited, and, during which the Baird daylight scanner did its level best, but without success, to see through a sunlit window just twenty yards away . . . no further trouble [was experienced].’ Indeed, ‘the local ladies, whose attic bedrooms overlooked no. 133’s rooftop and who were now very much on our side, were delighted with [the activities of Baird] and, during breaks in their normal and more exhausting activities, hung out of their windows and cheered us on vociferously. Later on several of them called round and offered their services as live “Stookies”. They were, they declared, better looking and . . . in one or two cases, they were almost right.’ An unusual aspect of BTDC’s activities during 1927–28 was the Director’s delay in recruiting staff. Baird Television and Development Company had been formed in April 1927, its financial position was secure, the company had acquired extensive new premises in Long Acre in December 1927, and yet no additional full-time members of staff were appointed until about June 1928. T H Bridgewater36 has provided some details of the Baird companies’ technicians and engineers for the period 1923–39: 1923–24 1924–30

V R Mills, voluntary help with early experiments at Hastings, 1923– 24 only J J Denton, early developments and demonstrations (including

Long-distance television

Figure 6.8

149

J J Denton communicating by telephone with his colleagues during the transatlantic television test

Source: The Royal Television Society

1924–30 1926–39

1928–31 1928–39

1928–31 1928–32 1928–33 1928–39 1928–31

voluntary help at Hastings 1923–24). He was never an employee but received a fee for his services at demonstrations W C Fox, early demonstrations and public relations home and abroad (initially part-time, then full-time) B Clapp, first chief engineer; early development (long-distance line and radio transmissions (including transatlantic). Demonstrations in Australia G Barford, general assistance, large-screens. Operated Clapp’s radio station G2KZ during the transatlantic television tests H J Barton-Chapple, technical writing and public relations. Experiment and construction at Kingsbury branch laboratories. Author of Television Today and Tomorrow (with S A Moseley) A F Birch, studio management and engineering R H Boulding, laboratory manager T H Bridgewater, control room operations. D H Byron, chemistry, burners for the modulated arc. Mirror drum design and prototype work. A B Calkin, Berlin project (setting up laboratory and studio leading to experimental broadcasts via German PO and also to formation of Fernseh AG)

150

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

1928–39 1928–31

? 1928–32

1923–33 1928–39

1928–32 1928–32 1928–31 1928–34

1928–37 1928–31

1929–39 1929–32

P A Forge, demonstrations home and abroad, Berlin project P T Hobson, infra-red experiments, technical liaison with retail trade, assistance with large-screen operations. Played the piano in the Concert Party which performed during the midnight television transmissions of 1928–29 F L Hogg, transmitter design and construction W W Jacomb, chief engineer, introduced spotlight scanning, design, light modulators. Once described as the ‘da Vinci of video engineering’ L M Myers, electron optics and Kerr cells, large-screen projection. Author of Electron Optics J D Percy, phonovision (disc recording), demonstrations home and abroad (including South Africa). Outside broadcasts from Epsom (Derby) C L Richards, transmitter design and installation (including 7 m station at Kingsbury) Berlin project, Epsom outside broadcasts P W Sherrin, construction of 2TV transmitter, field tests, studio installation on premises and at exhibitions A Thynne, receiver construction and testing, general operations J C Wilson, research and theory, amplifier circuits, optics, introduced aperture correction, designed and demonstrated colour system, camera design. Author of Television Engineering. Patent supervision R Vince, Berlin project, overseas demonstrations, installation of ‘video telephone’ in France. Worked in Baird’s private laboratory. G B Banks, synchronising methods, infra-red applications, largescreens (modulated arc and bank of lamps). Worked with Hobson on noctovision at Box Hill E Bray, demonstrations, home and overseas D R Campbell, studio operations and engineering, lighting, telecine, photography, New York studio operation

It is apparent that a substantial increase in staff occurred in 1928, but why BTDC should have hesitated for more than one year is a matter for conjecture. Life in the laboratories was hectic from the late spring of 1928. According to J D Percy: ‘It pulsed with a tremendous sense of achievement. Here was something very new that we could work. We weren’t quite sure how long it would take or how it would eventually be done but we were certain it was working. The whole team under Jacomb was so inspired by a sense of discipline from the workshop right up to the offices with Baird sitting on top giving the ideas, that it was a sort of magical period of hopes and endeavour.’37

Baird was the kingpin of the organisation. His technical staff was largely inexperienced and did not include any high-calibre research scientists or engineers of Ph.D. standing. In this respect Baird and the Directors of the Baird companies made an error of judgement in pursuing their objectives. The importance of this point is well illustrated by the successes which the highly

Long-distance television

151

qualified research teams of RCA and EMI led by Drs Zworykin and Engstrom, and by Mr Shoenberg respectively, achieved in the 1930s38. Although the staff recruited by the two Baird organisations were keen and eager to progress the development of television, they lacked the formal university research training which many of Shoenberg’s and Engstrom’s staffs possessed. In this respect, Baird’s approach to television development differed from the plan of action of Marconi to the advancement of radio communications. Marconi surrounded himself from an early stage with a group of very able engineers and technicians, including Dr W H Eccles, Dr Erskine Murray, W W Bradfield, A Gray, C S Franklin, H J Round and others. By 1900, there were 17 professional engineers in the Marconi company in the UK. Electric and Musical Industries had the brilliant A D Blumlein39 as one of its first research engineers and engaged many university-trained research workers: the research department included Dr L Klatzow, Dr B M Miller, Dr B M Crowther, Dr J D McGee, Dr H G Lubzinski, Dr Stewart Brown, Dr L F Broadway, Dr E L C White, C O Browne, F Blythen, G E Condliffe and others, and many junior technical staff. Among the staff there were many graduates from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Bridgewater40 has opined that in the early days of the Baird companies ‘it was one of Baird’s weaknesses that he wasn’t careful enough—particularly careful enough in selecting the right personnel with the right knowledge to be useful to his development’. And on the management of the Baird companies Bridgewater, in a letter to the author, has opined: ‘To us on the technical staff some of the goings on were at times quite laughable and there was seldom any feeling of firm policy and direction. Of course we had good fun, but in retrospect one can see— as you have done and clearly stated—so many faults in management at the top which it would certainly be unfair to attribute to Baird alone.’ A further point of difference between the policies of the Marconi and the Baird companies concerns the importance attached to the value of consultants. Marconi fully appreciated their worth and employed them for many years. He sought out some of most promising university scientists who were interested in wireless and appointed them as consultants. Professor Ambrose Fleming and Professor M Pupin were two of the notable consultants employed. Marconi was not hesitant about engaging staff with a greater intellectual and technical competence than his own. One of his most famous demonstrations, the transatlantic transmission, owed much to Fleming’s work. It was Fleming who designed the transmitters, each of which incorporated an ingenious circuit having two spark gaps operating in cascade at different frequencies. Scientists of the proven ability of, say Watson-Watt or Appleton, could have had a most beneficial effect on Baird’s work, particularly in the use of the short-wave bands for television. Thus the technical policy and objectives of BTDC and BIC were laid down solely by Baird, and his staff had to attempt to implement his ideas as best they could. In this work Jacomb’s contribution was of central importance. ‘Baird would say to him he wanted a certain thing done and Jacomb would say to me [Bridgewater] “Here’s the circuit diagram, make it by eight o’clock tomorrow morning

152

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

and have the batteries charged”, and he’d go off to dinner in the United Services Club in Pall Mall. If it hadn’t been for Jacomb, Baird would never have reached the peak of mechanical excellence in television transmission and reception that he did. Baird produced the ideas but he was not a very practical man and it was Jacomb who could instantly assimilate what was required and translate it into precision hardware. He really was the key to Baird’s success—as far as it went.’

Notwithstanding these shortcomings, it will be shown in Chapter 11 that Baird’s early development programme was consonant with that of the mighty American Telephone and Telegraph Company

Note 1 Clapp’s transmitter This description is based on a report (Minute 4004/33, file 2) prepared by Mr W Dolton, a Post Office engineer following a surprise inspection which he made on 29th April 1927. ‘The aerial consists of a single wire approximately 35 ft span, supported by two poles 60 ft high. A 5-wire cage counterpoise is also fitted at a height of 12 ft having a span of 30 ft. Buried earth plates provide a direct earth connection. The house is situated on the highest part of the Coulsdon Down. ‘Power for the station is obtained from the public mains driving a H. T. generator, which is rated to give a maximum output of 750 mA at 4,000 kV (3 kW). There is also a charging plant for charging the L. T. accumulator battery . . . ‘The transmitter is fitted in a room on the first floor. The apparatus associated with the oscillator is mounted on a separate panel from that of the modulator. The circuit used for radio telephony is the ordinary choke control method. The oscillator valve is a Mullard silica valve. 4,000 V is applied to the anode and the maximum input current is 200/ 250 mA. Two Mullard M.5C valves joined in parallel are used as modulator. Each of these valves takes 100/150 mA at 4,000 V. The sub-control valve is a Mullard M/150 taking 40 mA at 1500 V. The wavelength employed is 45 metres, and experiments are invariably carried out with Station 2CVJ in America . . . ‘The microphone equipment is contained on a separate panel and comprises a standard pedestal broadcast microphone (ST&C Company’s manufacture) with either a single or a two-valve resistance capacity amplifier. The transmitting and modulating panels are fitted with the usual measuring instruments. The receiver consists of an ordinary three-valve arrangement (D. & 2 L.F. valves) . . .’

References 1 2 3 4

MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952), p. 86 Ibid. ANON.: report, Financial Times, 4th April 1927 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’, (The Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 74 5 ANON.: ‘Baird Television Development Company, Statutory Meeting’, The Times, 18th July 1927

Long-distance television

153

6 Ref. 4, p. 75 7 Ref. 4, p. 75–76 8 ANON.: ‘Television marvels. Glasgow looks in on London. Young Scottish inventor’s great achievement’, Glasgow Herald, 27th May 1927 9 TAYLOR JONES, E.: ‘Television’, Nature, 18th June 1927, 119, p. 896 10 Ref. 8 11 Ref. 4, pp. 77–8 12 ANON.: report, Television, March 1928, p. 16 13 BURNS, R. W.: ‘British television the formative years’, (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1986), pp. 306–7 14 Ref. 4, pp. 86–8 15 Ref. 1, pp. 104–5 16 Ref. 1, p. 104 17 HUTCHINSON, O. G.: letter to L. Smith, 5th August 1927, Marconi Archives 18 HIRST, L.: letter to the Managing Director, Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Company Ltd, 20th September 1927, Marconi Archives 19 GRAY, A.: memorandum to H. W. Allen, Deputy Managing Director, 18th October 1927, Marconi Archives 20 Ref. 4, pp. 88–90 21 CLAPP, B.: ‘John L. Baird—television pioneer’, Electronic Engineering, August 1946, pp. 236–7 22 ANON.: ‘Faces across the sea’, Daily Mail, 22nd April 1927 23 HERBERT, R.: ‘Trans-Atlantic television in 1928’, J. Roy. TV. Soc., January/February. 1988, pp. 17–20 24 HERBERT, R.: ‘Seeing by wireless’ (P W Publishing, Croydon, 1996), 27pp. 25 Ref. 4, pp. 89–90 26 ANON.: report by the Television Society, quoted by M. Baird in ‘Television Baird’, (HAUM, Capetown, 1973), p. 76 27 ANON.: report, New York Times, 11th February 1928 28 ANON.: report, New York Herald Tribune, 11th February 1928 29 Ref. 23 p. 18 30 Ref. 23 and 24 31 SUTCLIFFE, W.: letter dated 4th April 1928, Television, May 1928, p. 48 32 ANON.: ‘Television brings fiancée’s living image to Berengaria radio man’, New York Times, 8th March 1928 33 ANON.: ‘American rights sold’, Daily Telegraph, 21st April 1928 34 ANON.: report, Evening Standard, 25th June 1928 35 HUTCHINSON, O. G.: ‘The progress of television’, 18pp, Marconi Archives 36 BRIDGEWATER, T. H.: letter, ‘Baird support over the years’, IEE Review, December 1988 37 NORMAN, B.: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (BBC and The Royal Television Society, London, 1984), p. 52 38 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Television, an international history of the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1998) 39 BURNS, R. W.: ‘The life and times of A D Blumlein’ (Peter Peregrinus Ltd, London, 1999) 40 Ref. 37, p. 51 41 Ibid.

Chapter 7

Television and the BBC

The lack of enthusiasm shown by the BBC towards Baird’s low-definition system was a source of much concern and frustration to Baird and his supporters, and resulted in delays in the execution of their plans. The monopolistic position of the Corporation during the early years of the Baird companies was, of course, a considerable obstacle. Essentially, the BBC was not interested in participating in the advancement of television on the basis of a system that could not reproduce images of, say, a test match at Lord’s or tennis at Wimbledon; the BBC considered that low-definition television was inappropriate to its service. As a consequence, the BBC’s policy towards Baird’s work was necessarily negative in outlook and did not conduce to a rapid advancement of Baird’s aspirations1. Patronage and encouragement are important factors in the early development of an invention. Marconi initially was fortunate in this respect. In America and elsewhere facilities for television broadcasting were given by several broadcasting stations from 1927, but in Britain Captain P P Eckersley, the Chief Engineer of the BBC, opposed the use of the BBC’s stations for this purpose2. He was in a powerful position to influence the adoption or rejection of television broadcasting and his view was that ‘a radical discovery [was] necessary before television [would] be practicable, just as the valve made broadcasting possible.’ He was not opposed to television per se, but opposed to the adoption of a system that might not fulfil the hopes which had been made for it. ‘Now if television were perfected,’ he commented, ‘that would be a different proposition. There would be, I believe, a very popular demand for the BBC to take it up. But in its present form it would be useless for us to do anything. We might just as well have inaugurated a broadcasting system 20 years ago with the Poulsen arc as the nucleus of our transmitting equipment.’ For Eckersley the Baird system was not capable of development and, as Chief Engineer, he did not, presumably, wish to be responsible for sending out a poor transmission. He thought it was unfair to say that wireless broadcasting was as undeveloped as television when it started: ‘the spoken word was perfectly intelligible, music was rough and this has

Television and the BBC

155

been approved, but on the basis of the spoken word alone, the Writtle transmissions [of 1922], for instance, were entirely successful’. The nature of a television service was clear in his mind: it was not to consist only of ‘heads and shoulders’ but of two men standing talking together, of a lot of men playing football, of a liner arriving at Plymouth, of topical events and so on ‘If Baird can show us the interior of a room with the people in it fairly clearly that would have a different service aspect, we could do plays, but if his plays are going to be silhouettes exchanging places with one another as they speak, I doubt if that has service value.’

Eckersley had his supporters, among whom Campbell Swinton was to be particularly vociferous, both privately and publicly. In a letter3 to The Times dated 28th July 1928 he felt some ‘comments should be made on the many, and in some cases absurd, prognostications that have appeared during the last two weeks in the daily press on this important subject.’ His argument was based on the very large bandwidth required for successful public television compared with that adopted by Baird and other low-definition television workers. As an illustration, he estimated that a 10 inch by 16 inch photograph of the Eton and Harrow match in an issue of The Times contained a quarter of a million dots and that if this picture were transmitted by television at a rate of transmission of 16 per second, following cinematograph film practice, a rate of transmission of four million dots per second would need to be realised. ‘Such achievements,’ he wrote, ‘are obviously beyond the possible capacity of any mechanism with material moving parts, and this view, which I have personally been inculcating in scientific circles for many years, has recently been endorsed by no less an authority than Sir Oliver Lodge, himself a notable pioneer inventor in wireless telegraphy.’ Not content to air his views publicly, he wrote4 to Eckersley in a more pungent and trenchant tone: ‘I fear that my view is simply that Baird and Hutchinson are rogues, clever rogues and quite unscrupulous, who are fleecing the ignorant public, and should be shown up.’ The difficulty was, he said, that ‘papers like fat adverts.’ He went on to state: ‘I have saved the Institution of Electrical Engineers having a paper on television by Baird . . . One of the Past Presidents was anxious for this but I hope I have squashed the idea with the new President.’ This action was quite unworthy of Campbell Swinton since it denied serious discussion, among scientists and engineers in a learned society environment, on the merits of the various systems which had been proposed. While Baird was keen to establish ‘firsts’ and to give demonstrations which would produce good publicity and a favourable response from the press, he was very diffident about showing his equipment to experts of the General Post Office. They had requested a demonstration several months5 before the transAtlantic experiment and now, 1st March 1928, Angwin6 was writing again on behalf of the GPO and asking ‘if the company is now in a position to fix a date.’ Baird’s7 reply was unusual: ‘Further contingencies have arisen which to some extent alter the situation. However I shall put the matter to our Board and will communicate with you further in due course’ (3rd March 1928).

156

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Baird obviously did not want to demonstrate his apparatus to experts and yet he knew he could not broadcast in this country unless the Postmaster General gave his permission, which, of course, would be based on his engineers’ reports. It would seem that Baird felt his images were not good enough for a satisfactory test before a critical audience but were sufficiently good to bring in much needed publicity from a duly impressed lay public. Confirmation of this view is given by Baird’s refusal to accept the £1000 challenge made by Popular Wireless8. The conditions of the challenge were that he should transmit over a distance of 25 yards three recognisable faces, various simple objects in motion, such as a tray of dice and marbles, simple geometrical figures and the moving hands of a clock. The test was to be supervised by a committee of competent investigators appointed by the editor of the magazine, Mr Norman Edwards. The reason for the challenge was given by Edwards9: ‘The technical problem of television is extremely complicated and not easy for the lay mind to understand, but in the opinion of scientists it will undoubtedly be a practical proposition one day. But it is also the opinion of scientists—certainly of the many I have consulted—that known television systems are not capable of sufficient development to warrant greater optimism with regard to their early utility for television in the home. ‘Our challenge to Mr Baird was based on a desire to clarify the position. If he could carry out the conditions, he would at least have demonstrated that his system had merits which would justify his optimism.’

Baird declined the invitation and said, at a luncheon in the Aldwych Club, that he proposed to say nothing about it except that he thought recent demonstrations had been a sufficient answer without going further10. The offer by Popular Wireless was renewed at the expiration of the seven days allowed for its acceptance, but Baird failed to take it up11. Yet, had he accepted and been successful, he would not only have had a good press in the technical journals (which possibly would have silenced Eckersley, who was a contributor to Popular Wireless), but in addition would have had a worthwhile sum of money for further technical development. The plain fact was that Baird’s images were poor at that time and could not withstand scrutiny by professional scientists and engineers; Eckersley was right. Even Moseley, Baird’s most staunch supporter and friend, conceded this point many years later when he wrote: ‘Actually, Popular Wireless was showing no enthusiasm for television because it thought—honestly, no doubt—that the invention had not reached anything like a practical stage (nor had it for that matter: but it should have been encouraged).’12 Moseley’s arrival on the television scene during this period was to be extraordinarily beneficial to Baird and the progress in the UK of low-definition television. In his diary13 for 1st August 1928 Moseley wrote: ‘The public are going crazy and gambling on new companies . . . It seems that anything that comes out is oversubscribed. Prospectuses promise the moon. There are several gramophone record companies whose issues were amazing successes . . . Many stockbrokers live at Westcliff, [Bournemouth] and the talk is “New Issues”. I met a pale young

Television and the BBC

Figure 7.1

157

One of the Baird laboratories at Long Acre showing the rear view of a Plessey television receiver, while on the bench on the left is one of the original Plessey receiver amplifiers developed in conjunction with the disc receiver

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

man named Bartlett who is Secretary to the new Baird Television Company. Television! Anxious to see what it is all about . . . He invited me to go along to Long Acre where the new invention is installed. Now that’s something! Television! ‘Met John Logie Baird; a charming man—a shy, quietly-spoken Scot. He could serve as a model for the schoolboy’s picture of a shock-haired, modest, dreamy, absent-minded inventor. Nevertheless shrewd. We sat and chatted. He told me he is having a bad time with scoffers and sceptics—including the BBC and part of the technical press—who are trying to ridicule and kill his invention of television at its inception. I told him that if he would let me see what he had achieved—well, he would have to risk my damning it—or praising it! If I were convinced—I would battle for him. We got on well together and I have arranged to test his remarkable claim. ‘(Later) Saw television! Baird’s partner, a tall, good-looking but highly temperamental Irishman, Captain Oliver George Hutchinson, was nice but very nervous of chancing it with me. He was terribly anxious that I should be impressed. Liked the pair of them, especially Baird, and decided to give my support . . . I think we really have what is called television. And so, once more into the fray!’

Moseley’s crucial role in the advancement of Baird Television requires that a few words on his background should be given14. He was born in 1888 (the same

158

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

year as Baird) in London and began his career in journalism in 1910 when he joined the staff of the Daily Express. He edited the first English daily published in Cairo and became the Cairo correspondent of the New York Times, Paris Daily Mail and the London Central News. From 1914 he was the official correspondent with the Mediterranean Expeditionary Forces, and was commissioned into the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. He unsuccessfully stood as an Independent Labour Party candidate for Southend-on-Sea in 1924, and by 1928 had written 13 books including Money Making in Stocks and Shares. Moseley had been interested in broadcasting for a number of years, had written letters to the BBC, had broadcast often enough for an official of the BBC to write15 to him and say ‘I expect you feel by now that you have thoroughly mastered the peculiar but by no means easy art of broadcasting’, and had produced criticisms of radio plays and considered himself to be Britain’s first radio critic. He knew everybody in Fleet Street and was on cordial terms with the various BBC chiefs. In addition he had a shrewd knowledge of business and finance. Baird16 in his autobiography has referred to his meeting, in the boardroom, two strangers, Moseley and another person whose name Moseley could not later recall. ‘One of these, a stout and jovial man, with a merry and wicked twinkle in his eye, immediately attracted me. It was Sydney A Moseley, who was to play a very prominent part in our future activities. Both Hutchinson’s and my own knowledge of high finance were infantile and this was also true of our knowledge of journalism. We were both much upset because a certain wireless paper had seen fit to publish unfavourable criticisms of us which we considered utterly unfair and prejudiced. ‘We talked to Moseley about this and he said he would fix it and he did. The next issue of the paper contained an article17 by Moseley refuting all the previous attacks and hailing the invention as a great achievement. From that day on his position was established. He became one of the family and I welcomed him with open arms. What a relief to have a man about the house who took a real interest in our affairs!’

Moseley made it his immediate mission in life to put Baird Television on the map. ‘Realising that television was struggling against odds, ignorance, scepticism and hostility’, he wrote18, ‘I decided to take up the cudgels on its behalf and determined to carry the fight through to the finish.’ He became Baird’s selfappointed champion. After refuting the attack in Popular Wireless, he began to attend meetings of the Board, where he was a great help to Baird who was not at his best in the boardroom. Moseley on the other hand was not the sort of man to fall asleep at board meetings or anywhere else where money was concerned. With his knowledge of finance, journalism and publicity and his contacts in Fleet Street, Parliament and elsewhere, Moseley brought much valuable expertise and experience to bear on the side of the television pioneer. Marconi was one of the first to foresee the commercial possibilities arising from the work of himself and the early radio pioneers. He worked energetically throughout his life to progress and extend wireless communications. His primary interest was in the technical development of the subject and his knowledge

Television and the BBC

159

of business methods was such that, when he managed both the commercial and innovative aspects of his company, considerable difficulties arose. But when Godfrey Isaacs, a born businessman, was appointed managing director, thereby allowing Marconi more time to further his research and development work, the company prospered. Marconi, like Baird, had a well balanced personality and worked easily with others: Isaacs and he formed an effective team, each respecting the other’s skills to the advantage of their common interest. A similar parallel can be inferred from the relationship between Baird and Moseley. Baird was quite content to allow Moseley to look after his business and financial interests and a bond of friendship was established between them which lasted until Baird’s death in 1946. Unfortunately for Baird, Moseley resigned his directorship in 1933. The part played by him in advancing Baird’s interests was stressed in the BBC’s letter of regret to him (on hearing of his resignation19): ‘Although there has not always been agreement either in policy or method, it should be recognised that your consistently active advocacy has been an important, perhaps the decisive, factor in the progress that Baird Television has made to date.’

The first demonstration20 of Baird’s system to the GPO took place on 18th September 1928 at Long Acre and at the Engineers Club about 600 yards away. Two tests were conducted, one in which a line transmission circuit was used for a short transmitter–receiver distance in the company’s offices at Long Acre, and another which involved a radio link, on a wavelength of 200 m, between the same building and the Engineers Club in Coventry Street, London. The demonstrations showed the facial images of several individuals while they carried on a conversation or sang, and these were reproduced by the receiver to give an image size about 3.5 inches by 2 inches. This was viewed by a lens (approximately 5 inches in diameter) to enable a magnification of nearly two to be achieved. Of the two tests, that which utilised the line circuit gave the better results. Colonel Angwin, of the GPO, observed21: ‘the faces were shown with features outlined as clearly as they would have been seen from reflection in a metal reflector’. Twelve images were per second were televised and so some flicker was produced, but this did not seem to be objectionable. The synchronisation method and control were ‘definitely superior in efficiency and simplicity to that used by other systems’ and only required two external handles for speed and phase adjustment. The wireless television transmission experiment was less satisfactory because of some apparent interference, from local sources, in the radio channel. The result was a tendency to ‘swinging’ of the image in the plane of observation and the flicker effect was more pronounced. Angwin concluded his support by stating: ‘The system merits consideration from the simplicity of the receiving apparatus and the possibility of improvements if further developed . . . An experimental trial from one of the BBC’s stations with observations on a set of the model it is proposed to sell to the public would, I consider, be desirable to test out the quality of the reproduction that might be expected under normal broadcasting conditions.’

160

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 7.2

Some of the various types of neon tube used by Baird for 30-line television

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

The BBC was not prepared to accede to this course of action and insisted on a demonstration to its senior staff, who had not attended the 18th September tests. The date chosen for the next demonstration of Baird’s apparatus was 9th October 192822. Meantime from 22nd to 29th September 1928 the Baird company exhibited23 three versions of its televisors at the Radio Exhibition, Olympia. Demonstrations of television were banned at the show, but nonetheless the crowds around stands 13 and 14 were ‘the biggest of the week.’ The ban was imposed because of the fear among radio set manufacturers that sales of their products might be affected adversely if the television displays proved attractive. Baird countered the ban by renting a shop in Maclise Road24, just outside Olympia, and gave demonstrations there. ‘It wasn’t long before it became known that television could be seen by going round the corner and people came in great numbers’ (Bridgewater). Among the celebrities who were seen were Harry Tate and the actress Peggy O’Neil. ‘I [had] never seen features televised better . . . and [O’Neil’s] show [gave] a vivid impression of the potentialities of the Baird system as an entertainment force’ (Tiltman25). Further publicity for Baird’s endeavours was given in the same month when

Television and the BBC

Figure 7.3

161

The crude images produced by Baird’s televisor attracted much public attention

Source: Television, September 1928

Selfridge’s store26, in Oxford Street, opened a makeshift studio on the fourth floor for the express benefit of ‘the thousands of people turned away at Olympia.’ Selfridge’s action allowed the store to claim another ‘first’, namely, the world’s first television sales department. The store asserted that it had sold the world’s first television set—a Baird televisor kit, for £6.10s.0d.

162

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 7.4

Selfridge’s exhibition of television receiving equipment dating from 1925 to 1937

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

The establishment of the sales department was, presumably, stimulated by the Baird company’s newspaper advertisement, in August 1928, that at the Radio Exhibition orders for the dual—radio and television—sets would be taken and that ‘as soon as possible afterwards, a special broadcasting service from Long Acre, will commence.’ The advertisement27 stated that the service, in the first instance, might ‘naturally be somewhat restricted, but owing to the adaptability of the new Baird Dual Set, you will be capable of receiving the ordinary broadcast programmes. The Baird Televisor will show on your screen the head and shoulders of the person being transmitted and give a living picture with perfect synchronism of movement and sound.’ The price of the televisors was expected to be about £25 and the set would be like an ordinary suitcase, 24 inches square and 18 inches in depth. The picture would be seen on ‘a little glass screen about 8 inch in diameter’ and the combined sets would be connected to the aerial in the ordinary way. The BBC knew nothing of these proposals and told enquiring reporters that no scheme of cooperation with the BBC was in existence28. In fact Baird television was not proposing to proceed with plans to broadcast television through the BBC stations at this time. Bartlett, the Secretary of the Baird Television Development Company, stated that the company intended relying on expert

Television and the BBC

Figure 7.5

163

An external view of a portable 30-line television receiver as used for the first successful demonstration of television in the provinces in 1929

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

legal advice which was that no licence for the transmission of a television service was required29. On 8th October, the day before the television demonstration to the BBC, Eckersley wrote a long memorandum30 on ‘Suggested attitudes towards television’ which was seen by the members of the visiting party prior to the demonstrations. By this action he rather unfairly endeavoured to pre-empt an adverse decision against Baird’s system. He mentioned that the BBC’s Control Board would see a demonstration of the head and shoulders of a man and that it would be extremely interesting and quite likely better than what they had been led to expect but, he added brusquely: ‘If the Control Board feel that this would justify a service then let us go ahead, but I warn everyone that, in my opinion, it is the end of their development not the beginning and that we shall be for ever sending heads and shoulders. Are heads and shoulders a service? Has it any artistic value? Is it not, in fact, simply a stunt?’

Eckersley had clearly made up his mind before the trial. As the BBC’s Chief Engineer he was not only concerned about the quality of the transmission but also had to consider the implications of the service if the Control Board thought that the system had merit, and here there were difficulties. He wrote: ‘It must be remembered that in effect an extra wavelength must be sacrificed for television. It has been pointed out that an extra wavelength is almost impossible as we have so few as it is, and I think to take up so much ether in the broadcasting band to give the small picture of the head and shoulders of a man to people who can afford sets is rather ridiculous.’

164

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Eckersley’s memorandum had the hoped-for results. The BBC’s senior staff31 were unimpressed by the display of televised images, so on 17th October 1928 the Board of the Corporation32, 33 recommended that an experimental transmission through a BBC station should not be undertaken—at present. A notice was issued to the press34. J L Baird took the BBC’s verdict with a certain degree of stoicism. ‘I regard the decision of the BBC to grant no facilities to television as a challenge which I mean to take up.’35 The battle of words was about to begin. Baird and his associates were understandably apprehensive at this time as reports were being published in the press of the successes of other individuals and firms36. The AT&T Company, in 1927, had broken Baird’s monopoly to demonstrate true television and it was known that both the Radio Corporation of America and the General Electric Company were conducting experiments on television transmission. In Germany Mihaly37 had announced in July 1928 that he was ready to manufacture sets which would bring ‘into the drawing-room a horse race or a boxing match so perfectly that the jockeys’ caps will be distinctly visible and you will be able to recognise the faces of the horses.’ He told a reporter of the Daily News that he intended to start a television company in London in a few weeks ‘with a system which would be different from Baird’s and far more effectual.’ The sets would have one valve and would sell for £20 each. The opposition of the BBC to the use of its stations by Baird has its parallel in the history of the Marconi organisation. Although Preece had given Marconi much-needed support in the early stages of his work, Austen Chamberlain, as Postmaster General, had taken quite a different attitude. He saw the Marconi Company as a potential competitor of the government-controlled telegraph industry and, at first, stubbornly refused to allow the Marconi overseas service to utilise the Post Office’s telegraph lines. Later, an agreement between the Marconi company and the GPO was signed on 11th August 1904 and facilities for wireless telegraphic traffic were granted to it. Following the issue of the BBC’s press release on 17th October 1928 much lobbying and discussion of Baird’s case took place, both publicly in the national newspapers and privately by correspondence. The details have been given in the author’s book British Television, The Formative Years and will not be repeated here. Suffice it to mention that a further demonstration of the Baird system was arranged for a group of Members of Parliament on 5th March 1929. Invitations38 to attend were sent out by the Postmaster General on 2nd February 1929 to C G Amon, MP, Lt. Commander J M Kenworth, MP, J I McPherson, MP, R Hamilton, MP, and W Smithers, MP, all of whom, with one exception, replied that they would accept. These members would see the demonstration in the PMG’s room at 10.30 a.m. (later changed to 11.15 a.m.) 39. Baird found the trial a most anxious experience. He wrote many years later:40 ‘It was a nerve-racking ordeal as we were to stand or fall by the result of one critical demonstration. A wire slipping or a valve burning out at the critical moment and the demonstration would be a failure and we would have been faced with a devastating fiasco.

Television and the BBC

165

I spent a dreadful nightmare night on the top floor of Savoy Hill where we set-up our transmitter. ‘Everything seemed to be well in the morning and I set out to St Martin Le Grand accompanied by Sir Ambrose Fleming. Here in a large hall on the first floor four receivers were installed, and soon to my infinite relief they were running properly and we were receiving images of the artists we had assembled at Savoy Hill. Mr F W Phillips, who was in charge of the [Post Office’s] arrangements, notified the Committee who trooped in headed by the impressive figure of Lord Clarendon. They took their places in front of the receivers and watched the little programme we had prepared for them, consisting of the head and shoulders view of singers and comedians. An unexpected turn was however provided by Captain Eckersley who himself appeared on the screen saying a few words and was seen by the committee. The show was a complete success but I knew that several persons on the committee were far from well disposed and awaited the report with some apprehension.’

Soon afterwards, on 28th March 1929, the Postmaster General41 published in The Times the letter which he had sent, apropos the demonstration, to the Secretary of Baird Television Development Company. He confirmed his earlier opinion that the Baird system was capable of producing, with a sufficient clearness to be recognised, the features and movements of persons posed for the purpose at the transmitting point, although he added that it was not yet practicable to transmit a scene or programme which required a space of more than a few feet in front of the transmitting apparatus. In the PMG’s view the system represented ‘a noteworthy scientific achievement’ but had not reached the stage of development which would merit the inclusion of television programmes within broadcasting hours. He was anxious that facilities for further development should be granted and mentioned that he would assent to a station of the BBC being used for this purpose outside broadcasting hours. The PMG thought it was probably essential that television should be accompanied by speech and that two transmitters would be needed, but pointed out that a second transmitter would not be available until the new station at Brookmans Park was completed, possibly in July. In the meantime the company was to open negotiations with the BBC on the financial and other arrangements which might be necessary. These transactions dragged on for almost six months until 30th September 1929, when the Corporation transmitted its first experimental television broadcast. Particulars of the transactions are given in copious detail in the author’s book, British Television, The Formulative Years. They will not been reiterated here except to note the points which were agreed between Hutchinson and the officials of the BBC, on 11th September 1929.42 1. 2.

The transmission should commence on Monday, 30th September from the Oxford Street transmitter, and later from the Brookmans Park transmitter. The transmission times would normally be from 11 a.m. on Monday to Friday inclusive, but after 31st October, when it was anticipated that additional periods would become available, the morning transmissions might be replaced occasionally by transmission after midnight, or at other times outside programme hours as mutually agreed.

166 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

John Logie Baird, television pioneer The extent of any interference would not be greater than that given by a music transmission as normally radiated from programmes. The transmission would take place from television studios in Long Acre and the Baird company would be responsible for renting all lines. A BBC engineer would be allowed reasonable access to the television transmitter. The company would install and maintain one televisor at Savoy Hill, one at the BBC receiving station and one at the GPO. The BBC would answer technical queries from home constructors. The BBC reserved the right to curtail or discontinue any particular transmission should it conflict with the BBC’s own programme, on a particular day. Transmissions would not be curtailed, discontinued or at any time altered by the BBC except with three months’ notice given in writing.

For this concession the Baird Company was to pay £5 per half hour and reimburse the BBC for any capital cost involved. Thus, although the September 1928 demonstration of the Baird television system was considered to be sufficiently satisfactory for the Post Office to agree, as far as it was concerned, to the use of a BBC station for further experiments, the start of the experimental service had been delayed by a full year. In his published letter of 28th March 1929 the PMG43 advised the Baird companies to press on with experiments on much shorter wavelengths. His counsel was to prove highly significant in the history of television. Unfortunately for the companies, J L Baird did not immediately initiate an urgent programme of research and development work in this region of the electromagnetic spectrum, but concentrated instead on achieving some further successes with the 30-line low-definition system. Baird’s prime concern, following the inauguration of Television Ltd, was to acquire a patent holding which would place his companies in a favourable position commercially. Until about 1930–31, he engaged in this task almost single-handedly. From the start of his work in 1923 to the end of 1930 Baird applied for 88 patents; the number of patents which originated from other members of the Baird companies in the same period totalled four. Marconi and Baird had the same policy with regard to their technical contributions. They applied for patents on every method and apparatus which they devised. In this respect they were inventors and innovators rather than scientists. The tradition of pure science did not allow university scientists, for example, to seek commercial gain for their work. The importance of building up a strong patent holding is exemplified by the case of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA). When in November 1919 RCA was established and obtained a controlling interest in the American Marconi company the immediate task which faced the new corporation was the creation of a wireless point-to-point communication service. This service was to be based on the stations which the US Government had taken over from the

Television and the BBC

167

Marconi company during the First World War—from April 1917—and which, in February 1920, had been handed over to RCA for commercial use. But, additionally, the expansion of the service demanded the construction of new stations. There were difficulties, however. Many of the most important patents in this field were held by GE, Westinghouse and the AT&T Company. Consequently, RCA had to take steps to obtain either the ownership or the licence rights to many different patents in order to make its commercial operations a success44. The acquisition of these was not easy, for no person or firm controlled even a substantial percentage of them and the Corporation had perforce to institute extensive cross-licensing agreements with all the abovementioned companies. RCA and GE arrived at congenial arrangements in 1919, and over the next two years similar contracts were drafted between RCA and Westinghouse, AT&T, United Fruit and the Wireless Speciality Company. By June 1921 RCA had rights to more than 2000 patents in the radio field. Some of them had been suggested by the government in the best interests of the country—a fact which had a bearing on later anti-trust actions. As a result of these settlements, RCA could operate point-to-point radio communications, though not exclusively, and market receivers. Unlike the situation which confronted the newly formed Radio Corporation of America, neither Baird nor Marconi, initially, had the financial resources to purchase the rights to patents which related to television or wireless telegraphy. Moreover, since practical systems of rudimentary television and wireless telegraphy had not been commercially implemented when they started their developments, it would have been financially hazardous for them to have done so even if they had possessed the necessary funds. Consequently Marconi’s and Baird’s approaches to their tasks were entirely consistent with good industrial practice. Not surprisingly, Baird had little time for writing scientific papers and engaging in field trials of the type demonstrated by the AT&T Company in April 1927 (see chapter 11). He tried to anticipate every likely development and application of the new art. Daylight television, noctovision, colour television, news by television, stereoscopic television, long-distance television, phonovision, twoway television, zone television and large-screen television were all demonstrated in a rudimentary way by Baird during a hectic period of activity from 1927 to 1931. Whether this was the correct course of action to be followed is considered in chapter 11. A former Baird engineer45, with hindsight, has said: ‘Too much time was spent on adventurous sidelines and in exploiting the 30-line system—largely in pursuit of publicity, which, rightly or wrongly, was considered necessary for the attraction of public interest and capital; too little time on essential technical improvements.’ However, when an inventor wishes to further the commercial prospects of his ideas and there are competitors about, it is essential that he should protect his basic methods and apparatuses by patents as quickly as possible: once these have been safeguarded, technical enhancement can take place at a more leisurely pace.

168

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Certainly many industrial organisations were interested in television by the late 1920s. The Western Electric Company, Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, the Radio Corporation of America, General Electric, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, the Jenkins Television Corporation and others in the USA; Telefunken, Fernseh AG and Telehor in Germany; while in the UK several companies were considering pursuing investigations in this field, including both The Gramophone Company (HMV) and MWT. In the United Kingdom the growth of the popular interest in television was reflected by an increase in the number of patents taken out in the field of television: 1920 1, 1921 1, 1922 2, 1923 10, 1924 10, 1925 14, 1926 27, 1927 45, 1928 83, 1929 34, a total of 227 patents. Of these Baird applied for 79. Baird’s strategy in the 1920s was clearly to secure as many firsts as possible, not only for publicity purposes, but to give his companies commercial bargaining power. He was not engaging in adventurous sidelines wholly for good public relations, but as a means to an end. It is not possible always to foresee the likely outcome of an invention or the manifold applications of a basic idea. As a consequence of his adopted strategy, Baird did not immediately heed the advice of the Postmaster General and initiate a major R&D effort on the potentialities of the short-wave bands for television. During Hutchinson’s and Moseley’s protracted discussions and correspondence with the BBC and the GPO, Baird continued to improve and adapt his basic system of television. Soon after the demonstration of daylight television46 in June 1928 Baird demonstrated colour television, for the first time anywhere in the world, on 3rd July 1928. The Morning Post47 reported on the progress which Baird had made: ‘One of the party went onto the roof of the building where a transmitting televisor had been set up, and the rest of the party went with Mr Baird into a room where there was a receiving apparatus. The receiver gave an image, about half as large again as an average cigarette card, but the detail was perfect. ‘When the sitter opened his mouth his teeth were clearly visible, and so were his eyelids and the white of [his] eyes and other small details about his face. He was a dark-eyed, dark-haired man, and appeared in his natural colours against a dark background. He picked up a deep red coloured cloth and wound it round his head, winked and put out his tongue. The red of the cloth stood out vividly against the pink of his face, while his tongue showed up as a lighter pink. ‘He changed the red cloth for a blue one, and then, dropping that, put on a policeman’s helmet, the badge in the centre standing out clearly against the dark blue background. ‘The colour television proved so attractive that the sitter was kept for a long time doing various things at the request of the spectators. A cigarette showed up white with a pink spot on the end when it was lit. The fingernails on a hand held out were just visible and the glitter of a ring showed on one of the fingers.’

Although Baird’s first demonstration of colour television did not take place until July 1928, the inventor had been reflecting on the problem for a number of years. His patents 266 564 and 267 378 were applied for on 1st September 1925

Television and the BBC

169

and they both contained references to the transmission of images in their natural colours. At that time Baird was more concerned with the reproduction of monochrome images having half-tones than with coloured images, and his patent 267 378 was an attempt to provide a solution to this problem. However, as with other patents, the ideas it contained were adaptable to related situations, so Baird was able, in the same patent and in patent 266 564, to refer to the possibility of achieving images in colour. For the 1928 demonstration Baird used transmitting and receiving Nipkow discs each with three spirals and associated filters, one for each of the three primary colours, a single transmission channel, and effectively three receiver light sources (giving red, blue and green outputs). These sources were switched sequentially by a commutator so that only one lamp was excited at a time. Another person who saw the display was Baird’s supporter, Dr Alexander Russell. He contributed an article on the progress of television to the 18th August 1928 issue of Nature48. His report was naturally more technical than the Morning Post article. ‘The process consisted of first exploring the object, the image of which is to be transmitted, with a spot of red light, next with a spot of green light, and finally with a spot of blue light. At the receiving station a similar process is employed, red, blue and green images being presented in rapid succession to the eye. The apparatus used at the transmitter consists of a disc perforated with three successive spiral curves of holes. The holes in the first spiral are covered with red filters, in the second with green filters and in the third with blue. Light is projected through these holes and an image of the moving holes is projected onto the object. The disc revolves at 10 revolutions per second and so thirty complete images are transmitted every second—ten blue, ten red, and ten green. ‘At the receiving station a similar disc revolves synchronously with the transmitting disc, and behind this disc, in line with the eye of the observer, are two glow discharge lamps. One of these lamps is a neon tube and the other a tube containing mercury vapour and helium. By means of a commutator the mercury vapour and helium tube is placed in circuit for two-thirds of a revolution and the neon tube for the remaining third. The red light from the neon is accentuated by placing red filters over the view holes for the red image. Similarly, the view holes corresponding to the green and blue images are covered by suitable filters. The blue and green lights both come from the mercury helium tube, which emits rays rich in both colours. ‘The coloured images we saw which were obtained in this way were quite vivid. Delphiniums and carnations appeared in their natural colours and a basket of strawberries showed the red fruit very clearly.’

Stereoscopic television was demonstrated by Baird in August 1928; it was also demonstrated together with colour television at the British Association meeting at Glasgow in September49.

170

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 7.6

Stereoscopic television apparatus which was used to give demonstrations at the Glasgow British Association meeting in 1928, and to the Prince Consort of Holland in Rotterdam in 1928. Mr Collier is seated on the left

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

Note 1 Viewer’s comments From late 1928 until 26th August 1930 a visitor’s book was kept at the Long Acre laboratories of the Baird companies. Although many of the signatures are illegible, a considerable number can be identified: they show that Members of Parliament, leading scientists, foreign representatives, serving officers and others witnessed demonstrations of television. Their comments lend weight to the claims of progress which Baird made during the above period. Joyce Montague Eric G Bantock W Adamson ? James Barr

‘Thrilling’ ‘It’s [sic] possibilities are immense’ ‘One of the great wonders of the Old World’ ‘He or she that cannot see the importance of television cannot have any vision’ ‘One of the great wonders of this new world. Am surprised at the clearness of

Television and the BBC

171

vision and speech and motion, and proud of the achievement of a great fellow countryman’ ? ‘C’est merveilleux!!!’ John D Le Lacheur ‘It is worth travelling 300 miles to see a demonstration’ ? ‘I am realy [sic] surprised by the improvements you made in the television field. I consider it is now commercial’ E V Appleton ‘Very great improvement as noted since the Wireless Exhibition. I read the time of a watch as 1 minute to 3. The exact time was [1.5] minutes to 3!’ H R Mullin ‘Much impressed with the clear detail’ ? ‘Noctovision is a splendid invention which might be of great use to the Navy’ Rebecca West ‘I wait eagerly for the time when Television will be broadcast, every day’ ? ‘There are more things in Heaven and Long Acre than were meant in our philosophy’ A V Alexander, July 28th 1930 ‘Seemed quite natural’ Cecil L’Estrange Malone, July 1930 ‘The beginning of great things’ Baden Powell of Gilwell, August ‘Einstein in practice: quite non 1930 understandable’ Robert Young, August 1930 ‘A great future before this invention’ E Edmondson ‘All that a shareholder could wish for’

Note 2 Kingsbury Manor The lack of enthusiasm of the BBC for Baird’s images led to the preparation by the Baird companies of certain contingency plans. Following the successful demonstration of stereoscopic television at the Rotterdam Exhibition, Lord Ampthill said in a speech to members of BIT on 25th September 1928: ‘We have been successful in obtaining from the Dutch Government the use, on very favourable terms, of one of the broadcasting stations controlled by the Dutch Government in Holland.’ Approximately one month later Baird announced that he had reached an agreement with the Dutch Wireless authorities to transmit television images from their station at Scheveningen. A state transmitter had been placed at the disposal of the Dutch company ‘holding the rights of Mr Baird’s apparatus’ and transmissions would be on a wavelength of 1470 m. Further negotiations were concluded, according to Hutchinson, with seven important Continental broadcasting stations, including Radio Toulouse and Radio Lyons, for the regular broadcasting of Baird Television in conjunction with music, singing and speech. These transactions were completed after experts representing these stations had been to London and had investigated the system.

172

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

At home the Baird companies in November 1928 rented from Mrs P H Evans the coach-house and stables of a property known as ‘The Cottage Manor House.’ This was a large half-timbered house, built in 1899 for Lady Mary Caroline Blair, who had been the second wife of the 3rd Duke of Sutherland, and was an unspoilt example of a Victorian country seat. Here, two large wooden antenna masts were erected in the field adjoining the building, laboratories were constructed, and H J Barton-Chapple was appointed engineer-incharge. Meantime, a German delegation, consisting of Dr Bredow, the German Secretary of State for Wireless, Dr Bareth and Dr Reisser, had visited the Long Acre laboratories and had inspected Baird’s system. The sequel to the visit was that Baird Television received a letter from the Minister of the German Government in charge of broadcasting services requesting the installation of the Baird system in Germany50. A few months later, in July 1929, television signals were broadcast from Berlin and received at The Cottage Manor House. BartonChapple has recalled the occasion. ‘My assistant, Arthur Thynne, I and our staff were grouped around the receiver-lens. My heart pounded as we waited for our colleagues in Berlin to make contact. Heaven knows how Baird felt waiting at headquarters. ‘Then came the familiar whirring sound through the ether. Our men in Berlin were coming through. And, upon my soul, so was an image on the screen. It was blurred at first, then it became a crude face—the face of a gnome with a pointed beard and a peaked hat . . . We had made it at last! And with standard equipment! I remember cheering and hugging Thynne with joy.’

Later, on 31st March 1930 the BBC’s first combined sound and sight transmission was received at Baird’s outpost, now called Kingsbury Manor. (On 26th September 1929 Mrs Evans had sold the property to a Mr G E Cloke who had renamed the house.) The broadcast required the use of both of the Brookmans Park transmitters, one operating on 261 m for vision and the other on 356 m for sound. The Long Acre 2TV transmitter was no longer required for its original purpose and was moved in 1930 to Kingsbury Manor. Here, for at least 12 months, the transmitter operated at wavelengths of either 155 m or 49 m at a power output of 900 W. Secrecy surrounded the activities of the operations at Kingsbury Manor and when Baird Television Ltd gave up its lease the work carried out there was soon forgotten. In 1938 the house became a home for the elderly. Interest in the property was renewed in 1952 when Mr M J Curley, the Chairman of the recently formed Wembley History Committee, stumbled upon the concrete bases of the masts and decided to determine their former purpose. His efforts led to a tablet being unveiled in August 1953 by Mr D Gammons, MP, Assistant Postmaster General, to mark the work of J L Baird at Kingsbury Manor. The tablet is inscribed: ‘This stone commemorates the site of the masts used for the reception of the first television signals from the Continent by John Logie Baird, pioneer of television, in July 1929.’

Television and the BBC

Figure 7.7

173

Kingsbury Manor, c. 1929

Source: Mr R M Herbert

Note 3 Colour television Baird’s successful demonstration, on 3rd July 1928, of rudimentary colour television, by the three-colour process, was noteworthy. His 1928 patents on the subject of colour television show that he had considered various arrangements prior to this date. These are listed in Table 7.1. Several technical problems had to be overcome by Baird and his staff before the demonstration. These concerned the photosensitive cells utilised at the transmitter; the light sources used in the receiver; and the equalisation of the spectral response of the system. The first and third of these stemmed from the unavailability of a photo-electric cell having a uniform response. J C Wilson, a member of Baird’s staff, described this difficulty and the solution adopted in a lecture given in 1934 to the Royal Society of Arts. ‘Ordinary potassium coatings, suitably sensitized, do not respond to light of wavelength longer than about 585nm, while monatomic potassium layers on silver, although having a lower critical frequency, are not sufficiently responsive to blue light; for use with incandescent tungsten, which is very deficient in blue rays, the high sensitivity of ordinary potassium cells to blue is very desirable, and a mixture of the two forms of cell is necessary in practice.’

Two positive column gas discharge tubes, one containing neon and the other

174

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Table 7.1 Baird’s arrangement for colour television Patent Scanner

Transmitter Light Source

Scanner

Receiver Light Source

314 591 (4/1/1928)

3-spiral disc

single lamp (white)

3-spiral disc

single lamp (white)

321 389 (5/6/1928)

3-spiral disc

single lamp (white)

3-spiral disc

three lamps (coloured)

322 776 (9/6/1928)

3-spiral disc

three lamps (coloured)

319 307 (20/6/1928)

3-spiral disc

single lamp (white)

1-spiral disc

three lamps (coloured)

322 823 (11/7/1928)

Types of glow discharge lamps for colour television

Table 7.2 Filters for colour television Colour

Bandpass filter

Density filter

Red Green Blue

Wratten no. 55a Wratten no. 63 Wratten no. 49a

— 0.3010 0.6021

filled with mercury vapour with a ‘little’ helium, provided the red, green and blue light components necessary for the reconstitution of the receiver’s image. An attempt was made to construct a special glow discharge lamp by mixing neon, helium and mercury vapour, but this was unsuccessful because the proportions of the essential spectral components depended upon variable conditions in the lamp (patent no. 322 776). Fortunately the two tubes used had a composite line spectrum which included important isolated spectral lines in the blue-violet, green, and red-orange regions of the spectrum and these could be separated by means of filters attached to the receiver scanner. In this patent Baird gave details of the filters which he employed to equalise the overall spectral response of his colour television system.

References 1 BURNS, R. W.: ‘British television, the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1986), p. 127 2 CHIEF ENGINEER (BBC): memorandum, 8th October 1928, BBC file T16/42 3 CAMPBELL SWINTON, A. A.: ‘Television methods of reproducing pictures’, (letter to the editor), The Times, 28th July 1928

Television and the BBC

175

4 CAMPBELL SWINTON, A. A.: letter to P. P. Eckersley, BBC file T16/42 5 PHILLIPS, F. W.: memorandum to W. T. Leech, Minute 4004/33, file 1 6 ANGWIN, A. S.: letter to Baird Television Development Company, 1st March 1928, Minute 4004/33, file 4 7 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to the Engineer-in-Chief (GPO), 3rd March 1928, Minute 4004/33, file 4 8 ANON.: report, Popular Wireless, March 1928 9 ANON.: ‘Television challenged. Simple facts demanded’, Daily Telegraph, 10th March 1928 10 ANON.: ‘Seeing by gramophone. Future of television’, Daily Telegraph, 9th March 1928 11 ANON.: ‘Challenge withdrawn’, Daily Telegraph, 20th April 1928 12 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952) 13 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘The private diaries of Sydney Moseley’ (Max Parish, London, 1960), p. 292 14 Entry for S. A. Moseley, ‘Who was who 1961–1970’ (A & C Black, London, 1972), VI 15 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘Broadcasting in my time’ (Rich and Cowan, London, 1935) 16 Ref. 12, p. 95 17 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘What I saw by television’, Popular Wireless, 22nd September 1928, p. 93 18 Ref. 15 19 Ref. 13, pp. 320–1 20 ANGWIN, A. S.: ‘Baird television demonstration’, memorandum, 19th September 1928, Minute 4004/33 21 Ibid. 22 PHILLIPS, F. W.: memorandum to the Secretary (GPO), 17th October 1928, Minute 4004/33 23 Copy of advertisement in Post Office file, Minute 4004/33 24 NORMAN, B.: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (BBC and the Royal Television Society, London, 1986), p. 54 25 Ref. 24 26 HONEYCOMB, G.: ‘History of Selfridges’, p. 61, Selfridge’s store archives 27 Ref. 23 28 PHILLIPS, F. W.: letter to E. H. Robinson of the Observer, 7th August 1928, Minute 51/1929 29 ANON.: ‘Television plans’, Daily Mail, 4th August 1928 30 Ref. 2 31 MURRAY, G.: memorandum to the Controller, 10th October 1928, BBC file T16/42 32 PHILLIPS, F. W.: memorandum to the Secretary (GPO), 17th October 1928, Minute 4004/33 33 REITH, J. F. W.: letter to F. W. Phillips, 17th October 1928, Minute 4004/33 34 BBC statement, 17th October 1928, Minute 4004/33 35 ANON.: ‘Mr Baird and the BBC. “Inexplicable” attitude to television and the reply’, Evening Standard, 18th October 1928 36 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Television, an international history of the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1998)

176

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

37 Ref. 36, pp. 242–52 38 POSTMASTER GENERAL: letters to C. Amon and others, 22nd February 1929, Minute 4004/33 39 PRIVATE SECRETARY: letter to Sir Evelyn Murray, 4th March 1929, Minute 4004/33 40 Ref. 12, pp. 96–7 41 POSTMASTER GENERAL: letter to Baird Television Development Company, The Times, 6th March 1929 42 HUTCHINSON, O. G.: letter to F. W. Phillips, 25th September 1929, Minute 4004/33 43 Ref. 41 44 Ref. 37 45 BRIDGEWATER, T. H.: ‘Baird and television’, Jour. BKSTS, March 1967, 49, p. 68 46 FLEMING, A.; report, Television Magazine, July 1928 47 ANON.: report, Morning Post, 7th July 1928 48 RUSSELL, A.: report, Nature, 18th August 1928 49 ANON.: ‘Colour television’, Glasgow News, 5th September 1928 50 Ref. 1

Chapter 8

The first television broadcast and other ‘firsts’

On 30th September 1929 the BBC transmitted the first experimental television broadcast. ‘A great day for Baird and all of us’, wrote Moseley1. The honour of opening the proceedings fell to Moseley, who announced: ‘Ladies and Gentlemen: you are about to witness the first official test of television in this country from the studio of the Baird Television Development Company and transmitted from 2LO, the London Station of the British Broadcasting Corporation.’ Then followed a number of short messages from the Right Honourable William Graham, Sir Ambrose Fleming and Professor E N da C Andrade. Graham took as his theme one which had been raised on a number of occasions previously by Hutchinson—the establishment of a new industry which would provide employment for large numbers of British people, and would prove the prestige of British creative energy. This point was further mentioned by Fleming, who acknowledged that the creation of the new industry owed so much to the genius of Mr Baird. Andrade compared the occasion to that ‘on which the records of the early phonographs were publicly tried. The voices that then issued from the horn were not of the clarity which we now expect, and the faces that you will see today, by Mr Baird’s ingenious aid, are pioneer faces, which will no doubt be surpassed in beauty and sharpness of outline as the technique of television is developed. One face, however, is as good as another for the purpose of today’s demonstration and I offer mine for public experiment in this first television broadcast.’2

The second half of the proceedings consisted of very short solo performances: 11.16 a.m. 11.18 a.m. 11.20 a.m. 11.22 a.m. 11.24 a.m. 11.26 a.m.

Sydney Howard: televised for two minutes Sydney Howard: gave a comedy monologue Miss Lulu Stanley: televised for two minutes Miss Lulu Stanley: sang ‘He’s tall, and dark, and handsome’ and ‘Grandma’s proverbs’ Miss C King: televised for two minutes Miss C King: sang ‘Mighty like a rose’

Only one transmitter had been allotted for the transmission, so each artist had

178

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 8.1

Before sound accompanied the vision signals, the titles of programmes and announcements were made by means of apparatus shown diagrammatically in the figure

Source: British Library

to be televised for two minutes and then repeat the act before a microphone. Test transmission announcements were given in the form of wording running across the vision field of the receiver. According to one report ‘the capital letters forming the words were clearly defined and easy to read, while a clock face could be read to the nearest half minute’. (See end of chapter Note 1) The programme was not without its difficulties—the most serious of which was a reproduction of a negative image instead of a positive image. However, this was rapidly corrected and fairly clear images received, said The Times3. The Daily Herald 4 thought that Sidney Howard and a woman artist were ‘quite recognisable—looking like the earliest photographs in the daily paper’—but ‘the image jerked up and down like a film when the operator is having serious trouble with his machine’. Baird told a Manchester Guardian reporter that ‘he was satisfied with the demonstration but he hoped to obtain much better results as the experiments continued. He pointed out that there had been very little time indeed for tuningin a most important operation.’ Amateur Wireless also referred to the hunting but mentioned that the results were of good quality.

The first television broadcast

179

‘One sees the image through a wide lens about eight inches in diameter and the general effect is similar to that of looking into an automatic picture machine as installed in amusement halls. The image appears as a “soft tone” photograph illuminated by a reddish—orange light.’

The general impression, the writer stated, was that the present televisor had reached the stage of development of the early flickering cinematograph. He thought there was ‘much, very much, yet to be done, but the present stage [was] highly creditable and the fact that public broadcasts [were] now being given [would] undoubtedly hasten progress’. Very few people witnessed this historic event. Asked by an Evening News reporter immediately after the broadcast how many people he thought had been able to receive the transmissions, Baird5 himself put the total at under 30. ‘There is one receiving set at my home at Box Hill, and I believe the BBC and Post Office each have one. That makes three and I should say there are half a dozen other sets in the country. Add to these the receivers which clever amateurs have built for themselves from our directions and you might add another 20. That makes 29 in all.’

Shortly after the commencement of the experimental service, Baird, and P P Eckersley and N Ashbridge of the BBC had ‘a very hectic’ dinner at the Savoy. Curiously, though Eckersley6 had been highly critical of Baird’s efforts—he had written very damaging internal BBC reports, and had exposed the severe constraints of 30-line television in Popular Wireless to the discomfort of Baird— nevertheless Baird found the BBC’s chief engineer ‘a most entertaining and human personality’ and ‘got on extremely well with him’. ‘This was before the days of my total abstinence and we dined and wined lavishly. At about 11, Ashbridge had to go and catch a train, but Eckersley and I remained over our old brandy until after one in the morning and parted the best of friends. “If we had only met sooner”, said Eckersley, “all this trouble over television would have never arisen”. I was extremely sorry when later he left the BBC [in 1929 following a divorce. Reith would not have a divorcee on his staff].’

Eckersley’s quoted opinion seems naïve given his trenchant views on lowdefinition television. Approximately twenty years later he opined8 that if Baird, ‘long before launching all the publicity, had quietly collected the physicists, technologists, resources, and so on, and had then come to the BBC saying: “Look!” and the BBC (being satisfied with what it saw and how what it saw was produced) then started a service, not only would he [Baird] have been the aphrodisiac of television, he would have been father and mother too!’ Regrettably he did not comment on the strategy which would have enabled such a research and development team to be formed. Baird’s policy was simple: good publicity led to successful company formations, the subscription to which by the public provided the capital for the setting-up of workshops and laboratories, and the recruitment of staff. In 1929 the BBC was broadcasting, by means of the Fultograph process, still pictures. When these broadcasts ceased shortly after the inauguration of the first public experimental television service, Bartlett9, the Secretary of BTDC, seized

180

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 8.2

The Long Acre studio is shown with the pianist and the singer seated in front of a microphone and a bank of photoelectric cells

Source: The Royal Television Society

the opportunity to write to Reith, the Director General of the BBC, to enquire whether Baird could have the periods released by the suspension of the still picture service. He told the Director General that amateurs found the television transmission times unsuitable and that manufacturers looked upon an extension of the present facilities as being of vital importance to the new television industry. The BBC considered this request at a Control Board meeting10 the following day and agreed to let the company have some extra time on two nights a week after programme hours. The additional evenings subsequently chosen were Tuesday and Friday although the company would have preferred Wednesday and Saturday: the first of the new transmissions was sent out on Friday, 3rd January 1930. For the first television broadcast Baird Television had built a new studio—just 15 ft × 15 ft—at Long Acre. W C Fox11, a former BTDC employee, described it as ‘up to date as it could be. Dark blue curtains lined the walls with a design in orange and gold at the junction with the ceiling and floor. The ceiling was covered with orange coloured material while the floor was covered with felt and grey matting. A few good chairs, a table and a grand piano completed the furnishings.’ (See Figure 8.2 )

The heavy curtains were necessary to reduce the amount of sound reflected from the walls. Later, these had to be lined with copper sheets to attenuate the

The first television broadcast

Figure 8.3

181

Copper-lined studio (1929), and Mr A D Calkin

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

external electrical interference signals which had been observed. The control room was situated next to the studio and was 12 ft × 10 ft in size. The apparatus consisted of a Nipkow scanning disc mounted on a metal table, a 1000 W lamp, and a lens which focused the ‘flying spot’ beam through a 12 in × 6 in aperture in the dividing wall between the studio and the control room. D R Campbell usually operated the scanning apparatus. He has recalled12: ‘That control room was a very hush-hush place. God knows why when you think about it. There was nothing new or inventive in it. It was only a 12 V d.c. motor turning a disc. I must admit a very special disk that had to be made in Germany, sandwiched between, believe it or not, two fly-wheels of a Douglas motorbike. And to be quite honest there was nothing in the control room that anybody who had the slightest experience of circuitry, should have found difficult. I think after about a week, I would have been quite pleased to take over the whole apparatus without worries.’

When Campbell commenced his duties, ‘the first thing that absolutely shook me was there was no testing apparatus. We hadn’t even a voltmeter. We had no idea how strong our signal was. In fact Birch, who had been a naval wireless operator, had to put on his headphones and talk us in: “Yes, that’s right.

182

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Now come on, we want some more gain somewhere. Come on, that’s too much”. And that was the only method of finding out. I thought it was extremely odd. So the first thing I said was that we must have a modulation meter. And they sort of looked at me blankly. Anyway, I made up a modulation meter.’

Another Baird engineer, T H Bridgewater13, has recollected: ‘To show the result, the sound and vision signals were carried by wire into a demonstration room next door to a Noah’s Ark televisor, a rather large wooden cabinet about two and a half feet wide, two feet tall and 18 inches deep, which housed the disc and the motor. It was nicknamed the “Noah’s Ark” because of its shape—only about a dozen were made. Under the table on which it stood were housed amplifiers and batteries. Everything was batteries, even the high tension for the amplifiers, which had to be 600 V, and it was very dangerous. 600 V direct current can kill and, some years later, a Baird man was killed.’

Subsequently after Birch left the company, Bridgewater and Campbell were the technicians in charge of running the studios. They were paid £3.50 each and their first job was ‘to have a signal available to show people on the Stock Exchange what television had come to’. Bridgewater14 has left some fascinating reminiscences of his time as a control room technician. The transmissions late at night were ‘a very tiresome business. We’d work all day, kill time in the West End to midnight and then go and do this broadcast—without a penny extra pay. Campbell and I were the two technicians who made it work, but that was a fairly simple job. You switched the disc on, switched the lamp on, switched on the amplifiers and the picture came on. It was all preset. The only thing you really had to do was to get the subject focused which you did with a lens in the control room. And you peered through the hole in the wall to see if there were sharp spots, then, as the disc got up to speed, sharp stripes on the person’s face. You had then to get your subject sitting in the right position because at that time the disc was fixed so you had to place the subject in relation to the beam of light and not move the camera in relation to the subject. If you had a small person we had a typist’s chair that had a little bit of adjustment on it. But if that wasn’t enough we had a range of telephone directories we just shoved under him until we got the right height . . .. ‘Although we had an announcer for the morning, Brigadier Russell, a brother of our company chairman—nice little job for his retirement—he didn’t care to come in at midnight, so I did it. And we’d heard that all the BBC announcers wore dinner jackets so I thought the smart thing was to do this on television. So I kept a dinner jacket at the studio and a dicky I bought from a shop in Soho that sold outfits for waiters and one of those bow ties on elastic. And I used to have my dicky shirt dyed blue because the equipment couldn’t cope with anything bright. So, I’d get there about ten to twelve. Campbell was usually there before me switching things on and I would rush into the dressing-room, throw off my jacket, throw off my collar and tie, shove on the dicky—I didn’t have to change my trousers as only my top was shown and, two minutes later, I emerged as a blue shirted announcer and would sit in front of the thing and announce Miss So and So who was going to sing or Mr So and So who might play a violin. We always used to try and be like the BBC because that was what we thought we were expected to be. And, while the show was going on, I’d go into the control room and see if Campbell wanted any help and then [go] back into the studio if there was to be another act, push the artist onto the chair, get the height right and carry on.’

The first television broadcast

Figure 8.4

183

A cartoonist demonstrating in front of the photoelectric cells during a lowdefinition television transmission (1930). Left: Mr Rupert Harvey, right Mr Basil Clarke

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

After the granting of the additional periods for television broadcasting, the next big step forward was the allocation by the BBC of an additional wavelength so that sound and vision could be synchronised. This demanded the use of both the Brookmans Park transmitters, one operating on 261 m for vision and the other on 356 m for sound15: the first combined transmission was sent out on 31st March 193016. As Director of Programmes, Moseley invited Miss Cicely Courtneidge to appear in the opening programme. She submitted an outline of her ‘act’ to Moseley (an opera buff) for approval, but he turned it down. She would have sung a song, ‘I’ve fallen in love’—‘a silly thing . . . too twaddlish for broadcasting’—which would have contained the words ‘Sing a cadenza, I’ve got influenza’. The song had formed part of her act at the Adelphi but Moseley17 was not impressed. ‘We have been sweating blood to put television over—not for this kind of muck I hope.’ When Miss Courtneidge refused to change her offering she lost the opportunity of becoming one of television’s first artistes. Her place was taken by Miss Annie Croft. The programme, which started at 11.00 a.m., consisted of introductory remarks by Moseley followed by short speeches by Lord Ampthill and that loyal

184

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

supporter of John Baird, Sir Ambrose Fleming. Songs by Annie Croft and Gracie Fields then followed. Head and shoulders only were shown on this occasion, but it was Baird’s eventual aim to be allowed to introduce a portable television transmitter into the BBC’s studios so that no limitation would be imposed on artistes’ movements and so that it would not be necessary to make use of the dentist’s chair arrangement. Miss Gracie Fields18 found the studio production of television rather bizarre. ‘I was put in this little room, it seemed as big as the smallest telephone kiosk you see in the street, and they put me in there and they said “You’re going to sing through here.” Well, all I could see was, well, it looked like a brick wall. “Are you kidding? Are you pulling my leg?” They said “No. You see. It goes in there and it’s going to be seen miles away.” Somebody is pulling my leg. Well, all right, I’m used to singing in so many places, and I go in there and get myself locked inside and start to sing.’

For the wireless correspondent19 of the Evening Standard the reception of the transmission was remarkable: ‘It was, so to speak’, he wrote, ‘a “talkie” by wireless, but a “talkie” that consisted of close-ups.’ The Times20 commented on the remarkable detail of the images transmitted, considering the relative simplicity of the receiving apparatus. This apparatus, the televisor receiving set, was on the market at 25 guineas although it was possible for amateurs to buy a kit of parts for home construction from a number of London stores for 16 guineas. They were designed to work in conjunction with a wireless receiver capable of delivering a good quality output of the order of one and a half watts. Following the inauguration of the new service, Baird Television installed a television set at No. 10 Downing Street. Ramsay MacDonald21, the Prime Minister, acknowledged this in glowing terms: ‘I must thank you very warmly for the television instrument you have put into Downing Street. What a marvellous discovery you have made! When I look at the transmission I feel that the most wonderful miracle is being done under my eye. I congratulate you most heartily and send you my sincere hopes for your future success. You have put something into my room which will never let me forget how strange is the world—and how unknown.’

With praise like that, it seemed that Baird could never look back. On 12th March 1930 Wireless World22 reported: ‘At last a Baird receiver built for sale to the public has arrived.’ Hutchinson’s remark of 1926 had come true. ‘High-class workmanship, but with a none too pleasing external appearance owing to the use of a light metal cabinet and poorly devised controls, are one’s first observations on acquaintance with the instrument’, said the writer, but it did ‘give reception of images with sufficient definition to be readily intelligible’, he conceded. The receiver consisted essentially of a thin, 20-inch diameter aluminium scanning disc having 30 apertures, the majority of which were square (about six near the ends were rectangular), an electric motor which carried the disc and synchronising mechanism, a neon tube and a voltage regulating resistance. The

The first television broadcast

185

a)

b) Figure 8.5

(a) The front of the Baird ‘televisor’ receiver, with the cover removed, showing all the initial components; (b) the rear of the same receiver

Source: The BBC Engineering Training Department

width/length ratio of the image area of 1 : 2.5 was produced by the spiral design so that the resulting picture was suited to accommodate the head and shoulders image of a person speaking. The universal motor could be operated from either an a.c. or d.c. supply and synchronising was effected by means of a toothed wheel running between the poles of an electromagnet. According to the company, a power output, from the last stage of an amplifier, of 1.5 W was sufficient to actuate both the neon lamp and the synchronising gear (which were in series), but the Wireless World reviewer found that the process of synchronising became easier if the L55A output valve used in the amplifier was changed to a L56A, as this had a rated output of 5 W. ‘When once correctly set up and a little practice

186

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

gained in the operation of the speed regulating control, reception became reliable’, he said. ‘For quite long intervals the picture remained steady though in the case of head and shoulders images the lighting effect was far from perfect, and it was not possible to glean the significance of the movements, though if accompanied by speech the effect might have been different.’ The television receiving set was produced to give an image only and not sound. It was assumed that the purchaser of the set already possessed a suitable receiver and aerial installation for the reception of both the vision and sound signals. Concluding his article, the reviewer mentioned: ‘Such results will interest the enthusiast, and these have become possible since the adoption of the signal controlled toothed-wheel method of synchronising first introduced towards the end of last year.’ It was thought that the price of the set would be about £20. A consequence of this arrangement of having separate vision and sound reproducers, when both visual and aural information were transmitted, was the lack of coincidence of the two stimuli affecting the viewers senses, thereby causing an unnaturalness in the reproduced scene. Baird23 gave some thought to this problem and in patent no. 318 278 suggested a means whereby the above defect could be overcome. His idea was to use the receiver’s Nipkow scanning disk as the vibrating diaphragm of a loudspeaker in addition to its function as an image synthesiser. The disc was to be capable of moving both rotationally and translationally according to the motions of the shaft of the electric motor and the armatures of the electromagnets respectively. In this way vibrations would be established in the disc according to the speech signals fed to the electromagnets and sound waves would be radiated from it. There is no evidence to show that Baird constructed a model or prototype of this reproducer: prima facie the difficulties of design to give a reasonably flat and smooth frequency response over the audio frequency range would seem to be formidable. In any case, coincident sound and vision fields can be obtained (for suitably placed observers), by employing a pair of loudspeakers symmetrically situated about the viewed scene. The first television play was transmitted on 14th July 1930 and was produced by Lance Sieveking and Moseley. It was Pirandello’s The Man with a Flower in his Mouth—the ‘flower’ being a cancer—and was chosen because it had three characters only. The cast was Gladys Young, Earle Gray and Lionel Millard. ‘They came to Long Acre and were made up in yellow, with navy blue shading around the eyes and nose’, wrote Margaret Baird 24, ‘these colours on the face improving the picture’. Again head and shoulders were all that could be seen and not much of C R W Nevinson’s scenery could be observed. Only one face at a time was shown and between each sequence a checked curtain was drawn across the screen, incidental music filling in the pauses. ‘Allowing for such things as the televisor going out of synchronism every now and then and the poor quality of the sound transmission, it must be recorded that the broadcast as a scientific achievement was a success’, wrote The Times25. ‘As a play—well, that left a certain amount to the imagination, but it was a good

The first television broadcast

Figure 8.6

187

The first television play broadcast by the BBC was Pirandello’s ‘The Man with a Flower in his Mouth’ (July 1930). The photograph shows (left to right) Lance Sieveking, C D Freeman, M Eversley, and Lionel Millard.

Source: The BBC

entertainment and certainly an advance on the mere reception by sound’, it continued. The Daily Mail 26 also found that the pauses tended to minimise the dramatic interest of the performance ‘and [constituted] one of the problems which it [was] hoped to solve when bigger receiving sets [were] cheaper. But it was certainly startling, as well as helpful to the dialogue, to be able to see their every expression—even to the lifting of the eyebrows. We even saw the gestures of their hands—although we had to sacrifice their faces for the time being.’ The play was chosen because very little action was required from the three characters, and because the numerous long speeches minimised the number of necessary scene changes. Since the only studio camera was immovable, the performers had to enter carefully the camera’s field of view and exchange positions so as not to disturb the synchronisation between the transmitting and receiving scanners. ‘You didn’t push your head quickly in or out and you taught the artist to do the same. Sometimes they would forget and if they did, well, the home receiver would lose synchronism—instead of being stationary the picture would be dancing up and down. Of course we didn’t necessarily know at the transmitting end whether the person at home

188

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

was losing synchronism or not. All we could do was to try and make sure that we provided the least provocation by moving slowly and carefully.’27

To ease the problem, ‘fading boards’ were used whenever a scene change had to be effected. One type is shown in Figure 8.7. This type, having a chequerboard pattern printed on it, could be slid on a wooden rail in and out of the camera’s field of view to allow the actors to change their positions. The device enabled scenes to be altered in the same way as a theatre curtain permits variations in scenery to be made. On 1st April 1931 the Long Acre studio was reconstructed and provided with ‘a nice new control room [and] a proper switchboard’28. In addition Baird, on Wilson’s advice, introduced a 30-line Weiller mirror drum scanner in which the 30 mirrors were inclined at slightly different angles so that the line scan, due to a given mirror, was contiguous with the line scans provided by the mirrors on either side of the given mirror. Wilson was the theoretician on Baird’s staff. He seems to have deduced that such a scanner would have a greater optical efficiency than a Nipkow disc scanner for 30-line television. One of the most extraordinary features of the evolution of practical systems of television is that for approximately fifty years, from the first 1878 suggestions for seeing by electricity to 1930, no-one anywhere had sought to compare the

Figure 8.7 Source: BBC

During the Pirandello play this sliding board was used between scenes to prevent the loss of synchronism

The first television broadcast

189

optical efficiencies of the various mechanical scanners. Indeed, the technical literature for this period is notable for the almost complete absence of mathematical analyses of the merits or otherwise of the different methods. This was a period of empiricism in television matters. As a consequence, just about every conceivable type of scanner for analysing or reconstituting an image was suggested prior to the inauguration of the world’s first all-electronic television service in 1936. And yet, as Moller and Kirschtein showed in a 1931 issue of the periodical Fernsehen, an analysis of the optical performance of a scanner is a relatively straightforward matter based on the elementary principles of illumination and physics, and simple mathematics. A few years after their papers were published, Myers29 in his book Television Optics compared the characteristics of many mechanical-optical systems. He determined the relative efficiencies of the aperture disc and the mirror drum scanners and concluded: ‘the aperture disc should be used at the transmitting-end for low-definition systems with about 40 lines and upwards. Below 40 lines it is advisable and more efficient to employ the mirror drum. The advisability rests on economic grounds. This is the policy which was adopted by the BBC in their low-definition 30-line transmitter.’ The introduction by Baird of the Weiller mirror drum was not without its dramatic moment. ‘Baird said to me one day that we ought to do 25 pictures a second instead of twelve and a half and asked me if I’d like to try. I said, “No, I don’t think its safe.” “Oh, yes. It’s quite safe.” “No”, I said, “I don’t think it’s safe. When these bits of glass start going round fast they are going to fly off. I don’t want to touch it.” So he got someone else and the result was they nearly got cut in half.’30

The someone else was Clapp. ‘We blew up the whole big mirror drum. All the glass mirrors fell off because of the speed it was running and Mr Baird said, “I think we’d better go home now Mr Clapp. I think we’d better go home.” ’

Slowly the Nipkow disc scanner was phased out as use of the mirror drum scanner showed its advantage for a 30-line working. The new scanner was capable of a certain amount of movement and this allowed the emergent light beam to follow the artistes in the new studio and led to more variety in the programmes which were televised. Studio lighting, too, was improved. This was under the control of Campbell and he has written: ‘There were originally four fixed photocells just above the hole where the spotlight came through. Now, in projected spotlight television, the photocells really represent the studio lights so in the new studio I took the cells off the wall and put them on two little movable stands connected to the control room by leads 18 ft long. Later the two groups of cells were increased to four and if I put them at the back of the subject it produced a nice back lighting effect. If I put them to one side, it would light that side of the face and not the other. In effect I was developing them into lighting in the sense that lighting is used in a film studio.’

190

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

An interesting, and possibly engaging, effect31 was soon observed with the studio’s photoelectric cells, which were responsive to the red and infra-red regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. ‘Bradley [the Studio Manager, a brother-in-law of Moseley] thought we’d televise Lulu Stanley, our permanent soubrette. She was a very dark Welsh girl and was in a red bathing dress. Well, we never rehearsed anything so she did her little dance and she might just as well not have had a bathing dress on. She looked absolutely nude. And a great pal of ours at Savoy Hill rang us in the middle and said: “For Heaven’s sake take her off, we can’t get on with our work in the control room.” And that, incidentally, was the first time the engineers at Savoy Hill would condescend to look at television.’

The red sensitivity of the cells posed problems for the costume and make-up staff because ‘the gas in the neon lamp [was] a pink discharge colour and made some colours even redder than they really were. People had pink faces and bright red lips which the cells, because of the red sensitivity, saw as white. So we overcame that by using a dark make-up, blue or black, anything to get away from red.’

The Baird company’s experimental television broadcasts continued until 22nd August 1932. Among the performers there were singers, violinists, speedy cartoonists, and anyone else who was prepared to give a ‘turn’ and be televised for a fee of one or two guineas. Bradley had had wide experience of the theatre and ran the studio productions on professional lines. Baird has recalled ‘how strange it was to come down from the cold austere laboratory to the exotic atmosphere of the studio, mysterious with young females floating about in tights, red nosed comedians applying grease paint, and colourful figures in wigs and lurid costumes, pianists and violinists rehearsing and all the colourful chaos back stage. Then having seen the transmission through at one in the morning, to take a taxi from the stand at Long Acre and drive the 25 miles to my lone villa on the top of Box Hill, where Winkle [a cat] and Mephy sat before the great log fire.’32

Note 1 News by television In patent no. 324 029 Baird33 claimed: ‘means for transmitting a message or the like by television apparatus comprising a moving band, strip or other support upon which elements constituting [a] message are placed or formed, arranged in such relation to the exploring region of the transmitting apparatus and in such a manner that the elements are slowly traversed past the said region’. The claims covered the use of characters formed on the moving support (for example by printing or typing), and the employment of similar characters retained in position on the tape by a magnetic force. Initially, Baird utilised his invention to transmit what was popularly called Television Screen News. Until March 1930 only vision signals without sound could be broadcast by the BBC—pending the completion of the twin transmit-

The first television broadcast

191

ters at Brookman’s Park—so the only way in which news items could be given on television was by the use of written words. Prior to April 1930 hand-worked apparatus had been used for the purpose, but after that date an electrical device was introduced which ‘functioned most satisfactorily and it is not too much to say that it made a most instructive and interesting addition to the daily programme’34. By August 1929 a specialised form of the same equipment had been developed and constructed, primarily for transmitting unorthodox characters and other printed matter by radio, when fading made transmission difficult and also when an ordinary Creed undulator could not be used. One model was actually made for Prince Purachatra for use in Siam, but subsequent negotiations were never concluded. Baird seems to have been quite impressed by the possibilities which his ideas suggested, for he coined the rather unwieldly word ‘telelogoscophy’, from the Greek roots tele, logos and skopos, to refer to ‘seeing writing at a distance’. Figure 8.8 illustrates Baird’s apparatus. The message which was to be transmitted was typed, by a specially adapted typewriter, on to a white tape, and then scanned by an aperture drum scanner so that each hole of the drum passed vertically in front of the illuminated message. By using an aperture drum the curved scanning lines associated with the Nipkow scanner were eliminated, although initially this type of scanner was employed. The beams of light emerging from the drum were focused onto the uniformly moving tape by a suitable lens and the reflected light then allowed to fall onto one or more photoelectric cells. (The intermittent motion of the tape from the typewriter was negated by having a loop in the tape between this machine and the framework which moved the tape uniformly before the scanning apparatus.)

Figure 8.8

Schematic diagram of Baird’s telewriter

Source: British Library

192

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

From a photograph of an early scanning disc which was published in the Television magazine, it would appear that a 60 lines per frame standard was used rather than the 30 lines per frame standard which Baird employed for his television broadcasts. A contemporary report of the equipment mentioned the ‘excellent results which were obtained with an experimental receiver’ and the simplicity of the arrangement ‘as there is no graded light and shade to worry about but merely black and white contrasts’35. In an earlier patent no. 299 076 Baird36 described a method of transmission using strip scanning apparatus which allowed drawings, photographs, and documents to be reproduced at a distance. The drawings were cut into a series of strips which were arranged end-to-end to form a continuous band; the band was then scanned. At the receiving end of the link the two-dimensional pictures were reconstituted by cutting the receiver band into appropriate sections—the sections being placed side by side. Clearly this invention did not represent an advance on the several (Ranger, Siemens-Karolus, Belin and others) facsimile machines which were being introduced into the wireless telegraphy service at about this time.

Figure 8.9

The Baird telewriter

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

The first television broadcast

193

Note 2 Teletalkies Teletalkies, a system of televising film images, was first demonstrated, at the Long Acre laboratories, by Baird on 19th August 1929. In this method of generating televised images a standard cinematograph projector was adapted so that the individual film images were scanned by an aperture disc scanner/photocell arrangement. The method has the advantage that the sensitivity and colour response of the photocell are less critical than for direct television, since the cell has to distinguish between black and white only, and the flux of light on the cell can be very large. An Evening News reporter who attended the demonstration wrote: ‘The image on the glass screen was small, but perfectly clear. It was, at the first glance, a bride in a wedding veil, but in a second I recognised Mr George Robey as the not-too-blushing bride, and recognised his voice in a series of disillusioned observations about marriage.’ The Daily Telegraph noted: ‘Though neither sound nor vision reproduction could be described as perfect—chiefly because the transmitting was no more than a laboratory scale, it was explained—the demonstration was sufficiently convincing to evoke a vision of the not-so-very-distant future when a television cabinet and an armchair at home might take the place of the cinema itself.’

References 1 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952) 2 MOSELEY, S. A., and BARTON CHAPPLE, H. J.: ‘Television today and tomorrow’ (Pitman, London, 1933) 3 ANON.: ‘Television. First experimental broadcasts’, The Times, 1st October 1929 4 ANON.: ‘Television humour. Machine breaks down in first day broadcast. Mugs Monday’, Daily Herald, 1st October 1929 5 Ref.1 6 Editorial, Amateur Wireless, October 1929 7 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 98 8 Ref. 1, pp. 250–1 9 BARLETT, T. W.: letter to Sir J. F. W. Reith, 11th November 1929, BBC file T16/42 10 Control Board Minutes, extract, 12th November 1929, BBC file T16/42 11 NORMAN, B.: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (BBC and the Royal Television Society, London, 1984), p. 57 12 Ibid., pp. 57–8 13 Ibid., p. 58 14 Ibid., p. 60

194

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

15 LINES ENGINEER: memorandum, 13th March 1930, BBC file T16/42 16 MURRAY, G.: letter to S. A. Moseley, 12th February 1930, BBC file T16/42 17 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘The private diaries of S. A. Moseley’ (Max Parrish, London, 1960) 18 Ref. 11, p. 61 19 ANON.: ‘First sound television broadcast. Singers seen ten miles away. Dual transmission by BBC twins’, Evening Standard, 31st March 1930 20 ANON.: ‘Television broadcast with sound. Success of the Baird experiments’, The Times, 1st April 1930 21 Ref. 7, p. 94 22 ANON.: report, Wireless World, 12th March 1930, p. 277 23 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in or relating to loudspeaking telephones applicable for use with television apparatus and the like’, British patent no. 318 278, application date 31st May 1928 24 BAIRD, M.: ‘Television Baird’ (HAUM, Capetown, 1973) 25 ANON.: ‘First play by television’, The Times, 15th July 1930 26 ANON.: report, Daily Mail, 15th July 1930 27 Ref. 11, p. 62 28 Ibid., p. 65 29 MYERS, L.: ‘Television optics’ (Pitman, London, 1936) 30 Ref. 11, p. 66 31 Ibid., p. 67 32 Ref. 7, p. 101 33 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in or relating to television and like apparatus’, British patent no. 324 049, application date 10th October 1928 34 ANON.: ‘ “News” by television’, Television, October 1932 35 LAYZELLE, R. E.: letter to the editor, Television, September 1932, p. 270 36 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in or relating to facsimile telegraphy’, British patent no. 299 076, application date, 20th June 1927

Chapter 9

Overseas interests

In Germany the transatlantic transmission of 1928 aroused intense interest, and later in the year Dr Bredow, Managing Director of the German Broadcasting Corporation, accompanied by his two chief technical experts, Dr Banneitz and Dr Reisser, visited Baird’s laboratories1. As a consequence Dr Bredow invited the company to send representatives over to Germany to install a transmitter in the Berlin broadcasting station. ‘I [Baird] found myself arriving at the Adlon Hotel in Berlin, complete with Hutchinson, a great load of apparatus, a team of technicians and last, but dominating the whole picture, Sydney A Moseley. Hutchinson had done the preparatory work and done it well. Our apparatus was erected at the German Broadcasting House, the Reichrundfunk, and a meeting had been arranged, to be presided over by the State Secretary of Posts and Telegraphs and to include Dr Bredow, the Postmaster General of the Reich, Dr Growirow, and all those interested in television.’2

The Baird Company’s television transmitter was installed in the VOX-Haus and was operated by some of the company’s staff. Live experimental transmissions commenced on 15th May 1929 and continued until 13th July 1929. They took place daily between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. and sometimes between 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. and at night. From 13th July the Baird equipment was operated in the Reichpostzentralamt3. The cooperation of the German Broadcasting Corporation came at a most opportune time for Baird and his companies. After months of opposition by the British Broadcasting Corporation to their proposals, the adventitious attention of Dr Bredow and his colleagues must have been a welcome relief. Dr Bredow’s helpful attitude contrasted markedly with that of Reith, the Director General of the BBC—who rarely attended a Baird television demonstration—and possibly shamed the BBC. Subsequently, on 30th September 1929, the BBC’s experimental, regular television service was inaugurated4. Dr E C Rassbach and Mr K M Wild of Robert Bosch GmbH, Stuttgart, had also seen, on another occasion, Baird’s equipment and had been duly impressed.

196

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 9.1

J L Baird with O G Hutchinson and Sir Oliver Lodge

Source: The Royal Television Society

They had found the demonstrations convincing and suggested that the two firms should cooperate. Following these approaches a company was formed to develop television in Germany under the auspices of the German Post Office. The formation was referred to by Sir Edward Manville at an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Baird Television and Development Company in April 19305. The firms involved were the Bosch Magneto Company, the Zeiss–Ikon Company and the Loewe Radio Company. The Baird Company would supply the television expertise, the Zeiss Company would contribute the television parts, the Loewe Company would provide the wireless parts and the Bosch Company would manufacture the necessary electric motors. Dr Banneitz, the Chief Technician of the German Post Office, was appointed consultant. This company was duly incorporated, the four constituents having equal shares, and Fernseh AG came into being. ‘For some time’, wrote Baird, ‘we kept a number of engineers permanently in Berlin. I spent a lot of time there, and these visits were very happy until Hitler stepped in.’ Manville believed that with the help of the German firms, not only would progress be made in the practical applications of television in Germany, but also that his company would receive technical assistance from them in the general development of the system by virtue of their agreement for a reciprocal exchange of patents and improvements.

Overseas interests

197

In many respects Baird’s early commercial activities and difficulties mirrored those which had been experienced by Marconi. Both inventors were keen to capitalise on their initial successes, and as their work could be furthered only by obtaining funds from the public, companies were created. The Wireless Telegraph and Signal Company was established in 1897, the year following Marconi’s visit to England. Television Ltd was registered in 1925, the year of Baird’s first demonstration of rudimentary television. When further companies were floated these incorporated the name of the inventor in each case. None of the public companies was initially rewarding for their shareholders: Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Company Ltd did not pay any dividends from 1897 to 1910. Both inventors felt that the creation of overseas interests was necessary for the advancement of their plans. In 1899 the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America was set up and was followed by the Marconi International Marine Communications Company Limited in 1900. The original capital of the Wireless Telegraph and Signal Company was £100 000 and that of the Baird Television Development Company was £125 000, and both were largely subscribed by wealthy individuals. Presumably, in each case, the subscribers wanted a speculative investment in the new communication system. Marconi was handsomely rewarded for his enterprise and received £15 000 in cash and 60 per cent of the original stock in exchange for nearly all his patent rights. He was just 23 years of age at that time. Similarly, Baird Television Development Company acquired the sole rights to exploit the inventions of Baird in the UK by paying the purchase price of £20 000 to Television Ltd, which had Baird as one of its founder members. Moreover, both Marconi and Baird encountered difficulties in advancing their commercial interests. Aggressive tactics were adopted by the two companies to further their objectives, and much good will towards Marconi and Baird was dissipated later by this approach. Sir William Preece, who initially championed Marconi, said in 1907: ‘I have formed the opinion that the Marconi company is the worst managed company I have ever had anything to do with . . . Its organisation is chiefly indicated by the fact that they quarrel with everybody.’ A few months after the establishment of BIT, Clapp was asked to travel to Australia to give demonstrations of television. Accompanied by an assistant, T H Bridgewater, who many years later became Chief Engineer of BBC Television, Clapp sailed in October 1928 on the SS Oransay. Their baggage included 72 items of equipment packed in seven crates. Clapp and Bridgewater arrived at Melbourne on 3rd December and set about the task of organising numerous television demonstrations6. Appropriate accommodation was found in Capitol House and, after transit damage had been repaired, demonstrations were carried out until 1929 when the apparatus was recrated for forwarding to Sydney. However, because the intended demonstration to Sir Joynton Smith, the proprietor of Smiths Weekly, the local newspaper, was called off, the equipment was returned to Melbourne. Further operations were conducted from a temporary studio situated on the top floor of the Menzies

198

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Hotel. No ‘live’ broadcasts were given; instead the images were sent by cable to the Baird Model B televisor positioned on the first floor of the hotel. During Clapp’s and Bridgewater’s stay in Melbourne and Sydney, the Baird company’s business manager was a retired Major who had previously represented the Dunlop company’s interests in Australia. He was ‘a colourful character of uncertain temperament and peculiar habits. Tony Bridgewater [recalled] the morning briefings with the Major sitting up in bed in his pyjamas with a parrot perched on his shoulder.’ The impossibility of working with the nontechnical and irascible Major Maculich led to the premature departure of Clapp and Bridgewater. Two local radio engineers, F Canning and J Davy, had been trained to operate the equipment and on 30th September 1929, after several weeks of experimental testing, the first demonstration of television to the public in Australia was given. ‘Fortified by an enjoyable lunch leading citizens and press men saw and heard Mollie MacKay singing’, accompanied by Coral Trenerry (violin) and Katie Liddle (piano). By the end of the year the Australian venture had come to an end and the equipment was dismantled for an unknown destination. Nothing further was heard of the Major. Previously—and probably unknown to Baird Television Development Company—on 19th October 1927 Keep Brothers Ltd7, of Birmingham, had written to Amalgamated Wireless (Australia) Ltd8, Sydney, and appraised them of the Baird company’s intention to demonstrate a new televisor over much ‘longer distances than heretofore’. ‘When they arrive in your Market, at our request, they have promised to make a point of communicating with you, with a view to making some satisfactory mutual working arrangement. . .’ Amalgamated Wireless (Australia) Ltd8 replied on 5th December that they would be very pleased to see a Director of BTDC. In addition the Australian company wrote9 to Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Company (MWT) and sought ‘any advice regarding [BTDC] itself that will assist us in deciding our attitude’ towards any working arrangements which might be discussed. The letter was passed to A Gray and I Shoenberg, the Patents Manager, for comment. Shoenberg noted10 that 14 patents had been granted to BTDC and that there were 26 provisional applications which were not available for inspection. ‘None of these patents appear to be of any importance from our point of view.’ This view was not surprising given Gray’s lack of interest in developing the new medium. ‘I can see that any co-operation between the Australian Company and Baird Television Development Company would be very expensive for the Australian Company.’11 In his letter to Amalgamated Wireless (Australia) Ltd, F G Kellaway12, the Managing Director of MWT, mentioned the April 1927 AT&T television demonstrations, and the successful demonstration which had recently been conducted by the General Electric Company of America and the Radio Corporation of America, of a system of television developed by Dr Alexanderson13. ‘We presume that your Company in common with others will be entitled to the rights under these inventions and we should therefore strongly advise you not to

Overseas interests

199

enter into any arrangements with the Baird Company.’ Whether these opinions subsequently reached Sir Joynton Smith and were the cause of the unsuccessful arrangements in Sydney is not known. In the summer of 1929 the South African committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science invited BIT to demonstrate the Baird television system at meetings to be held in Cape Town and Johannesburg. These were scheduled for the period 22nd July to 5th August 1929. Lord Angus Kennedy, Vice-President of the Television Society, Dr C Tierney, the Chairman of the Society, and two Baird engineers, J Percy and E Bray, sailed for South Africa on the SS Llandovery Castle early in July14. The inaugural demonstration was witnessed on 22nd July by members of the press and broadcasting authority in a temporary television studio in Cape Town. Among the distinguished visitors were the Governor General of South Africa, the Earl of Athlone, Princess Alice, Lady May Cambridge and the Mayor and Town Councillors of Cape Town. The visit does not seem to have been profitable to BIT.

Figure 9.2

Dr C Tierney (second from left) and Major A G Church (extreme right), two stalwart supporters of Baird’s efforts

Source: The Royal Television Society

200

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Elsewhere, ‘In accordance with the provision of the preliminary contracts entered into, there was formed in the United States of America the Baird Parent Corporation, with a capital of 1 000 shares of no par value.’ Since the only extant account relating to the North American business arrangements is that written by Hutchinson15, his description which is quite technical is reproduced in Notes 1 at the end of this chapter. His visit to the United States is considered further in Chapter 12. In Europe, BIT explored possible links with various organisations in several countries. By November 1929 consultations in Belgium had progressed to such an extent that detailed proposals had been put forward which would have resulted in the installation of Baird equipment in the principal broadcasting station, Radio Belgique, and an experimental station on the outskirts of Brussels, under the control of the Société Belgique, would have been made available for music and speech transmissions simultaneously with the television transmissions. In France many discussions with leading radio manufacturers had taken place by the end of 1929. If an agreement had been obtained with these manufacturers, television broadcasting facilities would have been provided through Radio Paris and several important French broadcasting stations. Hutchinson has recorded that the Directors of Baird International Television Ltd gave these matters their careful consideration, but ultimately came to the conclusion that having formed a strong alliance in Europe through the creation of the German company, Fernseh AG, in which BIT had a 25 per cent stake, their immediate policy should be to exploit the rights in the British Dominions and the Crown Colonies. For these reasons the negotiations in Belgium and France were prorogued16. After the establishment of Baird International Television Ltd in June 1928 it had become increasingly obvious to the directors of the two public companies that the functions of these companies should be amalgamated. Sir Mark Webster Jenkinson, an expert on such matters, was consulted and he submitted a scheme of amalgamation to the joint boards of directors of BTDC and BIT which, after discussion, was adopted and approved by them. Meetings of the companies were held in April 1930 and the scheme for amalgamation17 was approved by the shareholders and became effective. The world interests of Baird television were thus vested in the new company which was called Baird Television Ltd. The capital of the new company was £825 000 divided into 2 100 000 preferred ordinary shares of 5s. each, entitled to a 10 per cent non-cumulative preferential dividend and 40 per cent of the surplus profits, with preferential rights in the event of winding up, and 1 200 000 deferred ordinary shares of 5s. each entitled to 60 per cent of the profits, after payment of the non-cumulative ten per cent preference dividend on the preferred ordinary shares. The 2 100 000 preferred ordinary shares and 200 000 of the deferred ordinary shares were allotted to the shareholders (other than Television Ltd) in the public companies. Television Ltd received from Baird Television Ltd 1 000 000 deferred ordinary shares of 5s. each in exchange for its previous holding of 1 400 000 B shares in

Overseas interests

Figure 9.3

201

Baird International Television Company

Source: The Royal Television Society

Baird International Television Ltd. It might appear that Television Ltd, in assenting to the scheme of amalgamation and in accepting the exchange of shares, had given up shares of the nominal value of £100 000 without adequate compensation. However, it was thought that the right of participation in the profits of the 1 000 000 deferred ordinary shares was likely to be much greater than the previous right of participation attaching to the 1 400 000 B shares in the international company. The right of appointment of one-half of the Board of Directors, including the chairman, was also given up and no rights in regard to the appointment of the directors were attached to the 1 000 000 deferred ordinary shares. Thus the absolute de jure control of Television Ltd in the affairs of the former public television companies was, in the new scheme, exchanged for a degree of control in Baird Television Ltd via the voting rights of the 1 000 000 deferred shares which it (Television Ltd) held in the amalgamated company. Now a solid block vote of 1 000 000 shares virtually controls any company whose remaining 2 300 000 shares are held disparately by the general public, since a large number of small shareholders never vote at all and among the remainder opinion can be divided. Strangely, at the Extraordinary General Meeting of Baird Television Development Company, held on 7th April 1930 to discuss the merger, Sir Edward

202

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Manville said18: ‘Although your company has not suffered from the power vested in Television Limited, had their holding been sold to some foreign corporation the result might have been very disadvantageous to your interests, particularly as regards the sale of the foreign rights. I have no hesitation in recommending the scheme to you for your approval.’ But as Moseley has written: ‘It therefore became evident to Baird and myself that the whole future of Baird Television [Ltd] must depend upon the ownership of this block of shares. Their market value might be negligible, but their strategic influence must be decisive. Moreover, we knew that American interests were eager to acquire control.’ According to Hutchinson, the cash assets of Baird Television Ltd (BTL), at the time of the merger, were ‘considerable, and at the current rate of expenditure, without allowing in any way for income, [were] sufficient for the needs of the company for some considerable time to come’. In August 1930 the syndicate members of Television Ltd agreed to the voluntary winding-up of the company—for ‘legal reasons’. Manville was quoted as saying19: ‘This liquidation is simply a formality, and has absolutely no effect on Baird Television Ltd.’ However, by May 1933 the Ostrer brothers, who controlled the Gaumont–British Picture Corporation, effectively controlled BTL. The liquidators Sir Frederick Rowland and Mr H J Whitcomb were appointed on 9th September 1930. They were faced with a problem, for the shares which had a nominal value of 5s. each—and had been quoted previously at 15s. each—now had a value, because of the depression, of just 4d. (1.66p) each. Consequently the liquidators had to realise an almost unsaleable asset; Television Ltd had no other assets. ‘Of the original shares, [the liquidators] had, in fact, sold a small parcel of 2,700, but at so low a price that it was obviously foolish to try to dispose of more in the open market.’20 Their difficulty was compounded by a resolution which the shareholders in this private syndicate had passed which precluded the fragmentary sale of the 1 000 000 deferred shares: the shares had to be sold in one block if the liquidators could obtain a suitable offer.21 Sometime later, Baird suggested to Moseley that he should get some of his financial friends together and buy Television Ltd from the receiver. ‘The seed took root and [Moseley] got busy.’22 He watched the position very closely and with his friends began to buy shares in Television Ltd whenever any member of the syndicate wished to sell. Eventually he held sufficient voting strength in the company to carry a resolution authorising the joint liquidators to accept his offer of £16 500 for the 997 000 deferred shares, and he signed a contract undertaking to complete the deal in a month. Moseley had great difficulty23 raising this sum but eventually succeeded in doing so by receiving loans from A Bates, an advertising agent and newspaper owner, and Isidore Ostrer. Their loans were secured against shares in a private syndicate, called LVT Syndicate Ltd24, set up in January 1932. The directors of the syndicate were Maurice Ostrer, a director of International Acoustic Films

Overseas interests

203

Ltd—a subsidiary company of Gaumont–British Picture Corporation Ltd— and S A Moseley. The nominal capital of LVT Syndicate Ltd was £3 333.6s.8d divided into 800 000 shares of one penny each, and its Memorandum and Articles of Association made provision for the syndicate ‘To subscribe for, purchase, take, acquire and hold, sell, exchange and deal in shares, stocks, bonds, obligations and securities of any government, authority or company’ inter alia. On 5th May 1933 and on 22nd July 1937 the 800 000 shares were distributed as follows: Table 9.1 Distribution of shares of LVT Syndicate Ltd 5th May 1933 W B Abbott J L Baird A Bates H Clayton Gaumont–British P C Ltd G A Inglis J D Inglis Int. Acoustic Films Ltd J D Macnee S A Moseley Maurice Ostrer W Williams Mark Ostrer

1 000 40 000 150 000 250 235 253 20 000 20 000 165 247 1 000 149 000 250 18 000

22nd July 1937

484 253

315 247

250 250

Thus, in 1933 G–BPC and International Acoustic Films Ltd—both controlled by I Ostrer—held 400 500 shares (i.e. more than 50 per cent of the total) in LVT Syndicate Ltd, and so effectively controlled Baird Television Ltd. In 1937 the Ostrers and the companies they controlled held all the shares. Later in November 1938 LVT Syndicate Ltd was wound up. After the payment of various expenses the shareholders received 1.75d. per share for each of their original one penny shares25. Returning now to the overseas and home activities of Baird Television Ltd, in 1930, it is obvious that for the furtherance of its prestige and solvency it should have a strong patent holding in its systems of television. Large sums were therefore necessarily expended in protecting the Baird inventions in the principal countries of the world and by 1930 the company felt that its system was adequately covered by patents. It is also apparent from an examination of the early histories of the Baird and Marconi organisations that there is a close similarity between Baird’s international aspirations and those of Marconi26. On 22nd November 1899, an American company was to have paid the Wireless Telegraph and Signal Company $7 000 000 for its patent rights. In the event this transaction never materialised; instead the original American

204

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

company was later merged with the parent company with the title of Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America. This would become part of the Radio Corporation of America. In Europe the Italian Ministry of Marine had already confirmed, in May 1898, that the Italian navy would adopt the Marconi system. Two years later, on 25th April 1900, the Marconi International Marine Communications Company Ltd was formed. A Belgian associated company came into being on 26th October 1900 when the Cie de Télégraphie sans Fils (Belge) was created to develop and operate the Marconi system on the Continent. Eighteen months later, on 24th April 1903, a further continental foothold was established with the registration of the Cie Français Maritime et Coloniale de Télégraphie sans Fils of Paris. Another valuable contract was obtained on 24th July 1903 when an agreement was signed between the Marconi company and the British Admiralty for the general use of the Marconi systems in the Royal Navy. Marconi’s eagerness to install his equipment in the United Kingdom and overseas was brought about by the knowledge that rival systems of wireless telegraphy had made their appearance, notably, those of Popov–Ducretet, Slaby–Arco, and the Siemens–Halske–Braun combine, but also others. Even by 1900 the French naval authorities had veered towards the Popov–Ducretet system and the German navy had adopted that of Slaby–Arco. Interestingly, all these rival systems suffered from the same defects, and all were seeking the master invention which would give the individual system a decisive lead over its competitors. Baird’s position during 1929–30 was similar to that of Marconi in 1899–1900. Rudimentary apparatuses had been devised for narrowband television and narrowband wireless telegraphy and the potential for technical and commercial developments seemed vast. Marconi undoubtedly realised many of his hopes by 1929–30 (aided, of course, by a strong patent holding), so with this in mind it is likely that Baird and his directors felt that the pursuance of a similar strategy would be lucrative. Thus, Baird Television Ltd’s objectives were the build-up of its patent stock and the establishment of a strong international and economic position. An example of the value of such a position will illustrate this point. In the 1920s the Mackay Company27, of the US, made an application to the Federal Radio Commission for an allocation of a series of wavelengths to enable it to operate a transoceanic communication system. At the hearing of the application the RCA and its affiliated companies argued that it would be wrong to grant any competitor rights in the transoceanic field because the RCA, by virtue of its world-wide system, was much better able to carry on those communications. Nevertheless, the FRC granted wavelengths to the Mackay Company, and subsequently the company approached 30 countries in an attempt to establish such communications. It found only one country, Spain, which had not tied itself up with the RCA: hence a competing company could not enter into this business. Hutchinson has stated that the policy of Bairds was to secure a similar international and

Overseas interests

205

economic arrangement and towards the end of the 1920s this was being steadily attempted in conjunction with the patent position. The formation of the Baird companies led to Baird enjoying an affluent lifestyle. His salary from BIT was £3 000 per annum, which was in addition to his salary of £1 500 from the Baird Television Development Company. The sum of £4 500 was a huge annual remuneration in the late 1920s. To put the figure in context, petrol was 8p a gallon, school fees in the City of London were £30 per term, a three-bedroom semi-detached house could be bought for about £600, a skilled male earned about £5 per week, coal was £1.50 per ton and a pint of beer and an ounce of tobacco were 2.5p and 5p respectively. With his new wealth Baird had no need to exist in cold and draughty boarding houses; he now had the means to engage in more gracious living. In 1929 he rented for three years Swiss Cottage, at Box Hill, Surrey. The cottage had once been the Duke of Marlborough’s hunting lodge—the Duke’s country seat was at Deepdene a few miles away—and was situated just a few miles from Dorking. It could be reached by a steep climb on foot from the town or by the road which traversed the ridge at the top of the hill. From London the distance was 22 miles, which late at night Baird covered by taxi. The journey cost £1.50 but as Baird recalled, in those days money was a ‘secondary consideration’28. Returning home late on a foggy night could be hazardous. The road along the top of Box Hill was in a very bad condition and on one occasion the taxi ran off the road and careered down the side of the hill, ‘finishing up with a crash of glass and an oath of blasphemy from the drunken driver in a clump of bushes’. On another occasion Baird fell asleep in the taxi and later woke up to find that the driver had taken a wrong turning and was approaching Brighton. Mephy, Baird’s friend from his school days, seems to have taken the initiative in effecting a change in Baird’s dependence on lodgings and small hotels. He became ensconced in Swiss Cottage as a general factotum and saw to it that Baird had a luxurious residence to return to after a hard day at 133 Long Acre. Baird’s favourite saying became ‘Money’s no object’, and with this in mind Mephy bought the best of household necessities. Servants were engaged—a Scottish housekeeper, a gardener/chauffeur, and two maids—and huge logs were burnt all the year round in the open fireplace of the drawing room. Baird found Mephy a most congenial friend. Together they would walk for hours on Box Hill, discussing philosophy or reminiscencing on former events. ‘When we climbed the bridle path leading up to the chalky side of the hill, Mephy [would stride] ahead, a gaunt figure in a flapping black highland cape, his long grey hair floating in the wind, and grasping in his hand a great forked staff. One day we passed a lady and her little girl, and I heard her whisper loudly: “No, dear, that’s not Jesus”.’29 Baird detested loneliness and often entertained at Swiss Cottage. His guests would include his friends, such as Sir Ambrose Fleming and Moseley, and influential members of the business community. Baird was a good host and on occasions a Daimler car would be sent to collect a friend from London and then

206

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 9.4

A pen and ink sketch of J L Baird drawn in 1929 by Eamonn Sullivan

Source: The Hastings Museum and Art Gallery

late at night return the friend to his home. On one of these occasions his guest would become his future wife.

Note 1 Hutchinson’s account of the American operations Hutchinson’s account of the American operations is given below, verbatim, since it is quite technical and is the only extant description of the formation of the Baird Parent Corporation. ‘In accordance with the provisions of the preliminary contracts entered into, there was formed in the United States of America the Baird Parent Corporation, with a capital of 1 000 shares of no par value. These shares were subscribed for by the American [interests] at a nominal sum sufficient for the immediate purposes of the Company. There was vested in this Parent Corporation a licence covering the whole of the Baird inventions for the United States of America, Canada and Mexico. ‘The consideration for the granting of the licence was the allotment to Television Ltd

Overseas interests

207

of 500 shares in the Parent Corporation—in other words, one half of the share capital. These 500 shares [carried] the right to the appointment of one half of the Board of Directors, the Chairman having no casting vote, and to one half of the profits. The 500 shares [were] merely held by Television Ltd as Trustee for the Development Company and the International Company, who . . . [were] entitled to such shares in the proportions of two thirds and one third respectively. Simultaneously with the formation of the American Parent Corporation, the Baird Television Corporation was formed with a capital of 1,000,000 shares of no par value; 900,000 of such shares being preference shares, entitled to a preferential dividend at the rate of 8 % per annum with no voting rights, the remaining 100,000 being Common Stock, with the voting rights of one vote for each share. The Parent Corporation granted a licence to the Television Corporation to manufacture, sell and exploit the inventions relating purely to television throughout the United States for America, Canada and Mexico. As consideration for the grant of such licence the Television Corporation allotted as fully paid to the Parent Corporation the 100,000 shares of Common Stock in the Television Corporation. In regard to the 900,000 Preferred Shares the American interests bound themselves to subscribe for 200,000 of such shares at the price of 2.5 dollars per share. As the result of subsequent negotiations, the American interests [had] subscribed in cash at the rate of 2.5 dollars per share for 60,000 of the preferred shares and the International Company [had] also subscribed in cash at the same rate for 60,000 preferred shares. The American interests [were] bound when we so [required] it to subscribe at the rate of 2.5 dollars per share for the remaining unissued 80,000 preferred shares of the total of 200,000 preferred shares agreed to be subscribed for. ‘As regards the remaining 700,000 preferred shares, Television Ltd, in its position as Trustee . . . [was] entitled to call, at any time during the period of five years from July 1928, for the allotment of 300,000 of such Preferred Shares, or such less number as may be required, at a price of 2.5 dollars per share. The American interests [had] a like call on a further 300,000 of such preferred shares, and a banker who assisted in the formation of the American company [was] entitled to a like call on 100,000 of such preferred shares. ‘The operations of the American companies [were] deliberately restrained until such time, which it [was] anticipated [would] be very soon, when the patent position in America [was] consolidated. The American interests [were] very powerful in the radio industry, and so soon as we [cared] to go into active production there the marketing facilities at our disposal [would] ensure enormous sales. The American interests [had] control of no less than 500 radio stores throughout the United States of America, Canada and Mexico. The benefits which [would] undoubtedly be derived from the exercise of the call on the preferred shares [would], it [was] anticipated, be very very large. A suitable comparison [was] the stock of the Radio Corporation of America.’

References 1 BAIRD, M.: ‘Television Baird’ (HAUM, Capetown, 1974) 2 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’, (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), pp. 92–3 3 BURNS, R.W.: ‘Television, an international history of the formative years’, (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1998), p. 254 4 BURNS, R.W.: ‘British television, the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1988), pp. 148–175

208

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

5 ANON.: ‘Company Meetings’, The Times, 8th April 1930 6 HERBERT, R.: ‘Seeing by wireless’ (PW Publishing, Croydon, 1996), p. 10 7 KEEP BROTHERS LTD: letter to Messrs Amalgamated Wireless (Australia) Ltd, 19th October 1927, Marconi Archives 8 AMALGAMATED WIRELESS (AUSTRALIA) LTD: letter to Messrs Keep Brothers Ltd, 5th December 1927, Marconi Archives 9 AMALGAMATED WIRELESS (AUSTRALIA) LTD: letter to Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Company Ltd, 5th December 1927, Marconi Archives 10 SHOENBERG, I.: memorandum to the Managing Director, Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Company Ltd, 31st January 1928 11 GRAY, A.: memorandum to the Managing Director, Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Company Ltd, 10th January 1928 12 KELLAWAY, F. G.: letter to Amalgamated Wireless (Australia) Ltd, 14th February 1928, Marconi Archives 13 Ref. 3, pp. 206–18 14 Ref. 6 15 HUTCHINSON, O. G.: ‘The progress of television’, c. 1929, 18pp, Marconi Company archives 16 Ref. 2, p. 103 17 ANON.: Company Meetings, BTDC and BIT Ltd. Scheme of amalgamation approved’, The Times, 8th April 1930 18 Ibid. 19 ANON.: ‘Television Ltd. Voluntary winding-up of company’, Daily Herald, 13th September 1930 20 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952), p. 173 21 Ibid. 22 Ref. 2, p. 127 23 Ref. 20, chapters 14, 15, 16, pp. 170–202 24 LVT Syndicate Ltd, Company file, Public Record Office 25 Ibid. 26 BAKER, W. J.: ‘A history of the Marconi Company’ (Methuen, London, 1970) 27 HUTCHINSON, O. G.: ‘A short history of Baird television and of the companies concerned in the development and exploitation of that system’, 15th October 1930, pp. 13–14, Central Research Laboratories archives 28 Ref. 2, p. 101 29 Ibid. 30 Ref. 15

Chapter 10

Large-screen television

In January 1924 the Hastings and St Leonards Observer1 reported that Baird was working on the development of a television system which would enable people to sit in a cinema and watch on the screen various sporting events as they were actually taking place. During the late 1920s and the 1930s several organisations engaged in the evolution of large-screen television equipment including the Radio Corporation of America, General Electric, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the de Forest company in the United States; Fernseh AG, KarolusTelefunken in Germany; and Electric and Musical Industries Ltd, Scophony Ltd and Baird Television Ltd in the United Kingdom2. A number of factors probably influenced the growth of cinema television: first, the excitement of watching sporting and other events while they were actually taking place rather than viewing the same scenes on cinema newsreels several hours or days after the events, and when the results were already known; secondly, the expectation that domestic television receivers would be expensive and beyond the reach of the masses—particularly during the depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s; thirdly, the popularity of cinemas as a cheap form of entertainment; fourthly, the very considerable time that would be required to manufacture the millions of television sets needed for home use even if these could be made at low cost to give a satisfactory image quality; and fifthly, the possibility that cinema television receivers could be much more complex than domestic receivers and hence more capable of producing a better image. Also, of course, good cinema television might encourage people to purchase domestic sets when they became available. Baird’s first large-screen television apparatus was based on ideas which he advanced in his first patent no. 222 604 dated 26th July 1923 (see Figure 10.1) The 5ft × 2ft screen consisted of 2 100 very small metal filament lamps—each lamp being placed in a cubicle so that the screen had the appearance of a large honeycomb. A ground glass sheet covered the front of the screen to soften the harsh light intensity of the lamps. Each lamp was connected to a separate bar of

210

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 10.1

Baird’s first patent was filed on 26th July 1923. It describes a method of displaying a televised image using a screen of small lamps. The concept formed the basis for Baird’s large-screen reproduction of images of the Derby, on 28th July 1930, at the Coliseum Theatre, London

Source: British Patent no. 222 604, 26th July 1923

a commutator which switched on one lamp at a time—the various lamps being excited in succession. As the speed of the selector arm was 750 rev/min each lamp was energised every one-twelfth of a second3. An alternative earlier proposal, described in a patent 326 1924, made use of a lens to project an image of the lamp array on to a viewing screen. The advantage of this arrangement according to Baird (1929) was that the quality of the viewed image was to a certain degree under control, in that, for instance, a ‘soft image’ could be obtained by throwing the projected image slightly out of focus. He found that a projected image gave a more pleasing effect than one obtained by viewing the lamps directly. Also the image of the array could be made larger than the array itself by means of an optical system—although the coarseness of reproduction necessarily would be more obvious. An added disadvantage would have resulted from the need for a stage having a depth of approximately twenty feet to accommodate the projection equipment. The first demonstration of the new display system was given to a select audience seated in a canvas tent ‘theatre’ on the roof at Long Acre5, 6. According to Sieveking, access to the roof for the guests was by means of a large open-air goods-hoist, without railings, which was raised by chain and derrick. Pirandello’s play The Man with a Flower in his Mouth was performed. Senatore Marconi was a member of the select audience, but unfortunately his views on the play were not recorded. ‘He was a rather pale middle aged man with somewhat of the aloof politeness and the little bow and smile which one associates with royalty. He duly inspected the image but gave little away. “Yes, very good, most interest-

Large-screen television

Figure 10.2

211

The commutator used for switching the lamps on and off, of the large-screen equipment

Source: The Royal Television Society

ing”, he said.’ On leaving 133 Long Acre he stumbled on a loose rug in the laboratory and was saved from falling by Moseley. Marconi’s aloof dignity did not alter, much to Baird’s surprise. ‘A man who could continue and maintain an attitude of dignified reserve in the arms of old Mr Moseley borders on the superhuman.’7 Baird had much admiration in some respects for Marconi and the way ‘he played every card with such consummate skill and ability. Every advantage was grasped and consolidated. All rivals were asked into the fold or crushed. Alliances were formed with those too big to be roped in and too powerful to crush.’8 However, Marconi’s prowess as an inventor or a scientist did not impress Baird. He thought men such as Fleming and de Forest had contributed far more to the art of invention than Marconi. ‘Nevertheless Baird was much inspired by the commitment of Marconi and by the way the had endeavoured to seek world-wide recognition for his systems of wireless telegraphy. At a subsequent press demonstration only head and shoulder views were projected, the performers being Miss Lulu Stanley, Miss Pearl Greene and Mr

212

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Ben Lawes. The Daily Mail 9 described the demonstration as interesting, and the Daily Worker10 reported that it was remarkable. Among those who saw the large-screen production on the Long Acre roof was the booking agent for the Coliseum Theatre11. He was so impressed by what he had seen that, with the approval of Sir Oswald Stoll, Baird’s latest invention was featured in all the performances at the London Coliseum for a period of two weeks commencing on 28th July 1930. Moseley, as the Director of Baird Television Programmes, was responsible for the arrangements and, anxious for success, booked many celebrities for the twoweek period12. Sir Francis Goodenough, Lt. Commander Kenworthy, Robert Young, MP, Lord Baden-Powell, the Rt. Hon. George Lansbury, MP, Lord Marley, Frederick Montague (Under Secretary of State for Air), Col. L’Estrange Malone, MP (the first Member of Parliament to raise a question, on 22nd May 1928, on television in the House of Commons), Young Stribling, Sir Nigel Playfair, H W Austin (tennis champion), Herbert Morrison (Minister of Transport), Miss Isabel MacDonald, Miss Ellen Wilkinson, MP, Sir Oswald Moseley, MP, Bombardier Billy Wells, A V Alexander, MP, the Rt. Hon. The Lord Mayor of London, and Miss Irene Vanbrugh were all televised during the two-week period. The list is interesting as it perhaps indicates some of the influential people—including Members of Parliament—who were prepared to support Baird. Public interest in the demonstrations was certainly great and on many occa-

Figure 10.3

The large-screen equipment used at the Coliseum Theatre

Source: The Royal Television Society

Large-screen television

213

sions the ‘House Full’ notice had to be displayed. The Baird company made a profit of £150013. The Sphere described the performance as follows14: ‘There is no doubt as to the thrill which one receives on seeing for the first time a television demonstration of this kind. When the television number was announced, the theatre was plunged into darkness. Then, in a setting of black curtains, we suddenly saw the screen upon which the features of various people, taking their place before the transmitter in Long Acre, were shortly to appear before us. The demonstrator, telephone in hand, informed us of the nature of the invention. Then a human face—Sydney Moseley’s—appeared upon the screen and began to speak to us. The image wavered up and down, but gradually steadied . . . There was a kind of rustling effect all over the screen, but through it one could distinctly make out the features of one well-known personage after another. The face on the screen turned from right to left. “Would any member of the audience like to ask the question of the speaker?” said the demonstrator. “Tell him to put his hand up” cried a voice from the darkness of the auditorium. The request was telephoned to Long Acre and immediately the speaker put his hand up to his chin in response to it. The movement was perfectly visible to every part of the house, and in spite of some surface defects, the screen rendered all the various tones of the face before us.’

There were some reservations. The Daily Express, while praising the enterprise, commented: ‘Television obviously has a long way to go, but it was proved last night that its young Scottish inventor has something which will soon arrest the attention of the world.’ Following its success at the Coliseum, the large-screen apparatus with a technical team of four engineers was taken first to the Scala Theatre, Berlin, where 26 performances were given from 18th September to 30th September. Music hall artistes, film stars, government ministers, poets, and newspaper editors were all televised from the studio which had been set up in the Friedrichstrasse, a few kilometres from the theatre. For these shows the trailer which accommodated the stage equipment had to be extensively reduced in width because of the narrow openings of the stage doors15. From Berlin the trailer was taken by rail to the Olympia Cinema, Paris, where for two weeks three or four performances were given each day. No professionals were employed for these occasions; nevertheless the Parisians reacted with enthusiasm—possibly because, unlike Germany, France had no television service and the demonstrations were a new experience for them. Finally, the equipment travelled to the Roda Kvarn (Red Mill) Theatre, Stockholm. According to Moseley the twice-daily demonstrations by artistes and celebrities during the first two weeks in December were most successful and amazing enthusiasm prevailed. Baird’s 2100 lamp large-screen system was short-lived. It was a ‘brute-force’, inelegant, single-channel, mechanical system suited only for low-definition television reception. Surprisingly though, in 1935 Karolus, who was associated with the Telefunken company, exhibited a multi-channel large-screen television set based on a 10 000 element lamp screen. The 100-channel scheme, which utilised nine valves per channel, gave a 100-line image of size 2 m × 2 m: each picture element (pixel) being two centimetres square.

214

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

‘Standing about 40 yards away, the cell formation was not apparent and the brightness was very remarkable. The picture had a brilliance of some 1,000 lux—some 6 to 8 times the brilliance of a good cine screen. 50 pictures per second were used and there was no flicker. The brightness was actually such that when the windows in the hall were open, the screen could be watched in perfect comfort. The colour was quite a pleasant fleshy tint.’16

Karolus required 100 channels because the wide bandwidth of 250 kHz needed for an image of 100 lines per frame had to be divided into 100 parts each of 2.5 kHz bandwidth. In this way his generated picture signals could be allocated to 100 ordinary telephone lines, each of which would handle signals having a maximum frequency of 2.5 kHz. The stimulus for Karolus’s work stemmed from the change of government in Germany. On 30th January 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of the Third Reich, and soon afterwards Dr P J Goebbels became Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. His propaganda policy of calumny and bias necessitated the banning of all forms of dissent and free expression and the furtherance of means which would allow his message to reach a wide audience. Shortly after Hitler’s rise to power, Goebbels proscribed all amateur radio transmitters as part of this policy, and sought to impose his views on all matters relating to the advancement of Hitler’s authority. Essentially, Karolus’s largescreen television receiver was intended to be employed by the government for propaganda work. The receiver would be the visual equivalent of a public address sound system. Ives, of the AT&T Company, in 1927 had referred to this application of television when AT&T had demonstrated its television equipment17. In Baird’s lamp screen, the light output from a given lamp (of the 2100) was modulated by the line signal current during the very brief period when the lamp was connected via the commutator to the line circuit. The commutator was a bulky, heavy piece of apparatus unsuited to further development. Ideally, if a single source of light could be modulated, the need for a mechanical commutator would disappear. Such a source existed in the form of the speaking arc. Alternatively if a variable optical attenuator could be placed between a light source and the display screen, the light source could be of fixed intensity. The Kerr cell provided the means whereby this solution could be effected and both it and the speaking arc were investigated and subsequently demonstrated by the Baird company. The discovery of the speaking arc was made by Bell and Hayes in the USA, and independently by Simon in Germany, in 1897, and numerous arrangements were devised to control the arc by speech signals18. Monasch19 in his book Direct and Alternating Current Electric Arcs, of 1904, refers to the speaking arc: ‘With a ten ampere direct current arc of between three and five millimetres, between either solid or cored carbons, a clearly audible sound was produced even when an alternating current, of one milliampere, was superimposed on the direct current, and having a periodicity of 50 to 5000 Hz. The sound became inaudible only when the frequency was raised to 30,000 Hz.’

Large-screen television

Figure 10.4

215

A Baird Kerr cell light modulating device with ‘spot’ filament projection lamp

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

Ruhmer, in 1901, seems to have been the first person to have used the properties of the speaking arc in a system (called a photophone) for transmitting speech signals over an optical path20. Subsequently many experiments were carried out in photophony in the first quarter of the twentieth century by Ruhmer, Schukert, Blake and others. Another application of the directly modulated arc was confirmed by Bernouchi21, who sent phototelegraphic signals over a beam of light. The first proposal for the use of the speaking arc for television was made by E W Whiston22 in 1921. Other experiments were conducted by Blake23 in 1925. In the same year Baird24 applied for his first patent on the use of arcs in television. At that time the commercial arcs, when modulated, gave a light output which consisted of an alternating component superimposed on a direct component. This was unsatisfactory for television reception since the steady component would lead to a decrease of the contrast range of the reproduced picture. For photophony, the direct component is unresponsive in producing an audible effect. The Baird company carried out several investigations on speaking arcs. These showed that the light variations were dependent upon the luminosity of the gaseous envelope partly surrounding and partly within the crater of the negative electrode. Later, arc electrodes were made of metal which permitted the heat generated at the electrodes’ tips to be rapidly conducted away and allowed the crater gases to contribute to the major portion of the light from the arc. This discovery greatly increased the contrast of the reproduced picture. An additional

216

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

improvement stemmed from the coring of the negative electrode with a refractory material, such as cerium oxide mixed with certain other salts of the metals of the alkaline earths, to increase the brightness and improve the colour of the light given out by the flame of the arc. Considerable power was needed to fully modulate the arc. For an arc capable of passing a current of 10 A and dissipating 300 W an amplifier having an output of 100 W was required25. Experiments by the Baird company showed that its arcs had a frequency response which was essentially flat from 10 Hz to 10 000 Hz. Since the 30-line transmitter bandwidth did not have to exceed 10 000 Hz, the arc was entirely suitable for low-definition telecinema-type applications, and Baird Television successfully demonstrated cinema television on screens measuring 7 ft (height) × 3 ft (width) by its use26. A slight disadvantage was that small lateral movements of the flame of the arc (due to inhomogeneities in the cerium coring of the negative electrode), caused variations in screen brightness. However, Banks of Baird Television Ltd successfully designed an optical system comprising a pair of separated lenses to overcome this drawback27. During the month of January 1931, when Baird Television, HMV and Bell Telephone Laboratories released details of their multi-channel television systems, Baird disclosed for the first time the use of direct arc modulation as a means of increasing the brilliance of the image received on a large-screen. The demonstration was given before representatives of the scientific press, including Nature, and the technical representatives of The Times. In this demonstration the video signals from the Baird transmitter were applied after suitable processing to a specially adapted arc. ‘The detail and definition of the received image was comparable to that received on the standard commercial “Televisor” receiver, and the brilliance of illumination was remarkable. This demonstration of the successful modulation of the arc with television signals appears to open up considerable possibilities, and the television arc would appear to have a useful future’, commented Nature28. The first public exhibition of the modulated arc did not take place until the British Association meeting in September 1931 at the French Institute, Cromwell Gardens, London, when it was shown in the section devoted to mechanical aids to learning. Here, the new form of light source for video signals was used to project a picture onto a screen approximately 4 ft × 2.5 ft in size. The most noticeable effect for a reporter of the Daily Mail was: ‘The light was no longer orangey (as was the neon tube) but white. This put it on a level more comparable with photography and the cinema, whereas the black and orange picture received on the ordinary televisors reminds one of the early flickering films and so emphasises the distance television has yet to travel. A black and white picture seems to mark a definite milestone.’

Meanwhile when this work was in progress, other members of the Baird company had been investigating the use of the Weiller mirror drum scanner as a means of augmenting the optical efficiency of the system.

Large-screen television

217

Baird first demonstrated the mirror drum transmitter outdoors on 8th May 193129 This was to be a prelude to the televising of the Derby and its subsequent showing live, in a theatre, in 1932. For this purpose Baird equipped a van with a scanner of the drum type. Natural light was used during the May test, but although there were appreciable variations in the quality of the reception due to the varying cloud cover, reporters saw, in a room in Long Acre, the images of people passing along the street outside. The Daily Telegraph30 noted: ‘The televising of great national events, Mr Baird considers, is now well within the bounds of possibility, though so far no definite arrangements for such broadcasting have yet been made.’ Moseley, the radio critic of the Daily Herald, observed on the same day, however: ‘Mr Baird said that the fact that one was able to pick up the street scene showed that the idea of televising the Derby or the cricketers at Lord’s was not so fantastic as some imagined.’31 Following this latest trial Moseley32 wrote to the BBC and enquired whether the BBC could give Baird Television five or ten minutes on Derby day for a

Figure 10.5

The large mirror drum, housed in the caravan at Epsom in 1932, with its strobe sectors for accurate speed adjustment. This was part of the equipment used for the three-zone televising of the Derby direct to the Metropole Cinema, London

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

218

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

television broadcast during the race. Moseley pointed out that his company had willingly given up its half-hour transmissions when asked to do so and consequently such a request would more than make amends. The BBC’s reply33 stated that although Baird Television could not have the London Regional wavelength for the vision transmitter it might be possible ‘to arrange for the London National wavelength [of] 261m to be placed at [its] disposal for the television signals from approximately 2.45 to 3.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd June [provided] the following conditions were fulfilled: that the speech accompaniment, which of course would not be broadcast, would be on a telephone line quite separate from any telephone lines rented by the BBC; [and] that BBC engineers would be satisfied in a preliminary test that nothing involved in this television transmission should in any way interfere with the normal service transmission of the running commentary’. So, on Derby Day 1931, Baird Television’s outside broadcast television van was taken to Epsom and parked opposite the winning post. It was connected by telephone line direct to the company’s London studio, from where the signals were sent to the Brookman’s Park transmitter. Percy was in charge of the outside broadcast television van.

Figure 10.6

Baird’s daylight television equipment caravan which was used for outside broadcasts

Source: The Royal Television Society

Large-screen television

219

‘It was the forerunner of the enormous wheeled vehicles and aerials and terrific machinery that are now taken around every sports ground in the country. But ours was just a wooden caravan that was towed by an ancient De Soto, the company car and the most powerful thing we had. And I parked the van alongside the winning post at Epsom. We had a petrol generator which didn’t work very well; a land line to Long Acre which the Post Office were very late in laying and we just sat there watching all the horses, practicing and trying to get a picture to Long Acre with this very primitive mirror drum.’34

The parade of the horses was seen, although the horses were not individually recognizable, together with shadowy images of moving people. ‘As the moment of the finish of the race approached, interference became worse and the screen, seen through its enlarging lens, at times dissolved into a blurred mass of flickering lines. Not withstanding this however, the horses were plainly seen as they flashed past the post’, reported the Daily Mail35. The Daily Telegraph was more charitable: ‘Fifteen miles from the course, in the company’s studio at Long Acre, all the Derby scenes were easily discernible—the parade of the horses, the enormous crowd, and the dramatic flash past at the winning post’.36 Bridgewater, who was in Long Acre during the race has recalled37: ‘As the scanner was fixed in one position near the winning post, looking across the track to the other side, anything that came within its purview was seen. And what it saw in the middle of the track was little more than the width of two horses. Before the race the horses could be seen milling around and movement made an enormous difference to a crude television picture. Movement, even if it was the subtle and slow movement of somebody’s face, always made such a difference to the recognition and interest. If the horses stopped you’d only just know it was a horse but moving made all the difference. The picture came to life. But when the race came on all that Campbell and I could do was to put on the sound commentary and wait for the finish. And when the finish came you just saw these figures flashing by. And, if it weren’t for the commentary you wouldn’t have known which horses they were.’

After the transmission Baird said he was quite satisfied with the experiment. ‘This marks the entry of television into the outdoor field’, he noted, ‘and should be the prelude to televising outdoor topical events.’ Many years later Moseley38 wrote: ‘The first Derby broadcast captured the imagination of the general public so strongly and so fired the enthusiasm of amateur experimenters as to impress even the BBC.’ The following year, 1932, Baird again televised the Derby from Epsom. The broadcast was made through the BBC’s transmitter and in addition there was a special transmission by land line to the Metropole Cinema, London. Baird wrote39: ‘I used the same van as the previous year for a much more ambitious experiment, and fitted up a large-screen, 9 ft by 6 [ft], at the Metropole Cinema, Victoria. The transmitter was the same as that used the previous year and consisted of a large revolving drum. The picture sent out by the BBC was narrow and upright in shape, seven feet high and only three wide. To give a large picture at the Metropole I had three pairs of telephone wires from Epsom and sent out three pictures side by side. The three pictures thus formed one

220

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

big picture on the screen at the Metropole seven feet high and nine feet wide. [Three electric arcs were used but they were not modulated directly; instead the three beams of light were modulated by three Kerr cells.] ‘The demonstration was one of the most nerve-racking experiences in all my work with television, second only in anxiety to the Parliamentary Committee. The night before the show we were up all night putting the finishing touches to the apparatus, and when the great moment drew near I remember literally sweating with anxiety. The perspiration was dripping off my nose. ‘A vast audience had gathered in the cinema; even the passages were packed, and the entrance hall and the street outside were filled with a disappointed crowd, unable to get in. If the show had been a failure the audience would have brought the house down and I should have been a laughing stock. ‘All went well. The horses were seen as the parade passed the grandstand. When the winner, April the Fifth, owned and trained by Tom Walls, flashed past the post, followed by Daster and Miracle, the demonstration ended with a thunderous applause. I was hustled to the platform to say a few words but was too thrilled to say more than “Thank you”.’

The 1932 Derby transmissions were undoubtedly much better than those of 1931. Two factors contributed to this improved performance; first, the use of zone television, and secondly, the much greater signal level used on the actual lines. The first Derby broadcast had been much impaired by interference and therefore Campbell, one of the Baird engineers, had unofficially increased the permitted line voltage of 3 V to 30 V. Zoning was a technique which had been used in the cinema by Abel Gance for the film Napoleon, and after the Second World War the same procedure was employed in the Cinerama process.40 Baird’s three-zone television system was first demonstrated to the press in the Baird laboratories on 2nd January 1931. Today’s Cinema41 referred to the new equipment as ‘an amazing new development in the Baird television process, which makes it possible to project pictures on to an ordinary full sized cinema screen, televise people and objects illuminated only by arc lighting or daylight instead of an intensive exploring beam and show an unlimited amount of detail in the picture’. The technical editor, in a special editorial note, wrote: ‘It is my firm belief that Baird has at last hit on the very method which would bring television into the cinema. It is a bold statement, but I make it in all seriousness and when I saw yesterday’s demonstration I could see beyond the tiny screen shown to a visitor to a new revolution in our industry.’

The Times42 devoted several paragraphs to the new system and stated: ‘The chief difficulty in broadcasting large images by television is that of the scarcity of available wavelengths. When the communication is by means of telephone lines, however, the difficulty is overcome by using several pairs of lines, each line being, as it were, responsible for a portion of the picture. ‘A demonstration of zone television was given by the Baird company when Mr H Strudwick, the England and Surrey cricketer, was “televised” in action as a batsman. His movements and those of the wicket-keeper could be clearly seen.’

Large-screen television

221

In pursuing development work in this field, Baird Television Ltd probably had in mind two important points: first, the restriction of their 30-line television system to head and shoulders images, and, secondly, the enthusiasm manifested by the London Coliseum television shows. These had been very successful both here and on the Continent, the press had reported favourably on them and there had been suggestions that a new form of entertainment had been founded— telecinema. But the system of lamps was rather crude and cumbersome and did not lend itself to higher-definition images owing to the complexity of the commutator. Also the use of the 30-line system was completely unsuited for showing outdoor scenes such as cricket matches, processions, and, in general, any scene having a number of artistes or performers. From the start of his work in 1923 until the end of 1931 Baird had successfully demonstrated ‘floodlight’ television, ‘spotlight’ television, noctovision, phonovision, long-distance television, colour television, stereoscopic television, daylight television, zone television, and large-screen television using variants of his basic low-definition television system. The question arises: Was Baird’s strategy for the early development of television a reasonable strategy, bearing in mind the technology which existed at that time?—or should he have followed a different course of action? How do Baird’s endeavours in the 1923–31 period compare with those being progressed elsewhere? Undoubtedly the television demonstrations of Bell Telephone Laboratories and General Electric (USA) during the second half of the 1920–30 decade were, because of the expertise, experience and facilities for R&D which existed in these organisations, much superior to those being undertaken anywhere in the world. In particular Bell Telephone Laboratories gave demonstrations of ‘spotlight’ television, large-screen television, colour television, two-way television and zone television, which taken together were not surpassed by any other organisation. Consequently an assessment of Baird’s early thoughts and work on television may be made by setting these against those of Bell Telephone Laboratories. This assessment is given in the next chapter.

References 1 ANON.: a report, Hastings and St Leonards Observer, January 1924 2 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Television, an international history of the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1998) 3 BURNS, R. W.: ‘British television, the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1986), pp. 158–160 4 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in or relating to television and like systems’, British patent no. 326 192, application date 5th November 1928 5 ANON.: report, Today’s Cinema, 1st July 1930 6 NORMAN, B.: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (BBC and the Royal Television Society, London, 1984), p. 64 7 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’, (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), pp. 107–8

222

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

8 Ibid. 9 ANON.: ‘New television advance’, Daily Mail, 2nd July 1930 10 ANON.: ‘Television. A remarkable display of Baird’s process’, Daily Worker, 3rd July 1930 11 Ref. 6, p. 64 12 MOSELEY, S. A., and BARTON CHAPPLE, H. J.: ‘Television today and tomorrow’ (Pitman, London, 1933) 13 BAIRD, M.: ‘Television Baird’ (HAUM, Capetown, 1973) 14 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952) 15 HERBERT, R. M.: ‘Seeing by wireless’ (PW Publishing, Croydon, 1997), p. 16 16 Ref. 2, p. 325 17 Ibid. pp. 227, 229 18 BARNARD, G. P.: ‘The selenium cell: its properties and applications’ (Constable, London, 1930) 19 MONASCH, A.: ‘Direct and alternating current arcs’ (Julius Springer, 1904) 20 RUHMER, E.: ‘Neue Sende und Empfangsanordnung für drahtlose Telephonie’, Phys. Z.,1901, 2, pp. 339– 40 21 THORNE BAKER, T.: ‘Wireless pictures and television’ (Pitman, London, 1926) 22 WHISTON, E. W.: ‘A mode of and/or means for transmitting photographs, messages, views and like devices by wire or wireless telegraphy’, British patent no. 185 463, 4th May 1921 23 BLAKE, G. G.: ‘Communications on wavelengths other than those in general use’, Experimental Wireless, 1925, 2, pp. 561–572 24 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in or relating to television and to apparatus for use in transmitting views, scenes, images, pictures and other objects of an animate or inanimate nature to a distance’, British patent no. 269 219, 21st October 1925 25 BANKS, G. B., and WILSON, J. C.: ‘Modulating the arc’, Television, September 1934, pp. 397–8 26 ANON.: ‘A stage nearer cinema television’, Manchester Guardian, 26th September 1931 27 BANKS, G. B.: ‘Improvements in or relating to optical systems for use in electro-optical transmission systems’, British patent no. 380 324, application date 25th August 1931 28 ANON.: report, Nature, 10th January 1931 29 ANON.: ‘Street television. Test of new apparatus in London’, Daily Mail, 9th May 1931 30 ANON.: ‘Television by daylight. Watching the man in the street. National events to be brought near. First open air apparatus’, Daily Telegraph, 9th May 1931 31 ANON.: ‘Televising the Derby’, Daily Herald, 9th May 1931 32 MOSELEY, S. A.: letter to G. Murray, 19th May 1931, quoted in Ref. 14 33 MURRAY, G.: letter to S. A. Moseley, May 1931, quoted in Ref. 14 34 Ref. 6, p. 69 35 ANON.: ‘Television scenes. Horses seen flashing past post’, Daily Mail, 4th June 1931

Large-screen television 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

223

ANON.: ‘Race at home. Television success’, Daily Telegraph, 4th June 1931 Ref. 34 Ref. 14, p. 153 Ref. 7, p. 117 Ref. 6, p. 72 ANON.: report, Today’s Cinema, 2nd January 1931 ANON.: report, The Times, 5th January 1931

Chapter 11

The early television work of Bell Telephone Laboratories

The American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) commenced its experimental study of its television programme when ‘it began to be evident that scientific knowledge was advancing to the point where television was shortly to be within the realm of the possible’1. The company was of the opinion that television would have a real place in world-wide communications and that it would be closely associated with telephony. It was certainly well placed to advance television, not only because of the extensive facilities of the newly formed (1925) Bell Telephone Laboratories but also because of the experience acquired in the R&D work which had made transcontinental and transoceanic telephony and telephotography possible. In January 1925 development work under the direction of a Dr H E Ives had been completed on a system for sending images over telephone lines, so research resources and expertise existed for a new scientific venture. Dr Ives and Dr Arnold, the Director of Research, agreed that the next problem to be undertaken was television. ‘At Arnold’s request,’ wrote Ives2, ‘I prepared and submitted to him on 23rd January 1925 a memorandum3 surveying the problem and proposing a programme of research.’ Ives was eminently well qualified to lead a television project team. His experience and erudition at that time had been founded on work and investigations on colour photography phosphorescence, illumination, colour measurement, intermittent vision, photometry, photoengraving, photoelectricity and picture transmission. His standing in his chosen fields had been recognised by the award of three Longstreth medals (in 1906, 1915 and 1918) by the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia. Later he was to receive three more medals: in 1927 the John Scott Medal, in 1937 the Frederick Ives Medal of the Optical Society of America and, after the Second World War, the Medal for Merit, the highest civilian award of the US Government, for his war work4. Ives’s memorandum discussed the characteristic difficulties of securing the requisite sensitiveness of the pick-up apparatus, the wide bandwidths which

Early television work

225

from his experience of picture transmission were indicated as necessary for television, the problem of producing enough modulated light in the received image to make it satisfactorily visible, and the problem of synchronising apparatus at the sending and at the receiving ends of the transmission link. The memorandum concluded with a proposal for ‘a very modest attack’ on the problem, capable, however, of ‘material expansion as new developments and inventions materialized’. Ives felt that these difficulties could be examined by utilising a mechanically linked transmitter and receiver, each incorporating a Nipkow disc scanner operating on a standard of 50 lines per picture, 15 pictures per second. A photographic transparency, later to be superseded by a motion picture film, would be used at the sending end, together with a photoelectric cell and a carbon arc lamp. At the receiving end Ives proposed the use of a crater-type gaseous glow lamp. His plan was thus based on the transmission of light through the ‘object’ rather than on the reflection of light from an opaque body. A sum of $15 000 was approved for the project. By May 1925 the apparatus for Ives’s design had been constructed and was in operation. A memorandum of 14th May 1925, by J G Roberts5, a patent attorney, records: ‘I witnessed today a demonstration of Mr Ives’s system of television. He has constructed and put into operation substantially the system he described in his memorandum of 23rd January 1925, to Mr Arnold. In viewing the picture at the receiving end, I could distinguish with fair definition the features of a man’s face like that of a picture at the transmitting end and also observed that, when the picture at the transmitting end was moved forward or backward, or up or down, the picture at the receiving end followed these motions exactly.’

With this initial success behind them, Ives’s group—Dr F Gray, J R Hefele, R C Mathes, R V L Hartley and others—next tackled the problem of synchronisation when the two Nipkow discs were uncoupled. H M Stoller was given responsibility for this particular phase of the project and by December 1925 the group was able to show motion pictures from a projector driven in synchronism with the discs. Another stage in the research programme was passed on 10th March 1926 when, at the conclusion of the ceremonies to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell, F B Jewett, President, and E B Craft, Executive Vice-President, talked over a telephone circuit in the telephone laboratory and were able to see each other’s faces on a screen at either end of the line. According to Ives6, the group forbore to announce their achievement because, from the beginning of their investigations, it had been considered that only when vision signals could be sent over large distances—to parallel ‘what had been done for voice signals’—would their apparatus be worthy of the appellation ‘television system’. ‘It would be television when the laboratory experiment was expanded to cover distances beyond any the eye could reach.’ By 7th April 1927 the system was ready to be demonstrated. It has been

226

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 11.1

Apparatus used in the development of television. The transmitter and receiver scanning discs are mechanically coupled together to ensure perfect synchronisation. The researchers are J R Hefele (left) and Dr Gray

Source: AT&T Bell Laboratories

estimated that over 100 engineers, scientists and technicians contributed to the success of the project7, although some reports mention a figure of one thousand. The demonstration8, using a wire link, consisted of the transmission of images from Washington, DC, to the auditorium of the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New York, a distance of over 250 miles. During the radio demonstration, images were sent from the Bell Laboratories experimental station 3XN at Whippany, New Jersey, to New York City, a distance of 22 miles. Reception was by means of two forms of receiver. One receiver produced a small image of approximately 2.0 in × 2.5 in, which was suitable for viewing by one person. The other receiver gave a large image of nearly 24 in × 30 in for viewing by an audience of considerable size. Ives and his colleagues used a Nipkow disc with 50 apertures for scanning purposes. They arrived at this figure by taking as a criterion of acceptable image quality the standard of reproduction of the half-tone engraving process in which it was known that the human face can be satisfactorily reproduced by a 50-line screen. Thus, assuming equal definition in both scanning directions, 2500 elements per picture had to be transmitted for a rate of 16 pictures per second. The frequency range needed to transmit this number of elements per second was calculated to be 20 kHz. A spotlight scanning method9 was adopted to illuminate the subject, the beam of light being obtained from a 40 A Sperry arc. Three photoelectric cells of the

Early television work

227

potassium hydride, gas-filled type were specially constructed and utilised to receive the reflected light from the subject. At that time they were probably the largest cells that had ever been made and presented an aperture of 120 square inches10. For reception, a disc similar to that at the sending end was used together with a neon glow lamp. The disc had a diameter of 36 inches and synthesized the 2.0 in × 2.5 in image. Another form of receiving apparatus comprised a single, long, neon-filled tube bent back and forth to give a series of 50 parallel sections of tubing. The tube had one interior electrode and 2500 exterior electrodes cemented along its rear wall. A high frequency voltage applied to the interior electrode and one of the exterior electrodes caused the tube to glow in the region of that particular electrode. The high frequency modulated voltage was switched to the electrodes in sequence from 2500 bars on a distributor with a brush rotating synchronously with the disc at the transmitting end. Consequently, a spot of light moved rapidly and repeatedly across the grid in a series of parallel lines, one after the other, and in synchronism with the scanning beam. With a constant exciting voltage the grid appeared uniformly illuminated, but when the high frequency voltage was modulated by the vision signals an image of the distant subject was created. To transmit the vision, sound and synchronising signals three carrier waves were employed: 1575 kHz for the image signals, 1450 kHz for the sound signals and 185 kHz for the synchronisation control11. For Ives, the success of the system was due to the ‘chief novel features’ listed below12: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

the choice of image size and structure such that the resultant signals fell within the transmission frequency range of the available transmission channel; the scanning by means of a projected moving beam of light; the transmission of only the a.c. components of the image; the use of self-luminous surfaces of high intrinsic brilliancy for the reconstruction of the image; and the utilisation of high frequency synchronisation.

The first demonstration consisted of the transmission of an image of, and an address by, Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce, from Washington to New York, over telephone lines. The second demonstration by radio comprised three events: first an address by E L Nelson, a Bell Laboratories engineer; secondly, a ‘vaudeville act’ featuring ‘a stage Irishman, with side whiskers and a broken pipe, [who] did a monologue in brogue’, and then, after a quick change, returned with a blackened face and made a few quips in dialect; and, finally, a short humorous dialect talk13. The received images were subject to some fading and ghosting and occasionally appeared in the negative, but in general they impressed the audience. ‘It was as if a photograph had suddenly come to life and began to talk, smile, nod its head and look this way and that’, said one observer.

228

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 11.2

(Left) The large photoelectric cell used in the 1927 television demonstration. The cell presented a surface area of 40 sq in of photosensitive surface to receive the light reflected from the subject. (Right) The neon receiving lamp. The rectangular cathode was covered by a uniform layer of glow discharge slightly larger than the field of view on the television disc

Source: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Early television work

Figure 11.3

229

Schematic diagram of the line and radio circuits used in the 1927 Bell Telephone Laboratories’ television demonstration

Source: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Colonel Angwin, the deputy Chief Engineer of the UK’s General Post Office, witnessed a demonstration of the Bell Laboratories television system some time after the public demonstration14. In his report he mentioned: ‘This system reproduces a clear and undistorted picture and the results obtained are undoubtedly far in advance of those claimed for and by the Baird system. The American system is a very costly and elaborate piece of mechanism and requires a special circuit for line transmission and exceptionally stable conditions for wireless transmission.’ Angwin’s visit occurred about one year later than the April 1927 trial, but during that time nothing had been done by the company to exploit the system commercially and Angwin was given to understand that it had no intention of proceeding further with it at that time. Dr Dauvillier, the eminent French physicist, observed the wireless transmission and, in a historical review article on television published in the Revue Générale de l’Électricité, wrote: ‘Finally, the Bell Telephone Company recently succeeded in transmitting to a considerable distance the human face, using (without acknowledgement) the Baird system.’15 The April 1927 demonstrations were undoubtedly the finest that had been given anywhere even though no especially novel features had been incorporated into the various systems. They established standards from which further progress could be measured. Moreover, the publication in October 1927, in the Bell System Technical Journal (vol. 6, p. 551–653), of five detailed papers on the factors which led to Ives’s group success enabled other workers to ponder on whether their own ideas and practices were likely to lead to similar favourable outcomes. Certainly, the Bell Laboratories equipment could be further

230

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

developed. The large-screen grid display was ‘very much inferior’ to that of the gaseous discharge lamp; the person being televised had to sit in a semi-darkened room; there was a need to dispense with the separate synchronising channel; and there was a requirement for more detailed images. In addition to these considerations the policy of AT&T towards television advancement in the Bell System had to be defined. Ives16 felt there were three principal projects to be tackled. First, the introduction of a two-way appointment service between New York and Washington, ‘as a means of keeping the Bell System on the map in connection with the onward course of television, while at the same time securing information as to its possible uses and problems’. Secondly, transatlantic television would be the ‘supreme achievement’ in television and would have ‘an appeal to the imagination of all ranks of humanity which would be unsurpassable’. Thirdly, the development of the public address television apparatus, and its possible use for televising a Presidential inauguration, would find its justification if it were the ‘policy of the Telephone Company to either provide a service of this sort or through its subsidiaries to manufacture apparatus from the sale of which, or from the use of which, income could be expected’. Of these proposals, approval was given for the first and third. The second was thought to be a publicity affair17. F B Jewett, President of Bell Telephone Laboratories, believed that Ives’s group should proceed as vigorously as possible with the preliminary work of the third project, without there being any definite commitment. In addition the Laboratories should carry on, as adequately as possible, whatever fundamental work would be necessary to safeguard the company’s position and advance the art along lines that were likely to be of interest to the company. This mandate gave Ives ample scope to investigate quite a wide range of television problems. He seized the opportunities made available to him and during the next three years daylight television, large-screen television, television recording, colour television, and two-way television were all subjected to the group’s scrutiny and engineering prowess. The televising of objects illuminated by natural daylight by the method of direct scanning was demonstrated on 10th May 1928. Studies of the optical conditions peculiar to television had brought out the simple fact that the lightgathering power of a lens and television scanning disc could be increased by enlarging the physical dimensions of the whole scanning system18. Other work in the Laboratories had led to the development of photoelectric cells of greatly increased sensitivity. With these cells, of the thalofide type, a 50-hole, 36-inchdiameter scanning disc and a lens system of aperture f/2.5, it was practicable to transmit images of a full-length human figure when the apparatus was taken out of doors and set up on the roof of the Bell Laboratories building in New York. A press show was given on 12th July 192819. This contained scenes of a sparring match, a golf exhibit and other movements. The evolution of the equipment for public address television proceeded along several paths. First, in the grid display receiver of 1927 the form of brush used and the method of making contact with the individual electrodes on the grid

Early television work

Figure 11.4

231

Television transmitting apparatus

Source: AT&T Bell Laboratories

were much improved: Ives20 could ‘guarantee’, in February 1928, that a face could be reproduced so as to be ‘very satisfactorily recognizable’. Secondly, in 1927 Hartley and Ives patented methods for projecting televised images by photographing the received image with a cine camera and developing the film images with the minimum of delay21. They also patented the generation of television signals from rapidly processed cine film. The advantages of using motion picture film at the sending end of the television system were known to Ives in 1925. In his January 1925 memorandum22 to Arnold, Ives referred to measurements which he had made of the brightness of the image of a sunlit landscape as projected onto a photoelectric cell by means of a wide aperture lens. The measurements revealed that the magnitude of the light flux which could be concentrated on the cell was about 0.2 per cent of that employed in picture transmission. Hence the degree of sensitivity of the photocell and the degree of amplification necessary in the proposed television system would be far greater than those that had been acceptable in connection with picture transmission. Ives advocated using transmitted light (through film), rather than reflected light (from a scene), to ease the solution of the problem23. He noted: ‘It may be pointed out that the use of a moving picture film as the original moving object is

232

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

equivalent to a very great amplification of the original illumination brought about by the photo-chemical amplification process involved in the production and subsequent development of the photographic latent image.’ This intermediate film system of television was employed in the 1930s by Fernseh AG and Telefunken in Germany, and by Baird Television Ltd at the London television station, Alexandra Palace. Thirdly, Gray24 devised a method of projecting television images based on the optical projection of a small, illuminated and moving section of a slot cut in a rotating disc placed in front of a capillary light source. This lamp could operate either as a glow discharge through mercury vapour or as a mercury arc. In February 1929 Gray could exhibit 50-line, 21 in × 32 in projected television images for viewing in a darkened room and 11 in × 14 in screen images for viewing in a room only partially darkened. A modification of this apparatus allowed 50-line television images at 18 images per second to be recorded on 35 mm motion picture film25. When Ives was admitted in 1905 to Johns Hopkins University, as a Ph.D. student, it was to study colour photography under the supervision of R W Wood, then the leading authority on optics in the United States. Ives’s choice of subject had possibly been influenced by his father’s contributions to the art of photography and the science of optics. Dr F E Ives had invented (among other things) a trichromatic camera, various processes of colour photography and a ‘device for optically reproducing objects in both full modelling and natural colours’. H E Ives’s first two papers (both published in the Physical Review) relate to improvements in methods of colour photography; the earlier paper26 (1906) pertains to Wood’s device and the later paper27 (1907) to Lippman’s scheme. The papers were written before Ives had completed his doctoral thesis (1908), which had the title ‘An experimental study of the Lippman colour photograph’. With such a background it was perhaps inevitable that Ives and his coworkers would want to attempt to create coloured televised images. On 27th June 1929 colour television was shown by Bell Telephone Laboratories to an invited gathering of scientists and journalists28. Ives employed three signal channels so that the three colour signals could be sent simultaneously from a transmitter to the receiver29. An advantage of this arrangement was that the same scanning discs and motors, synchronising equipment and light sources, and the same type of circuit and method of amplification were used as in the monochrome scheme. The only new features were the form and disposition of the specially devised photocells at the sending end and the type and grouping of the neon and argon lamps at the receiving end A neon glow lamp gave the desired red light, but for the sources of green and blue light ‘nothing nearly so efficient as the neon lamp was available’. Two argon lamps, one with a green filter and one with a blue filter, were finally adopted for the demonstration; however, various expedients were needed to increase their effective luminous intensity. Special lamps with long, narrow and hollow cathodes cooled by water were utilised and these were observed end-on so that the thin glowing layer of gas was greatly foreshortened and the apparent brightness

Early television work

Figure 11.5

233

The schematic layout of the lamps and filters used in Bell Telephone Laboratories’ colour television demonstration of 1929

Source: AT&T Bell Laboratories

thereby increased. To render the correct tone of coloured objects it was essential to obtain photoelectric cells which would be sensitive throughout the visible spectrum. A R Olpin and G R Stilwell constructed a new kind of cell which used sodium in place of potassium. Its active surface was sensitised by a complicated process involving sulphur vapour and oxygen, instead of by a glow discharge of hydrogen as was the former class of cell. An account of the demonstration, in which the transmission was over lines, was published in Telephony on 6th July 1929. The display30 ‘opened with the American flag fluttering on a screen about the size of a postage stamp. The observer saw it through a peep hole in a darkened room. The colours reproduced perfectly. Then the Union Jack was flashed on the screen and was easily recognised by its coloured bars. ‘The man at the transmitter picked up a piece of watermelon, and there could be no mistake in identifying what he was eating. The red of the melon, the black seeds and the green rind were true to nature as were the red of his lips, the natural colour of his skin and his black hair.’

Of the two projects approved by Jewett, one pertained to two-way television. This was established between the main offices of the AT&T Company at 195 Broadway, New York and the Bell Telephone Laboratories at 463 West Street, New York and was demonstrated on 19th April 193031. It consisted essentially of two complete television transmitting and receiving sets of the kind employed in the 1927 one-way television scheme. Spotlight scanning, Nipkow discs and neon lamps were still incorporated, but with several improvements. Two discs, each containing 72 holes to give double the image detail as compared with the 50-hole discs of the 1927 apparatus, were utilised at each end of the line links, one for image analysis and the other for image synthesis. In addition to the photoelectric cells and neon lamps, each ‘ikonophone’ booth had a concealed microphone and loudspeaker. Special precautions had to be taken with the telephone circuits to prevent ‘singing’ due to the closeness of the two electro-acoustic transducers.

234

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 11.6

Bell Telephone Laboratories’ apparatus for colour television. With the exception of the photoelectric cabinet on the left, the apparatus was identical with that used for the original demonstration of monochromatic television

Source: AT&T Bell Laboratories

The increased bandwidth of the system led to problems of amplitude and phase equalisation which were more difficult than those encountered in the earlier tests32. On the optical side33 the principal problem was that of regulating the intensity of the scanning light and of the received image so that ‘the eye [was] not annoyed by the scanning beam or the neon lamp image rendered difficult of observation’. Ives and his colleagues, Gray and Baldwin, solved this difficulty by using a scanning light colour to which the eye is relatively insensitive, but to which the photoelectric cells could be made highly sensitive. When the two-way system was withdrawn from service it had been seen by more than 17 000 people. A novel application was observed when two deaf persons carried on a telephone conversation by reading each other’s lips34. The cost of providing the service, by the New York Telephone Company, was estimated to be $15 350 per year, excluding the cost of the technical operation and maintenance, which was borne by Bell Telephone Laboratories. Much publicity was given to the demonstrations: for the first six months of 1931 more than 700 column inches of newsprint were devoted to reports in the

Early television work

Figure 11.7

235

Diagrammatic layout of Bell Telephone Laboratories’ two-way television system

Source: AT&T Bell Laboratories

city papers35. Rather oddly, perhaps, the desirability of this type of publicity was questioned by AT&T’s Administration Department. ‘Our exhibit emphasises to me that commercial use of television is a long way off’, wrote a member of the department in March 193136. (See Note 1 at end of chapter.) Following the completion of the two-way link, Ives undertook an important appraisal of the progress which had been made by his group and endeavoured to define the course of action that had to be implemented for the future advancement of television. His prognosis was gloomy in outlook37. For Ives the statement of the problem that had to be solved was simple. ‘An electrically transmitted photograph 5 in × 7 in in size, having 100 scanning strips per inch, has a field of view and a degree of definition of detail which, experience shows, are adequate (although with little margin) for the majority of news events pictures. It is undoubtedly a picture of this sort that the television enthusiast has in the back of his mind when he predicts carrying the stage and the motion picture screen into the house over electrical communications channels.’

The difficulty of achieving this desirable result was readily apparent. In the photograph the number of picture elements is 350 000, and at a repetition speed of 20 per second (24 per second had now become standard with sound films) this meant the transmission of 7 000 000 picture elements per second and a bandwidth of 3.5 MHz for the system on a single sideband basis. Ives compared the criteria for high-definition television and the results which had been obtained in

236

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

America, and observed: ‘All parts of the television system are already having serious difficulty in handling the 4 000-element image.’ (This was the number of image elements used in the 72-line picture of the two-way television link.) The obstacles that had to be overcome before a high-definition system could be implemented were found in the use of the scanning discs at the transmitter and receiver, the photoelectric cells, the amplifying systems, the transmission channels and the receiving lamps. Ives noted that the disc, while quite the simplest means for scanning images of a few elements, was entirely impractical when really large numbers of image elements were in question, and wrote: ‘As yet however, no practical substitute for the disc of essentially different character has appeared.’ Turning next to the photocells, there were, in 1930, two types of cell which could be utilised for television: the gas-filled cell, which had a good sensitivity but poor frequency response; and the vacuum cell, which was much less sensitive than the gas-filled cell, although it was free from its failings. The self-capacitance of the cells and the associated wiring and amplifier caused the high frequencies to be attenuated relative to the lower frequencies and consequently equalising circuits with their attendant problems of phase adjustment, together with more amplification, were needed. But Ives observed that amplifiers capable of handling frequency bands extending from low frequencies up to 100 000 Hz or more gave serious problems. The communication channels, either radio or wire, also posed grave difficulties for high-definition television and its related bandwidth specification. ‘In radio, fading, different at different frequencies, and various forms of interference stand in the way of securing a wide frequency channel of uniform efficiency. In wire, progressive attenuation at higher frequencies, shift of phase, and cross-induction between circuits offer serious obstacles. Transformers and intermediate amplifiers or repeaters capable of handling the wide frequency bands here in question also present serious problems. ‘Finally, at the receiving end of the system the neon glow could not follow satisfactorily television signals well below 40,000 Hz and, in the case of the 4,000-element image the neon had to be assisted by a frequently renewed admixture of hydrogen, which again could not be expected to increase the frequency range indefinitely. With the receiver disc, as at the sending end, increasing the number of image elements rapidly reduced the amount of light in the image and, with a plate glow lamp of given brightness, the apparent brightness of the image is inversely as the number of image elements.’

These considerations led Ives to one clear conclusion: ‘The existing situation is that if a many-element television image is called for today, it is not available, and one of the chief obstacles is the difficulty of generating, transmitting, and receiving signals over wide frequency bands.’ A partial solution was to employ multiple scanning and multiple-channel (zone) transmission. Ives’s multi-channel experimental set-up is illustrated in Figure 11.8.This used scanning discs with prisms over their apertures, so that, at the sending end, the beams of light from the successive holes were diverted to different photoelectric cells. At the receiving end, the prisms enabled beams of light from the three lamps to be deflected in a common direction.

Early television work

Figure 11.8

237

Schematic diagram of Bell Telephone Laboratories’ three-zone television system: (a) receiving end disc with spiral of holes provided with prisms; (b) sending end disc with circle of holes provided with prisms; (c) general arrangement of apparatus

Source: Journal of the Optical Society of America, January–June 1931, 21

Ives found that his three-channel apparatus yielded results strictly in agreement with the theory underlying its conception and observed that the 13 000element image was a marked advance over the single-channel 4000-element image. ‘Even so, the experience of running a collection of motion picture films of all types is disappointing, in that the number of subjects rendered adequately by even this number of image elements is small. “Close-ups” and scenes showing a great deal of action, are reproduced with considerable satisfaction, but scenes containing a number of full length figures, where the nature of the story is such that the facial expression should be watched, are very far from satisfactory. On the whole the general opinion . . . is that an enormously greater number of elements is required for a television image for general news or entertainment purposes.’

The points made by Ives in his appraisal of the generation and display of a video signals had been appreciated by a few workers for several years. Campbell Swinton38, in his Presidential Address of 1911 to the Röntgen Society, had commented upon the impractical nature of the pursuit of perfection by mechanical means and had outlined an all-electronic system of television. Zworykin had patented a version of such a system in 1923 and when, in 1925, Farnsworth started his work on television it was on the basis of an all-electronic scheme. Again, in Great Britain, a similar approach was to be adopted in 1931 by Electric and Musical Industries Ltd. Subsequently, Zworykin, Farnsworth and EMI satisfactorily demonstrated all-electronic television before the end of 1935. The year 1931 marked a turning-point in the progress of television at Bell Telephone Laboratories. Following a period of six years (1925–30) as a centre of

238

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

excellence, the television laboratories declined in importance. This decline stemmed from certain constraints that had been imposed on the business of the AT&T company and also from a certain lack of direction of the R&D television effort. In May 1931 Ives wrote a memorandum39 on a ‘Future programme for television research and development’. At that time the Laboratories’ television projects were not aimed at any specific developments, such as radio or wire broadcasting into theatres or homes, the improvement of large images, or small receivers for home use. Their work was mainly exploratory in the realm of fundamentals. Ives’s conviction was that the only real and lasting field for television, if it could be developed, was that of home entertainment. Consequently, he felt that the only worthwhile problems in television research were the improvement of broadcasting methods and the advancement of terminal apparatus, especially receiving apparatus, to produce a high-grade image which alone would be satisfactory. He realised the magnitude of the task required and wrote: ‘The technical difficulties are enormous and the possibility of overcoming them is veiled in obscurity.’ Nevertheless, these problems could be faced with interest and enthusiasm by his staff but ‘a damper [was] put on thought and planning along these lines by the knowledge that television for home entertainment [lay] outside the chosen sphere of activities of the Bell System. It was debarred therefrom by its present contract relations.’ During its programme of work on television, Ives’s group had undertaken some investigations (in 1926) on the appropriateness of utilising a cathode ray tube in a television receiver40. Images of simple objects, such as a letter A, a bent wire and so on had been received on a modified cathode ray tube. The received picture signals had been impressed on an extra grid in the tube and controlled the intensity of the electron beam incident on the fluorescent screen. In one type of tube, the grid was close to the hot filament and the picture signals acted on the beam before it reached the accelerating field. In a second type of tube, the cathode beam passed through two parallel wire gauzes just before striking the screen and the image signals were applied across these two gauzes. Both types of tube reproduced images of the simple objects just mentioned, but they did not reproduce images of more complex objects, nor did they show half-tones in a satisfactory way. Baird never utilised cathode ray tubes in the 1920s. His view on their applicability was given in an article published in January 1928. ‘The use of the cathode ray’, he wrote, ‘is beset with the greatest difficulties, and so far, no practical success has been met with in its application.’ Dr R T Beatty, of the Admiralty Research Laboratory, held a similar opinion. ‘Although this method sounds attractive the practical difficulties are so great that little progress has been made by experimenters on these lines.’ These difficulties were delineated in a report which he wrote in December 192541. 1. ‘Since the angular displacement of the spot is not proportional to the voltage applied, and owing to the curvature of the fluorescent screen, considerable distortion of the

Early television work

239

picture takes place. This is increased by the fact that the deflection voltages are sinsusoidal instead of being linear functions of the time. 2. ‘The modulations produced in the anode voltage for the purpose of increasing the luminosity cause radial displacements of the spot, whereby serious confusion of the picture is produced. 3. ‘The successive pictures will not register unless the amplitudes and frequencies of the simple harmonic motion deflection voltages are regulated with great accuracy. ‘Until these three sources of error have been removed the oscillograph method seems to rank as inferior to the [mechanical] devices already described.’

The problems associated with gas-filled cathode ray tubes were to become known to other experimenters, including Farnsworth and Zworykin, and therefore endeavours were made to evolve vacuum cathode ray tubes. Some later workers, for example Bedford and Puckle, and von Ardenne, sought to ameliorate the effects of gas-filled tubes by adopting velocity modulation. On 18th November 1929 Zworykin gave a lecture on his new ‘kinescope’ or picture tube, to a meeting of the Institute of Radio Engineers. His efforts to develop a vacuum picture receiving tube had been successful and represented an important step forward in the slow march towards an all-electronic television system. Ives was not impressed, though. A demonstration of the kinescope had not been given at the IRE meeting and the account of Dr Zworykin’s work was ‘chiefly talk’. ‘This method of reception’, wrote Ives, ‘is old in the art and of very little promise. The images are quite small and faint and all the talk about this development promising display of television to large audiences is quite wild.’42 With the leader of the television group holding such an opinion, it was perhaps inevitable that R&D effort on the evolution of an all-electronic television scheme would not be a major part of the group’s activities. Instead, in his May 1931 memorandum43 on ‘The future programme for television research and development’, Ives confirmed his support for mechanical scanning by suggesting three special projects all based on this mode of reconstituting an image. These were: (1) the demonstration of reception from an aeroplane; (2) the demonstration of direct scanning of some major outdoor event; (3) the demonstration of reception on film and thence projection in the theatre. All these recommendations if approved would have been based on existing principles and technology. Ives did not propose the investigation of electronic cameras or electronic receiving tubes, and yet when his group eventually embarked on such a programme an important advance was made. Following this account of the thoughts and work of Ives and his group, it is now possible to give an assessment of the early thoughts and work of Baird and his group. A comparison of their efforts is shown in Table 11.1. The table does not serve to determine whether Baird or a staff member of Bell Telephone Laboratories was the first to patent or demonstrate a particular aspect or method of television. Rather, it is a basis for indicating Baird’s sound appreciation of the low-definition television problem and for showing that, in the 1920s, his ideas and his implementation of those ideas were consonant with the thoughts and activities of a well endowed and well staffed research and

240

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Table 11.1 Some contributions by Bell Telephone Laboratories and by J L Baird to the development of television in the 1920s Use of/demonstration of

Baird

Bell Laboratories

1 Nipkow disc 2 Glow discharge lamps 3 Means to reduce time lag of photocells

from 1923 various experiments 1924 from 1925; used derivative of photocell current; patent 270 222, 21 October 1925

from 1925 various experiments 1925

4 Coloured filters on lamps to reduce discomfiture of persons televised 5 Large Nipkow discs

various experiments in 1925; demonstration of infrared radiation 23 November 1926 utilised discs up to 8 feet (2.44 m) in diameter at some time during the period 1923–5 employed from 1926 to 1936; patent 269 658, 20 January 1926

6 Spotlight scanning

7 Two-way television

patent 309 965, 19 October 1927

8 Transatlantic television

demonstrated 9 February 1928

9 Intercalated images to improve resolution 10 Colour television 11 Large-screen television 12 Daylight television

13 Commutated lamp bank/display 14 Use of arcs

patent 253 957, 1 January 1926; various experiments 1924 demonstrated 3 July 1928 demonstrated 28 July 1930 demonstrated June 1928

patent 222 604, 26 July 1923, demonstrated 28 July 1930 demonstrated January 1931

from 1925–6; used C–R coupling circuit to enhance high-frequency gain, internal memorandum 27 February 1926 various experiments in 1925; mentioned in internal memorandum, 26 August 1925 advantage of using discs up to ten feet (3.05 m) in diameter mentioned in an internal memorandum, 27 July 1925 employed from 1925–6; US patent applied for on 6 April 1927; UK patent 288 238, 18 January 1928 UK patent 297 152, 17 June 1927; demonstrated from 9 April 1930 to 31 December 1932 suggested as a publicity event in an internal memorandum 4 May 1927 mentioned in internal memorandum 9 September 1927 demonstrated July 1928 demonstrated 7 April 1927 need to work on natural-light scanning mentioned in an internal memorandum 4 May 1927; demonstrated 16 July 1928 demonstrated 7 April 1927

mentioned in internal memorandum 11 February 1929; experiments 1929

Early television work 15 Zone television

demonstrated 2 January 1931; patent 360 942, 6 August 1930

241

described in a paper by H E Ives, ‘A multichannel television apparatus’, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 1931, 21; demonstrated 1930–1

development organisation. Thus, both groups demonstrated low-definition ‘spotlight’ television, large-screen television, long-distance television, colour television, daylight television and zone television. Neither Baird nor Ives felt that cathode-ray tubes were appropriate for television reception in the 1920s. Both Baird and Ives used glow discharge tubes and Nipkow discs in their receivers, and both television pioneers considered employing very large discs 8 ft to 10 ft in diameter. Commutated lamp displays, the use of arcs, the intercalation of images, transatlantic television transmission and reception, and the means to improve the performance of photoelectric cells, were all examined by Baird and Ives. The agreement between the views and strategies of the two groups is quite remarkable, especially so when the great variety of possible devices and methods which could have been used is appreciated44. Baird has been disparaged by several writers. However, a careful reading of some of his 177 patents and some of those of his contemporaries in the same fields, and a comparison of the efforts and successes of Baird and those of his competitors in the 1920s, again in the same fields, show clearly that his understanding and knowledge of television systems using mechanical scanning was considerable and appropriate for the 1920–30 decade.

Note 1 The Times shared the view of the member of AT&T’s Administrative Department who commented that the commercial use of television was a long way off. In a report on a videophone link demonstrated on 19th May 1932, in Paris, The Times correspondent wrote: ‘ultimately two-way transmission, subject to the limitation governing ordinary wireless telephony, will become commercially possible’. On this occasion representatives of Baird Television in France had demonstrated a two-way system between the offices of the French newspaper Le Matin and a studio at the Galeries Lafayette situated approximately one mile away. Noctovision, or the scanning of an object or person by infra-red radiation, was used so that the eye was not irritated by the scanning beam and the neon lamp image rendered difficult of observation. These effects had been observed during the demonstration of two-way television conducted by the Reich Postzentralamt (German Post Office) at the 1929 Berlin Funkausstellung (Radio Exhibition). The Times reporter noted: ‘Although the image was fairly coarse [30 lines per picture] the features of the sitter were clearly recognisable, while the movement of the lips could easily be followed. The whole play of expression on the face of the speaker at the other end was remarkably clear . . .’. Again Nipkow disc

242

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

a

b Figure 11.9

Both Bell Telephone Laboratories (a) and Baird (b) experimented with large scanning discs in an effort to increase the size of the reproduced image

Sources: (a) AT&T Bell Laboratories; (b) Mr R M Herbert

Early television work

243

scanners (one at each end of the link) operating at 12.5 revolutions per second were used. Ebonite screen filters enabled only the infra-red rays to take part in the analysing operation. Mention was made in The Times report that the system was to be exploited in France by the Paris–Nathan Company but nothing further was heard about this proposal.

References 1 ‘Remarks by Frank B. Jewett at the television demonstration’, Bell Laboratory Record, May 1927, p. 298 2 IVES, H. E.: ‘Television: 20th anniversary’, Bell Laboratory Record, May 1947, 25, pp. 190–3 3 IVES, H. E.; ‘Television’, memorandum to H. D. Arnold, 23rd January 1925, Case File 33089, Vol. A, 8, AT&T Archives 4 FINDLEY, P. B.: ‘Biography of Herbert E. Ives’, internal report, date unknown, AT&T Archives 5 ROBERTS, J. G.: ‘Invention of Mr H. E. Ives—system of television’, memorandum for file, 14th May 1925, Case File 33089, Vol. A, 1, AT&T Archives 6 Ref. 2, pp. 191–2 7 ANON.: ‘Television—a group achievement’, Bell Laboratory Record, May 1927, pp. 316–23 8 IVES, H. E.: ‘Television’, Bell System Technical Journal, October 1927, pp. 551–9 9 GRAY, F., HORTON, J. W., and MATHES, R. C.: ‘The production and utilisation of television signals’, Bell System Technical Journal, October 1927, pp. 560–81 10 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Television, an international history of the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1998), chapter 10, pp. 220–41 11 NELSON, E. L.: ‘Radio transmission for television’, Bell System Technical Journal, October 1927, pp. 633–53 12 Ref. 8, p. 558 13 ANON.: ‘Far-off speakers seen as well as heard here in a test of television’, New York Times, 8th April 1927 14 ANGWIN, A. S.: memorandum to the Secretary of the GPO, 7th June 1928, Minute 51/1929 15 DAUVILLIER, A.: ‘La télévision electrique’, Revue Générale de l’Électricité, 7th January 1928, pp. 5–23 16 IVES, H. E.: ‘Development program for television’, memorandum to H. D. Arnold, 4th May 1927, Case File 33089, Vol. A, pp. 1–9, AT&T Archives 17 H. S. R.: ‘Television’, memorandum for file, 18th March 1966, Case Book No. 1538, Case File 20348 and Case File 19350, pp. 1–12, AT&T Archives 18 GRAY, F., and IVES, H. E.: ‘Optical conditions for direct scanning in television’, Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1928, 17, pp. 423–34 19 ANON.: ‘Television shows panoramic scene carried by sunlight’, New York Times, 13th July 1928 20 IVES, H. E.: memorandum to H. D. Arnold, 18th February 1928, Case File 33089, pp. 1–5, AT&T Archive

244

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

21 HARTLEY, R. V. L., and IVES, H. E.: ‘Improvements in or relating to television’, British patent no. 297 078, application date 19th March 1928 22 Ref. 3 23 IVES. H. E.: ‘Television’, memorandum for file, 10th July 1925, Case File 33089, Vol. A, pp. 1–2, AT&T Archives 24 GRAY, F.: ‘The projection of television images’, memorandum for file, 13th February 1929, Case File 33089, pp. 1–5, AT&T Archives 25 GRAY, F.: ‘Recording television images on movie film at television speeds’, memorandum for file, 11th February 1929, Case File 33089, pp.1–4, AT&T Archives 26 IVES, H. E.: ‘Improvements in the diffraction of color photography’, Physical Review, 1906, 22, p. 339 27 IVES, H. E.: ‘Three color interference pictures’, Physical Review, 1907, 24, p. 103 28 ANON.: ‘Television in color shown first time’, New York Times, 28th June 1929 29 IVES, H. E.: ‘Television in color’, Bell Laboratory Record, July 1929, pp. 439–44 30 ANON.: ‘Television in color successfully shown’, Telephony, 6th July 1929, 97, pp. 23–5 31 ANON.: ‘2-way television in phoning tested’, New York Times, 4th April 1930 32 IVES, H. E., GRAY, F., and BALDWIN, M. W.: ‘Image transmission system for two-way television’, Bell System Technical Journal, 1930, 9, pp. 448– 69 33 IVES, H. E.: ‘Some optical features in two-way television’, Journal of the Optical Society of America,1931, 21, pp. 101–8 34 FARNELL, W. C. F.: memorandum to J. Mills, 23rd June 1930, Ref. 592-CWCFF-EO, AT&T Archives 35 SARGENT, W. D.: letter to L. S. O’Roark, 9th July 1931, Ref. 0603–2, AT&T Archives 36 W. J. O. C.: memorandum to A. W. Page, 23rd March 1931, Ref. 0603–2, AT&T Archives 37 IVES, H. E.: ‘A multi-channel television apparatus’, Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1931, 21, pp. 8–19 38 CAMPBELL SWINTON, A. A.: ‘Presidential Address’, Journal of the Roentgen Society,1912, 8, pp. 1–5 39 IVES, H. E.: ‘Future program for television research and development’, memorandum for file, 18th May 1931, Case File 33089, AT&T Archives 40 GRAY, F.: ‘The cathode ray tube as a television receiver’, memorandum to H. E. Ives, 16th November 1926, Case File 33089, AT&T Archives 41 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Early Admiralty interest in television’, IEE Conference Publication of 11th IEE Weekend Meeting on the History of Electrical Engineering, 1983, pp. 1–17 42 IVES, H. E.: memorandum to H. P. Charlesworth, 16th December 1929, Case File 33089, AT&T Archives 43 Ref.39 44 Ref. 10, Appendix 2, ‘Some patents on scanning 1889–1933’, pp. 621–8

Chapter 12

Financial difficulties

In September/October 1930 Hutchinson visited the States in the hope of founding a vast company there—he was always longing for the big deal. As Margaret Baird1 has written: ‘Hutchinson, carried a long way on the tide of success, had ideas which bordered on the extravagant, seeking to take John’s place at meetings of the board and dreaming of financial deals that had more connection with a dream world than with the real world.’ He visited RCA and had talks with Mr O Schairer, the Patents Manager of the Radio Corporation of America2, 3. The power and influence of the Radio Corporation of America and its affiliated companies in the United States were well recognised by Baird Television Limited. Its directors felt that if some proper arrangement could be made with RCA and its affiliated companies for the exploitation of the Baird patents, trademarks and improvements in the USA, with reciprocal rights in regard to new inventions and improvements, such an arrangement would be to the ultimate, and possibly immediate, benefit of RCA and its affiliate companies and to Baird Television Ltd. Previously, in the furtherance of its international policy, Baird Television Ltd had established in the USA the Baird Television Corporation (in Paramount Building, 1501 Broadway, New York), and had exhibited its system in New York City on 2nd September 19294. Vision and sound signals had been sent by wire from the Paramount Building to a laboratory at 44th Street. Later, on 20th December 1929, a demonstration had featured Mayor Walker of New York5. Hutchinson’s wish to visit RCA seems rather curious. Although it is apparent how RCA’s world-wide interests could aid the British company, the converse is not so obvious. On the one hand Baird Television Ltd was committed in 1930 to low-definition television based on mechanical scanning at the transmitter and receiver; on the other hand Zworykin’s intentions were to seek an all-electronic solution to the television problem. He had read a paper on his kinescope6 (a cathoderay tube used in a television receiver) on 18th November 1929, and, from 25th August 1929, station KDKA had been broadcasting daily 60-line motion picture images, using the Conrad television system. Whether Hutchinson was

246

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

shown RCA’s television developments during his visit or whether he knew of their work from other sources is not known. Schairer suggested that Hutchinson on his return to England should approach the Gramophone Company, in which RCA Victor had a stake. Hutchinson accepted this advice and on 8th October 1930 sent a letter7 to the Secretary of the British company. Two days later Hutchinson, A Clark (the Chairman of the Gramophone Company) and B Mittel (the Director of Production) had a general talk on the scope of the Baird companies. Clark was invited to visit Baird Television Ltd and on 14th October he and two colleagues (B Mittel and W B Brown) discussed with Hutchinson at BTL’s laboratories the position of television in America. The Gramophone Company’s senior staff did not attend the meeting in a state of ignorance because, the previous day, they had been to their production department and had seen a demonstration of television reception based on the company’s recent work8. A further visit to BTL was made by G E Condliffe9, of the Gramophone Company (HMV) on 16th October 1930. He was given demonstrations of Baird’s noctovision and film scanning systems, and inspections of their transmitter and studio equipment during a broadcast performance. He was not impressed. ‘The scheme as it exists at present is crude, and except for head and shoulders pictures, has no possibility of success.’ Unknown to Baird Television, the Gramophone Company, at this time, was working on 150-line television using films. Inevitably their 150-line images were far superior to those achieved using the 30-line system. ‘A demonstration of a boxing match was very poor, and that of a horse race picture so bad that it was totally devoid of interest. The apparatus showed no novelty, and the scheme is incapable of improvement on the present lines.’ From the Gramophone Company’s viewpoint the only possible advantage which could be derived from a link with BTL would be the use of any master patents which Baird held. Such was Hutchinson’s eagerness to effect some contract with HMV that he had previously sent the company copies of all Baird’s published and pending patent specifications in the UK and the USA together with a history of the Baird companies. HMV examined carefully each patent for claims which might subsequently be awkward in operating its own television system. All doubtful cases were referred to its patent agents for an opinion as to the scope or validity of the particular claims, but the conclusion reached was that their transmitting and receiving devices were patent free10. ‘The Baird company owns many patents on variations in disc design, and in regard to the number of discs etc, employed, but they are of no value and are not used by the Baird company themselves. In this connection the Baird stereoscopic and colour scanning devices should be noted. These appear to cover obvious fundamental points. It is unlikely, however, that they will be used for many years, and are of small potential value. A few patents might be worth getting hold of if they were going cheap.’

Further talks between Hutchinson and Mittel and Clark were held on 4th and 17th November. By 14th November Clark had formed an opinion on the

Financial difficulties

247

Baird position and had written to D Sarnoff, who had become a director of the Gramophone Company in March 1929 and who was President of the Radio Corporation of America, to the effect that he had been unable to find any solid assets. Hutchinson was told nothing further could be discussed until RCA responded to Clark’s letter. Regrettably, EMI’s archives, which include the archives of HMV, do not contain Sarnoff’s reply. Among the archival papers there is a memorandum regarding an interview11, held on 26th January 1931, with a Mr W Barrie Abbott, a ‘very intimate friend of Baird’. He argued, in a private capacity, for a joining of hands with Baird in the development of television. The next day a Mr A G Clarke had a discussion with Mittel about the possibility of an amalgamation of Baird Television Ltd and HMV12. In the meantime, Baird Television Ltd had brought an action against the Gramophone Company and had alleged ‘that it had manufactured, exhibited and used at the Imperial College of Science and Technology, Kensington, a certain apparatus in January 1931’ which presumably infringed a patent of the plaintiff company. Hence, when A G Clarke had a telephone conversation with Mr Alfred Clark, of HMV, he was told that the company was not prepared to carry on negotiating while the action was still unsettled. With this mild rebuff A G Clarke said ‘he would see what he could do’. Baird Television did not proceed with the case and costs were awarded against it13. A further letter requesting an informal chat, with the prospect of finding some solution, was sent to A Clark by A G Clarke on 9th February 1931. Baird Television Ltd was set certainly forcing the pace and seemed very anxious for an agreement. Although the available archival material gives no real indication why this should be so, it is possible that Baird Television could foresee the financial difficulties which lay ahead. This view is supported by the opinion of HMV, after another visit from A G Clarke on 13th February14: ‘Not time yet to discuss pooling of patents with company that was going to abandon research’. Nothing further transpired between the two firms until 21st August 1931 when Hutchinson told HMV he was anxious to dispose of his controlling shares in the Baird company. And so Hutchinson’s hope of forming a vast company in the USA came to nought. Baird has written that Hutchinson might have achieved something, but possibly he was too ambitious. ‘Week after week and then month after month went by and nothing definite matured. When at last he did return with a heavy bill for expenses and no definite deal accomplished, he found a very impatient board awaiting him. Some exceedingly unpleasant meetings followed, culminating in Hutchinson’s resignation but not the closure of the New York offices. He did receive, however, an 18 months option on the American rights and so was given an opportunity to make the American deal which he believed to be in the offing. He returned to the USA armed with his option, but the golden moment had evidently been lost and when the 18 months elapsed nothing had resulted.’15

Looking back, it is difficult to appreciate BTL’s strategy. From about 1925 the American Telephone & Telegraph Company, General Electric, Westinghouse

248

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Electric & Manufacturing Company, the Radio Corporation of America, and several much smaller companies associated with C F Jenkins, P T Farnsworth and others in the USA, had been investigating the television problem. These companies, particularly the large companies, had by 1930 given some impressive demonstrations of both large-screen and small-screen television by wire and by radio; both Zworykin and Farnsworth were developing all-electronic television systems; and RCA was making preparations for an extensive field test of a system of 120 lines per picture, 24 pictures per second using the 40–80 MHz band. Television flourished in the USA from early 192816. A list of stations published in the New York Times17 in July 1928 named nine stations. By October three more stations had been included in a radio broadcasting survey, and a November Federal Radio Commission communication added another six. In 1929, 22 stations were authorised18 by the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) to transmit visual images, and over the next 15 years no fewer than 104 stations were granted construction permits and licences. With the growth of television stations from around 1928 it was obvious that some control had to be exercised by the FRC. It performed three roles during the formative period of American television19. First, it determined the frequencies and bandwidths for the nascent services; secondly, it established procedures and standards for assigning these frequencies to transmitting stations; and thirdly, it regulated the services made accessible to the public. In its 1928 Annual Report20 the Federal Radio Commission commented on the severe restraint on television programme makers by the need to operate within the existing 10 kHz bandwidth. The FRC quoted from an engineering report submitted to it by Dr A N Goldsmith of the RCA: ‘A 5-kilocycle bandwidth permits the television broadcast of a crude image of a head, with comparatively little detail. A 20-kilocycle bandwidth will permit the broadcasting of the heads and shoulders with more detail. An 80-kilocycle band will permit transmission of the picture of two or three actors in fairly acceptable details. ‘The allocation of bands of 100 kilocycles wide for television is strongly advocated, since this is clearly the minimum basis for a true television service of permanent interest to the public.’

Since 100 kHz bandwidth signal channels could not be accommodated in the medium-wave band, there was a need to allocate higher frequency channels to television. In January 1929 a North American conference, held in Ottawa, decided that radiation of television signals would be limited to a bandwidth of 100 kHz, within the frequency bands 2000–2100, 2100–2200, 2200–2500, 2750–2850 and 2850–2950 kHz21. The powers subsequently employed varied from 10 W to 20 kW, with the majority of stations operating at 5 kW. One of the effects of this recommendation and the FRC’s subsequent order was the restriction it placed on definition standards. Weinberger, Smith and Rodwin22 of the Radio Corporation of America had shown in 1929 that a

Financial difficulties

249

standard based on 60 lines per picture, 20 pictures per second and an aspect ratio of 5 : 6 (height to width) would be realistic and apposite for the television bandwidth specified by the FRC. These suggested television parameters became the norm for television transmissions in the USA. Thus when Hutchinson visited the USA in 1930 and endeavoured to establish the Baird 30 lines per picture, 12.5 pictures per second, 7 : 3 aspect ratio system the prospect of success for his mission was at least uncertain, if not poor. Most, if not all, of the preceding facts, which were widely published, should have been known to Baird Television Ltd. It can be seen that the directors of the company made an error of judgement in persisting with medium-wave-band, 30line television when elsewhere moves were being made towards higher-definition standards using the high frequency bands. Sir Ambrose Fleming, a stalwart supporter of J L Baird, in February 1930 submitted to the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company ‘A report on the Baird television system’. He wrote23: ‘I think one of the difficulties under which Baird is laboring at the present moment is that he is relying too much on himself alone and on his knowledge, as far as it extends, of what others have done. ‘On the other hand in the USA there are the powerful research staffs of the General Electric Company, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, the Western Electric Company and others all combining their team work in pursuit of the object of achieving practical television.’

Baird Television Ltd’s finances at the end of 1930 were causing concern. A partial way out of its difficulties would have been for the company to have received a percentage of the ten-shilling broadcasting licence fee, even though the time occupied by television broadcasts amounted only to a very small fraction of the BBC’s total programme time and the number of viewers was small indeed. Of the licence fee the Post Office was entitled to 12.5 per cent and required its portion to cover administrative expenses, the Treasury was entitled to a further percentage and the BBC was entitled to the balance. The Postmaster General (PMG)24 on 3rd January 1931 told Baird that it would be quite useless for him to suggest to the Treasury that it should give up any portion of their receipts and suggested that the proper course for the company to take was to make whatever representations they thought fit to the BBC concerning the terms under which television was transmitted and that, if they considered the BBC’s reply was unreasonable and they were being treated unfairly, the company could make further representations to the PMG. It was against this background that Baird wrote to Reith (the Director General of the BBC) and requested a meeting. Reith replied25: ‘There is really no case from our point of view for subsidising your activities or for bearing part of the cost of experimental transmissions.’ But he did say to Baird: ‘There is here the maximum goodwill towards you personally and I’m asking those concerned to continue to explore with you and your colleagues the various avenues of constructive co-operation.’ Baird’s approach to Reith in January 1931 did have a small effect, in that a

250

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

payment of £25 per month from the company was waived—while maintaining the principle that it was due26. With Hutchinson’s resignation, Baird Television Ltd had to find a new business manager. Mr Napier, who was a friend of Colonel Winch, one of the directors, was appointed, but his selection was a mistake27. Napier was already a manager of another company and attempted to conduct the affairs of BTL on a part-time basis. This was a ‘hopeless arrangement’, for the company ‘needed and badly needed a whole time business manager’. Baird has written: ‘The real driving force on the business side was Sydney Moseley. Our relations with the BBC were in his hands. He was a close friend of Gladstone Murray, at that time regarded as Reith’s understudy. Sydney was a realist and recognised that the business was being handled on far too expensive a scale.’28

The company had been pouring money out on overseas ventures in Australia, South Africa, the United States and elsewhere, on publicity, studios, artistes’ fees and transmissions through the BBC, and on staff and equipment. The outgoings were not balanced by any substantial income even though the number of television receivers sold had passed a thousand. As Baird put it: ‘We were behaving more like a philanthropic institution for the benefit of the televisionminded public than a business concern.’ The position was precarious and Moseley, the author of Money Making in Stocks and Shares and a realist with money, ‘told me [Baird] that funds were once again dangerously low’. Moseley ‘egged me on to make drastic cuts and here I ran across the path of Napier who, with his staff, formed a very expensive item. We had a succession of unpleasant meetings but finally the basic fact that our cash was becoming dangerously low forced the Board to action and Napier went. I then succeeded in getting Moseley on to the Board and a wholesale cutting down of expenditure followed.’29 Among the economies was a reduction of the technical staff. In 1931 G B Banks, G Barford, A F Birch, A B Calkin, P T Hobson and A Thynne left Baird Television Ltd. They were followed in 1932 by R H Boulding, D R Campbell, T H Bridgewater, C L Richards and P W Sherrin. Baird himself agreed to a reduction of salary of 50 per cent. The maintenance of the New York offices and staff was of course a constant drain on the resources of Baird Television Ltd. Since the principal activity of Baird Television Corporation appeared to be the production of lengthy reports ‘holding out hopes of big deals just about to mature’, but with no tangible effects, the BTL board, at the instigation of Moseley, decided to send Baird to the USA to investigate the position. He set sail in September 1931 aboard the SS Aquitania. The board’s policy seems most curious when set against Hutchinson’s previous determined but failed attempts to influence the American market. Either the board was in complete ignorance of the television situation in the USA, or it was so impressed with Baird’s genius that it considered he was more than a match for the powerful, and well equipped, research teams of AT&T, GE, RCA and others.

Financial difficulties

251

Baird has given a delightful account of his arrival and stay in New York.30 As the ship approached New York harbour Baird was surprised to see on the pier a body of Highland pipers marching up and down with great elan to the music of the pipes. ‘These wretched men proved to be a gang of comic opera pipers from the Ziegfeld Follies. A misguided but enthusiastic American publicity agent had arranged to give me [Baird] a real Scottish reception. I was to walk in front of this procession, with a police escort, to my royal suite at the Waldorf Astoria. I could not face it. I slipped away and reached the hotel unobtrusively in a taxi. A few minutes later the Highlanders (from Czechoslovakia, Louisiana and Hollywood) arrived. It was an expensive matter pacifying them. The royal suite was overpowering, particularly the bathroom, an enormous hall with a vast black marble bath set in the floor and a great profusion of sprays and showers and gilded WCs. The suite was filled with press-men, photo-bulbs flashing and reporters taking notes. Encouraged by the dynamo publicity man they stayed on, but gave me the impression that they had no interest whatever in myself or my works, and much preferred to concentrate on the whisky and refreshment. At two in the morning the last of them had reeled out or been carried out and I retired to my gilded bedroom.’

Next morning the circus started again at 9 o’clock with the arrival of three businessmen who breakfasted with Baird. Their proposal seemed to Baird to be incomprehensible rubbish, but they ate heartily and ‘drank enormous amounts of rye whisky’. By 11 o’clock one of them had collapsed on the couch through overconsumption and ‘lay as if dead with glazed eyes’. ‘He was removed for an application of the stomach-pump.’ More business men and more press photographers and reporters arrived during the morning, and at lunch-time Baird had ten guests whom he had never seen or heard of to lunch. Their talking was incessant; they even followed him to the toilet. At dinner time ‘two more arrived accompanied by their dames with a spare dame for my use. They stayed and stayed apparently with the intention of staying the night, dames and all! I wanted to do my best to be friendly and hospitable to everybody but these hard faced drunken pussies were the last straw.’ Fortunately Baird was with W H Knight, a colleague and close personal associate of Moseley, and at Baird’s insistence Knight, using tact and determination, was able to clear the suite. During Baird’s stay in New York the mayor was Mayor Walker and it had been arranged that he should welcome Baird to the city. He was driven to the City Hall with a police escort consisting of four motorcyclists—one in front, one behind and one on each side of his car—all making a ‘terrible noise’ with their sirens. At the City Hall another small band of Ziegfeld Follies Highlanders were marching up and down playing ‘The Barren Rocks of Aden’. Baird was ushered into the Mayor’s Parlour and, after a short delay, Mayor Walker arrived and cordially shook his hand and began an address of welcome to the assembled press representatives. ‘He evidently did this sort of thing regularly. “We have with us here today” said the Mayor “a man who has given us his world famous invention of—”, here he hesitated for a

252

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

moment and his secretary whispered in a stage whisper “television”. The Mayor then went on to give a dissertation chiefly on the wonders of New York, and kept referring to me as an Englishman, although there was a band of pipers outside. The proceedings came to a conclusion with cordial handshakes and the flashes of press cameras, and I was a driven to the Waldorf to a lunch of clam chowder soup (made from oysters) and roast jumbo squab (a small chicken). ‘While I was becoming thoroughly impatient with thirsty press-men and futile agents I had my first meeting with American “big business”. He [Solomon Rossoff] was an American millionaire. I was told he was interested in our activities and likely to finance us if properly handled. His lawyer [Jacob Goldberg] arrived to see our demonstration and report, a little withered man with beady eyes, smoking a thin black cigar. ‘Samuel our agent, who spoke his language endeavoured to instill some enthusiasm into the cynical lawyer as he watched our pictures with an appearance of disinterested contempt, and finally, with “It ain’t up to the pictures”, took his departure.’

That was the last Baird saw of Golberg or Rossoff. After these events the pace slowed down and Baird was able to carry out some negotiations with D Flamm, the head of WMCA, one of the largest broadcasting stations in New York. More demonstrations followed (with apparatus which Baird and his party had brought over from the UK) and, after interminable business meetings, visits to Washington giving evidence to committees, excursions and alarms, an agreement was duly signed and sealed. The contract permitted WMCA to commence the broadcasting of television in New York, using the Baird system, at terms which were satisfactory to all parties. However, this was not the end of the formalities. Baird had to proceed once again to Washington and give evidence to the Wireless Committee, whose permission was necessary before WMCA could commence its television transmissions. Here he had his first experience of the US legal system in operation. He was surprised by the lack of formality, dignity and red tape of the American committee procedures. Everyone—witnesses, solicitors, reporters and a few members of the general public—sat together in a large hall. ‘The Commissioner proved to be a young man, I should think anything from 20 to 28 in appearance. He lay back in his chair gazing abstractedly at the ceiling, throughout the proceedings.’ The various parties gave their evidence at such protracted length that when Baird was called upon to speak the subject had been so thoroughly exhausted that there was little for him to say. He did his best and then the proceedings came to an end without comment from the Commissioner. ‘Donald Flamm, Chief of WMCA station, was however quite happy about it, and told me that we were certain to get permission. And he was right. WMCA got the necessary permit. Feeling that I had done a good bit of work I returned to London.’31 But all was not well. RCA did not wish to have the Baird system broadcasting in New York and appealed through a nominee to the Federal Court to have the decision of the Commissioner revoked. RCA’s appeal was formulated on the grounds that no foreign-controlled company could be allowed to broadcast in the USA. Their appeal was allowed and Baird Television Ltd’s venture in the

Financial difficulties

253

USA came to an end. It is not known whether Flamm’s solicitor had previously alerted Flamm and Baird to the legal position and the inherent danger of proceeding with their licence application. Given the litigious nature of the country, an enquiry into the laws relating to broadcasting should have been a sine qua non before the presentation of a request to the FRC. The second surprising aspect of this case concerns RCA’s need to initiate its action. Possibly the Corporation was in ignorance of the developments of BTL and felt that if the company obtained a toe-hold in the States future progress by BTL, particularly with regard to all-electronic television, could endanger its (RCA’s) own prospects for all-electronic, high-definition television broadcasting. Actually, Baird had effectively stated his opposition to such a form of television when he arrived in New York, but RCA may have interpreted this as a cover for what it thought was the true position. On his arrival Baird had been interviewed by a reporter from the New York Times. The newspaper noted: ‘He sees no hope for television by means of cathode-ray bulbs. He has developed what he calls a “mirror scanning drum” which empowers him to cast images on the wall or screen. . . . He asserts that the neon tube will remain as the lamp of the home receiver. For theatres he has developed a special arc light, which can be made to fluctuate rapidly in accordance with the incoming television signal.’

On the issue of the use of the short-wave bands, Baird opined no less rashly than he had on all-electronic television. He told O Dunlap32, the radio editor of the New York Times: ‘I observe that there is a movement toward the utilisation of ultra-short waves in America. I am rather sceptical about their success in television because they cover a very limited area. I am of the opinion, based upon our tests in London, that the regular broadcasting channels are best adapted to carry the television pictures. We have not done much with the very short waves, although I may later experiment with them using an aerial on top of the Crystal Palace.’

The Radio Corporation of America was one of the first to recognise the necessity for conducting investigations in the 43–80 MHz bands and during the 1930–40 decade it carried out a number of field tests. At the time Baird was airing his views to Dunlop, RCA was planning a comprehensive programme to elucidate the many points which had to be resolved before a public highdefinition television system could be implemented: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

the number of lines per picture for good and interesting television; the number of pictures per second for flicker-free reproduction; the propagation characteristics of very high frequency television signals and their susceptibility to interference signals; the use of cathode ray tube reception; the use of studio and cine film scanners for signal generation; the design of circuits having bandwidths appropriate to medium-definition television; and the synchronising of the receiving apparatus with the transmitter.

254

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

RCA chose as its location for the tests the Metropolitan Area of New York and installed its studio and transmitting equipment in the Empire State Building (on the 85th floor, 1000 ft above street level). The basic parameters of the system were chosen to be 120 lines per picture, sequentially scanned at 24 pictures per second. Dr E W Engstrom, who directed RCA’s research group, later summarised some of the major observations and conclusions of the 1931–32 field test as follows.33 ‘The frequency range of (40–80) MHz was found [to be] well suited for the transmission of television programmes. The greatest source of interference was from ignition systems of automobiles and airplanes, electrical commutators and contactors, etc. It was sometimes necessary to locate the receiving antennas in a favourable location as regards signal and source of interference. For an image of 120 lines, the motion picture scanner gave a satisfactory performance. The studio scanner [a Nipkow disc] was adequate for only small areas of coverage. In general, the studio scanner was the item which most seriously limited the programme material. Study indicated that an image of 120 lines was not adequate unless the subject material from film and certainly from studio was carefully prepared and limited in accordance with the image resolution and pick up performance of the system. To be satisfactory, the television system should provide an image of more than 120 lines . . . The operating tests indicated that the fundamentals of the method of synchronising used were satisfactory. The superiority of the cathode-ray tube for image reproduction was definitely indicated. With the levels of useful illumination possible

Figure 12.1

Schematic diagram of RCA’s experimental television system (1931–32)

Source: Proc. of the IRE, December 1933, 21

Financial difficulties

255

through the use of the cathode-ray tube, the image flicker was considered objectionable with a repetition frequency of 24 per second.’34

RCA’s field tests certainly showed the way forward and formed the basis of the corporation’s future R&D television policy. Thus it can be seen that BTL’s agreement with Flamm for a low-definition television service posed no immediate threat to RCA’s aspirations. Baird’s visit had been to a great extent a waste of time. ‘It had been an expensive waste of time also, not only for the company, but for myself, as there was such agitation over my expenses, led by Moseley, that I agreed to pay half out of my own pocket. I had found to my cost, as Hutchinson had found . . . the appalling difficulty of getting any definite business deal completed in the USA.’35 At the beginning of 1932 Baird Television Ltd was still in a difficult financial position, yet required money to enable it to compete successfully in the new fields of high-definition reproduction, ultra-short-wave transmission and cathode ray tube reception—fields in which their rivals were making progress. Unfortunately, whereas firms such as Electric and Musical Industries, Marconi Wireless Telegraph and the large American concerns had product sales to sustain their development of television, the whole of the revenue of Baird Television Ltd so far as the broadcasting of television was concerned was derived from the very small profit on the receiving sets sold. In addition, to compound their difficulties the firm was unable to extract any revenue from the numerous amateurs who built their own sets to see television. But the company, said Bairds, had ‘done all the pioneer work in this country at immense expense’ and felt that it was entitled to ask in return for a small proportion of the licence fees to enable them to continue their research work on an adequate scale. John Baird again wrote to Kingsley Wood36 (the Postmaster General) in April 1932 and suggested that a contribution of one penny out of the licence fee of 10 shillings should be made available to the company: ‘this small sum, would mean the difference between continuing our research work in a crippled and drastically restricted fashion, or going ahead vigorously’. Baird compared his company’s inability to recover any revenue from amateurs with the position the BBC had found themselves in, in the 1920s, and pointed out that the position was saved for them by the government demanding a licence fee for the BBC. Baird thought the prospect of the whole of the television industry falling to the Americans was a very real one, although the company had made strenuous efforts in Germany, France, the United States and elsewhere to advance British interests. ‘I beg therefore’, he wrote to the Postmaster General, ‘that you will discuss the situation with the Prime Minister who, I believe, is not unsympathetic. It is imperative that some action be taken immediately, otherwise I should not have addressed my request to you in these urgent terms.’ What Baird was really asking for in effect was an annual subsidy of about £20 000 per annum to aid his research and development programme. This sum could only come from the residue of the wireless licence revenue which accrued to the Exchequer and would be charged on the Post Office estimates and be

256

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

subject to a parliamentary vote. Sir Evelyn Murray37, the Secretary of the GPO, was not sanguine about this prospect: ‘I apprehend there would be many applicants with stronger claims than television.’ Baird’s analogy with the position of the BBC in its early days was a false one. The licence fee which was imposed on listeners-in was not to provide financial assistance for the manufacturers, whether for the purpose of research or otherwise, but to finance the maintenance of stations, the provision of programmes and so on, for which there was known to be a substantial popular demand. ‘The group of manufacturers who put up the original capital in fact obtained nothing but a limited and modest rate of interest on their capital and its repayment when the company was liquidated’, wrote Sir Evelyn Murray. For BLT the difficulty was that a popular demand for television did not really exist, although the company had gone to some considerable lengths to stimulate one. The retail cost of the lowest priced set was said to be 18 guineas if the buyer already possessed a high-quality wireless set, or some £50 if he did not. Purchasers were unlikely to come forward in large numbers as long as television was limited to about two hours per week and prices were as high as these. Television was considered an amusement and an amusement de luxe and Sir Evelyn Murray could see no ground for financial assistance either from the Exchequer or the BBC: ‘The contention that the looker-in should contribute by way of a licence fee as well as the listener-in may be perfectly sound, but there is no reason to expect a contribution, however small, from 4.5 million listeners-in when not one in a thousand are lookers-in.’38 Kingsley Wood39 replied to John Baird’s letter in appropriate terms, but such was Baird’s concern to gain some financial assistance that he wrote again to the Postmaster General and asked to see him for a few minutes40. Rather unexpectedly, Baird found a sympathiser in Sir John Reith. For years the company had been something of a nuisance to the Corporation but now the Director General41 was writing to Kingsley Wood and saying that the Corporation would support the idea of the company receiving some assistance from an arrangement similar to that by which the Opera Grant was given to the BBC. Baird had acquainted Reith with the correspondence he had had with Kingsley Wood and was aware of the circumstances by which the Opera Grant was given and of the funds from which it came. Reith had told Baird that if some similar arrangement could be implemented it might necessitate some reconstitution of his company, for instance to the extent of a limited dividend (they had never paid any), but he said he foresaw no difficulty in complying with any alterations that might be required. The opera subsidy was intended to stimulate the production of high-class grand opera in England—‘an object which every person of culture would presumably accept as intrinsically desirable, though many might challenge the propriety of using public money for the purpose’—but there was no analogy between this subsidy and a grant in aid of television. In the latter case the grant would be required not for production but for research, argued the Secretary, and in any case television had no aesthetic and very little practical scientific value.

Financial difficulties

257

An additional point was that grand opera had appreciable broadcasting value while television at that time had none. The position could be simply put: there were many more deserving objects of research if money were available, for example medical research42. Following John Baird’s discussion with Kingsley Wood on 31st May 1930, the inventor wrote another letter43 to the Postmaster General pointing out the heavy expense the company had borne in developing television and that now the BBC was receiving the fruits of three years of unremunerated labour for which the Corporation was paying the company a nominal fee for the hire of the apparatus. This fee covered also free broadcast user rights in all the company’s patents, inventions and developments, both in the past and anything the company might do in the future. Baird’s latest suggestion was that the BBC should pay the Television Company £5000 per annum and that a further £10 000 per annum should be paid to them out of the proportion of the proceeds from the licence fees which went to the Post Office. ‘In return for this the Post Office and the BBC would have the right each to appoint a director to the Baird company and the grant [would be] made upon the condition that the representatives [were] satisfied that the cash [was] spent on research likely to prove useful to the Post Office.’

Baird softened his idea by suggesting that the arrangement could be subject to a yearly revision since the additional income likely to accrue to the BBC and the Post Office might be considerable as television became more and more popular. John Baird’s personal wish was that the company should, in future, devote itself entirely to research work and that the broadcasting of television should be taken over by the BBC. The Postmaster General’s44 reply to Baird’s request was as might have been anticipated: ‘I fear that it is quite impossible particularly so at the present juncture to ask the Government to add to the national expenditure on scientific research and even if funds were available you will appreciate that there would be many other claimants who from a practical point of view might seem to deserve a prior consideration. The question of a payment by the BBC is a matter for settlement between the Corporation and your company and I am accordingly forwarding to Sir John Reith your letter of the 9th June.’

Baird did not give up. He called to see Kingsley Wood, the Postmaster General, on 21st June 1932 and asked him to put in a word with the BBC in support of his application for a more substantial payment from the Corporation. The prospect was bleak, and Kingsley Wood replied that he would probably have to call for further economies in the Department and elsewhere and hence could hardly ask the BBC to spend more money45. Still Baird persevered. A further meeting46 was arranged for 12th July and this was attended by John Baird, Sydney Moseley, Ashbridge and Gladstone Murray. It was called to consider what action, if any, should be taken as a result of the decision by the Postmaster General not to give a government grant to the Baird company. The latter reiterated their opinion that they had been treated

258

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

unfairly from the beginning by the BBC and that it was now endeavouring to exploit their invention without adequate compensation. John Baird told the meeting that, following his conversation with the Director General, he had been left with an impression that if the government subsidy proposal failed, the BBC might support television to the extent of as much as £15 000 per year. But Ashbridge and Murray made it clear there was no possibility of any such support from the BBC and that, in fact, the BBC would be justified in offering as little as 10 shilling per year for user rights, and further, the BBC would not tie itself to any one system of television. The discussion was rambling and somewhat acrimonious; however, there emerged a proposal that the BBC might consider ‘paying the Baird company £500 to £750 per year for user rights and rights in all Baird patents with breaks in March 1934 and March 1937—the agreement to be terminated in 1942’. Nothing seems to have been concluded on this suggestion. Baird had tried very hard to achieve some financial support and had failed. He had asked for a sum of money which was larger than the BBC could hope to pay; as Reith wrote47 at the time: ‘I put that suggestion in its proper perspective by saying that that was what we paid for the whole of the wireless patents owned by Marconi, Standard Telephones, RCA etc.’ In September 1932 the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company demonstrated, at the British Association meeting held in York48, equipment for transmitting and receiving news messages. According to some autobiographical notes left by John Baird, ‘The Marconi company got in touch with us in 1932 and were anxious to join forces. We had numerous meetings, I went up to Chelmsford and was shown round their television research department. Many meetings and luncheons followed and the whole stage was set for a merger.’49 Baird’s too brief account on this matter is not only imprecise in its chronology, but also gives no reasons why the great Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company should have wished to consider an association with the comparatively recently formed television company. Perhaps MWT felt it lacked ideas in the new field of television science—the company certainly had not shown anything which could be described as highly original at the British Association meeting although the company’s exhibits were excellently designed and engineered; perhaps MWT found Baird’s patents a stumbling block to its development of mechanical television systems. It may be that the company felt that a combination of its highly developed engineering skill and experience and Baird’s proven inventive ability would create a powerful organisation for the furtherance of an industry which, in 1932, appeared to have an assured and prosperous future. There seems little doubt that had a merger taken place, the fortunes of Baird Television Ltd would have been drastically changed. Baird Television Ltd would have had access not only to the patents and expertise which MWT had established in the fields of antenna, transmission line and transmitter design, but also to some highly important television patents, including British patent 369 832, which covered a television transmitting system using an iconoscope type of electron camera (Zworykin’s invention). These patents would have been denied

Financial difficulties

259

to Electric and Musical Industries Ltd (which subsequently ousted Baird Television Ltd from its position of supremacy in television matters in the UK), and together with their lack of expertise in designing transmitters might have retarded their development programme. In his book on Baird, Moseley50 mentions that negotiations with the Marconi company for a merger were begun before Sir Harry Greer joined the Board of Baird Television Ltd. An examination of some of the company’s letters (which list the Directors of the Company on its notepaper), shows that Greer became a director between 12th April and 9th June 1932. At this time Lord Ampthill was chairman of the company, but by 24th January 1933 his place had been taken by Greer. Sir Harry Greer, a director of several companies, and Mr Harry Clayton, an accountant who later became the Vice-chairman of Baird Television Ltd, were the Gaumont–British Company’s nominees on the Board of BTL—put there by Isidore Ostrer after he had taken control of the company in January 1932. Moseley has written: ‘It was obvious that Greer and Ampthill could not mix. In fact, they were at variance from the start and, after two meetings, Lord Ampthill resigned from the Board.’ Greer’s succession to the Chairmanship (with Moseley still the Vice-Chairman), did nothing to further the well-being of the company. ‘It was not long,’ wrote Baird, ‘before trouble began to blow up between Sir Harry and Sydney [Moseley], and this came to a head over our negotiations with the Marconi Company which had reached an advanced stage.’51 Moseley was ‘heartily in favour of such a merger’, whereas it appears that the new Board of Directors was more interested in selling receivers (which would yield profits from sales), than in reaching out into the unknown realm of visionary developments (which would consume large sums of money). On this subject Moseley in his book on John Baird has written:52 ‘I only wish we could have reached [an agreement] for, if we had been able to join forces with the Marconi company, Baird’s future would have been assured, and probably investors in his company would not have lost their money. In my opinion, however, the Marconi people were never very serious about this proposition—at that stage anyhow. A number of visits had certainly been exchanged by the technicians—in our respective laboratories and I will not dispute my old friend’s recollection that “there had been a succession of meetings and dinings with Sydney in the foreground”. But, when he wrote that the Marconi Company was “very keen” and that “little remained to be done except to draw up the agreement”, the wish must have been father to the thought.’

A very careful search of the Marconi Company’s old microfilm records has brought to light just one entry relevant to this subject in the Minutes of the Board of Directors. The entry for 4th October 1932 reads: ‘In connection with the reports that had appeared in the Press stating that the Baird Television Company was applying for an injunction against the Company for infringement of patents, conversations have taken place between Mr Baird and the General Management. Negotiations are now proceeding with a view to the exchange of rights.’

260

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

No records of any merger discussions now exist, but of the two accounts (Baird’s and Moseley’s) of the BTL–MWT saga it seems that Moseley’s reflects the true situation. Rather ironically, it was Moseley’s success in obtaining the support of Ostrer in January 1932 which led to the eventual collapse of the proposed amalgamation for, as noted previously, Greer and Clayton were Ostrer’s nominations to the new Board of Baird Television Ltd. There was also an attempt to merge with the General Electric Company Ltd, of which the Chairman, Lord Hirst, was a friend of Major Church—who was on the Board of Baird Television Limited. On this Baird wrote: ‘The immense importance of such a tie-up was very obvious to me. Although we got as far as having regular technical meetings and our two research departments were working in unison and, although the GEC combine were anxious for an agreement, at the last minute Isidore Ostrer turned the whole thing down.’53

References 1 BAIRD, M: ‘Television Baird’ (HAUM, Cape Town, 1974), p. 83 2 HUTCHINSON, O.G.: ‘A short history of Baird television and of the companies concerned in the development and exploitation of that system’, EMI Archives, c. 1930, pp. 1–17 3 DALE-HARRIS, E. P.: letter to H. O. Grover, RCA Patent Department, 21st October 1930, EMI Archives 4 ANON.: ‘Voice and image go together over wire’, New York Times, 3rd September 1929 5 ANON.: ‘Walker televised at demonstration’, New York Times, 21st December 1929 6 ZWORYKIN, V. K.: ‘Television with cathode ray tube for receiver’, Radio Engineering, 1929, 9, pp. 38–41 7 ANON.: history sheet on Baird television, undated, EMI Archives 8 Ibid. 9 CONDLIFFE, G.: ‘Report on Baird Television Ltd’, EMI Archives, 13th November 1930, report 0.1 10 Ibid. 11 Interview with Mr Barrie Abbot on 26th January 1931, EMI Archives 12 Ref. 7 13 ANON.: ‘Baird television v. Gramophone’, Financial times, 16th March 1931 14 Ref. 7 15 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 103 16 UDELSON, J. H.: ‘The great television race’ (University of Alabama Press, 1982), p.29 17 ANON.: ‘Stations licenced for television’, New York Times, 21st July 1926, p. 16 18 FINK, D. G.: ‘Television broadcasting practice in America—1927 to 1944’, J. IEE,1945, 92, part III, pp. 145–60

Financial difficulties

261

19 Ref 16, p. 40 20 US Federal Radio Commission, second annual report, 1928, pp. 252–3 21 DINSDALE, A.: ‘Television in America today’, J. Television Society, 1932, pp. 137–49 22 WEINBERGER, J., SMITH, T. A., and RODWIN, G.: ‘The selection of standards for commercial radio television’, Proc. IRE, September 1929, 17, (9), pp. 1584–94 23 FLEMING, A.: ‘A report on the Baird television system’, February 1930, Marconi Historical Archives 24 PHILLIPS, F. W.: memorandum, 3rd January 1931, Minute 4004/33 25 DIRECTOR GENERAL (BBC): letter to J. L. Baird, 15th January 1931, BBC file T16/42 26 Control Board Minutes, extract, 26th March 1931, BBC file T16/42 27 Ref. 15, p. 104 28 Ibid. p. 122 29 Ibid. p. 122 30 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952), p. 204 31 Ibid. 32 DUNLAP, O.: ‘Baird discusses his magic’, New York Times, 25th October 1931, section IX, p. 10:1 33 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Television, an international history of the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1998), chapter 17, pp. 403–30 34 ENGSTROM, E. W.: ‘An experimental television system’, Proc. IRE, December 1933, 21, (12), pp. 1652–4 35 Ref. l5, p. 126 36 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to the Postmaster General, 14th April 1932, Minute 4004/33 37 MURRAY, E.: memorandum to the Postmaster General, 14th April 1932, Minute 4004/33 38 Ibid. 39 POSTMASTER GENERAL: letter to J. L. Baird, 21st April 1932, Minute 4004/33 40 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to the Postmaster General, 17th May 1932, Minute 4004/33 41 REITH, J. F. W.: letter to the Postmaster General, 23rd May 1932, Minute 4004/3 42 MURRAY, E.: memorandum to the Postmaster General, 24th May 1932, Minute 4004/33 43 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to the Postmaster General, 9th June 1932, Minute 4004/33 44 POSTMASTER GENERAL: letter to J. L. Baird, 20th June 1932, Minute 4004/33 45 REITH, J. F. W.: letter to the Postmaster General, 24th June 1932, Minute 4004/33 46 Notes of a meeting held on 12th July 1932, BBC file T23 47 DIRECTOR GENERAL: memorandum to DIP (and CE), 15th June 1932, BBC File T23 48 Press release (MWT Co.), ‘Demonstration of Marconi television’, 5th September 1932, Marconi Historical Archives

262 49 50 51 52 53

John Logie Baird, television pioneer Ref. 15, p. 127 Ref. 30, p. 214 Ref. 15, p. 128 Ref. 30, p. 214 Ref. 1, p. 121

Chapter 13

The first public 30-line service

By the summer of 1931 the low-definition experimental television service had been in operation for two years. The studio productions were being financed by Baird Television Ltd and their indefinite continuance in their present form was, possibly, a waste of money besides being a cause of some inconvenience and irritation to the programme and engineering staffs of the BBC. Furthermore it was likely that the company had obtained from its transmissions all the experimental data which it required for the specification, design and implementation of the 30-line system. There had to be a change. Rather surprisingly, the initiative for this came from the BBC. In August 1931 Murray1 (of the BBC) wrote to Moseley and suggested a meeting since he (Murray) was convinced that a better scheme could be evolved and introduced. He said that his colleagues and himself had been considering whether they might not discover new ways in which the BBC might help Baird Television Ltd to expedite the progress of British television, and went on to say that the BBC was naturally anxious that British television should retain and increase its margin of superiority. Murray suggested that the BBC should examine Baird’s patents and technical apparatus in order to make a confidential assessment, and further that Baird Television Ltd should give a demonstration under ideal conditions to show the actual progress made during the past year, as well as any new development that had emerged from research. Moseley2 was naturally very pleased to learn of the BBC’s desire to help BTL: ‘I think it is vital in the interests of this country that the one great force which is able to help it should come to an arrangement with the Baird company to safeguard the interests of British television’. But his enthusiasm for the BBC’s new interest in BTL’s system was to be short-lived. Following the overtures contained in Murray’s letter of 12th August, a meeting was arranged for 17th August 1931 between Baird Television Ltd and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC. ‘He seemed extremely well disposed and anxious to help us’, wrote Baird3 to Moseley, who was in the USA at the time.

264

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

During these discussions certain constructive proposals4 were put forward by Ashbridge (the BBC’s Chief Engineeer) and Murray, it being understood, that all the Baird transmissions would continue to be experimental and described as such, that the company would defray all expenses incurred, and 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

that the five half-hour transmissions per week in the morning be abandoned in favour of transmissions totalling not more than two hours at times not inconvenient to the BBC but more suitable to the Baird company; that one of the two midnight transmissions be abandoned; that there be about once a week, when convenient, television transmissions of some routine programmes such as Jack Payne’s band; that, if possible, some television transmissions be given on the North Regional transmitter; that some transmissions be given on the Scottish Regional transmitter later; that while, of course, the BBC could not take over Baird’s programmes, they could advise them to effect considerable economies by eliminating a lot of expensive and unnecessary material which they were using at present.

Shortly after the meeting, Murray5 wrote a memorandum for the attention of Ashbridge summing up the position vis-à-vis BTL and the BBC. ‘The agreed policy is to keep the pace as slow as is compatible with the maintenance of decent relations. It has been a considerable relief not to have to deal with a guerilla warfare on that front. At the same time we are careful not to concede too much for peace.’

Murray’s opening paragraph gave the statement of policy of the BBC towards BTL and seemed in conflict with Reith’s statement6 to Baird that he was asking those concerned to continue to explore various avenues of constructive cooperation. In fact only two relatively minor concessions were accorded to Baird Television Ltd; first, the waiving of the extra charge which the BBC wished to make under the heading of engineers’ expenses, and secondly, the granting of facilities in connection with the company’s portable transmitter7. The position regarding the portable transmitter, which BTL had developed, was that the company was anxious to have it installed in a BBC studio for possible experiments during programme time. This proposal had been raised when Murray and Ashbridge visited the company towards the end of 1930. Subsequently the portable was installed in the large wharfside broadcasting studio in London, known as No. 108. Murray’s account of this episode illustrates the rather dissimilar attitudes he adopted in relation to BTL and to the BBC. Referring to BTL’s request he wrote9: ‘We fenced a bit, but indicated that we might do something about using the portable in one of our studios as an auxiliary to one of the ordinary television transmissions outside programme time. Subsequently I actually arranged for the portable to come over here during the first week of January. Then there was some technical hitch at their end. This I exploited to the maximum, with the result that several months elapsed before we actually accepted delivery . . .’

The first public 30-line service

265

This policy of fencing and exploiting difficulties was in discord with Murray’s views as expressed to Moseley a few months later10: ‘Since my conversion by you three years ago I have been intensely interested in improving the prospects of securing for Britain in television the same universal supremacy which the film has gained in America and I believe that this can best be attained by concentrated co-operation on behalf of the Baird process.’

John Baird later, on 1st September 1931, met Murray and Ashbridge to consider the proposed changes in transmission times11. Four points were noted but the BBC’s Control Board12 were to add a fifth: ‘That CE [Ashbridge] and AC(I) [Murray] handle . . . on the principle of minimum concessions consistent with amicable relations’. John Baird13 received Murray’s letter, which elaborated the points raised at his lunch with Ashbridge the previous week, on 9th September. In writing it Murray felt it necessary to reaffirm the policy and attitude of the BBC towards Baird Television Ltd. He listed four observations14: 1. the BBC does not admit the claims of the Baird company to regular admission to programme time, nor does the BBC agree that television by the Baird or any other process, is yet within a measurable distance of its service stage; 2. it is no part of the function of the BBC to concern itself directly with the development of commercial inventions, or to allow itself to be used by outside concerns as an instrument of research, unless the invention appears likely to become applicable to the service after a reasonable period of research; 3. subject to these general safeguards and provided that the regular broadcasting service to listeners is not prejudiced, the BBC is ready to do all it can to assist the development of television; 4. it is fundamental that the BBC would not be justified in entering into any financial arrangement for sale or partial control of any concern, which is in the position of the Baird company.

Regarding the changes which Baird desired: first, the BBC could not agree to the present charges being reduced—it was felt that a substantial concession had been made as to the amount of expenses of the engineers, totalling about £300 a year; secondly, the BBC could not agree to more convenient times being allowed, say 10.30 p.m. on a weekday or 2.30 or 5.30 p.m. on a Sunday; thirdly, the BBC could not agree to BTL having a rent-free television studio at Broadcasting House; fourthly, the BBC could not agree to take over the whole of the Baird programme department under the BBC Director of Programmes. Following these rather harsh decisions, which hardly accorded with the Director General’s earlier special desire, at a Control Board meeting, that everything possible should be done to help Baird, Murray then went on to describe the concessions which the BBC was prepared to grant Baird Television Ltd. The concessions were explained to Moseley on his return from America. He was furious with the BBC and sent an angry letter15 to Murray pointing out that the development work of the company was being seriously hampered by the negative attitude of the BBC and that the results of Baird’s meeting with Whitley (the Chairman of the BBC) were most unsatisfactory.

266

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

‘Despite your personal assurances to the contrary, [Moseley wrote,] there is no doubt at all that the BBC regards television as a nuisance and would be glad to see it fade out, but we have no intention of obliging in this way. The venomous hostility of the former Chief Engineer has crystallised into a kind of cynical indifference. This being the case, effective constructive co-operation is endangered. The policy and action of the BBC reflect this attitude. Broadcasting House is actually being completed without any provision at all for television. Every resistance is advanced to proposals for better hours of transmission. Statements derogatory to the claims of Baird Television are constantly being made in calculated ignorance of the facts. Although the country is crying out for everything British, the BBC offers no active help either at home or abroad. What prospect is there that Baird Television will ever get a fair chance on BBC? Therefore, after the proposed variations have been effected, we shall apply for separate broadcasting facilities, both aural and visual. We are assured of the definite support of influential MPs of all parties. Certain Cabinet Ministers are more alive to the need of developing this potential British industry than the BBC appears to be, and their interest in Baird Television has been continually active, even during the present emergency. They, of course, realise the vast potential value to British trade and prestige in the development and consolidation of the commanding position won for Britain by the demonstrated supremacy of Baird Television. ‘We hope the BBC will put no obstacle in our way. If we are such a nuisance to you, surely you will be disposed, if only on this account, to help us get separate transmitting facilities. If you oppose us you will be trying to work a grave disservice and, however reluctantly, we shall have to re-embark upon another campaign to enlist popular support against what would be a tyrannous and indefensible attempt to extinguish us.’

The BBC was adopting an odd policy towards Baird Television Ltd. Outwardly it had said it was ready to do all it could to assist the development of television; Reith had written to John Baird and told him there was the maximum goodwill towards him personally; and Murray had told Moseley that the BBC was naturally anxious that British television should retain and increase its margin of superiority. Inwardly, Murray had written how he had fenced and exploited difficulties; Control Board’s policy to Baird Television was based on the principle of minimum concessions; and a reasonable request from Lord Ampthill had been considered absurd. Now the BBC was to further implement its unhelpful policy by denying to Baird Television any form of cooperation on the use of ultra short waves for television broadcasting although it had been apparent for some time that if high-definition television were to be developed this development could only take place in the very high frequency bands. Certainly the Baird company was well aware of this duplicity. ‘I am sorry to say it’, John Baird wrote to the Prime Minister, ‘but it is not possible to rely on the promises of the BBC who have affected outward friendliness but have inwardly maintained a hostility which is difficult to understand, and I trust that it will be possible for you to take some action personally.’ Moseley’s irate letter seemed to have some effect, for a few days after he wrote it, Ashbridge, the Chief Engineer, visited the Long Acre laboratories to see the company’s recent developments—ostensibly, as he said, merely in accordance with an arrangement made some time ago that he should keep in touch with their development. He was favourably impressed16.

The first public 30-line service

267

The company demonstrated its latest television receiver, which projected a picture onto a screen about 4 ft by 2 ft, using a mirror drum and Kerr cell, and which was accompanied by an ordinary conversation, for head and shoulders images. Ashbridge noted: ‘This picture was easily the best television which I have seen so far, and might be compared, I think, with a cinematograph “close-up” say 15–20 years ago. It was quite easy to recognise the persons even after seeing them once and there was no difficulty in following facial expressions.’

The chief engineer was sufficiently impressed to observe that if it were possible for the ordinary public to buy such a receiver ‘we should just have reached real programme value’. Such items as a well known person giving a talk, or well known actress performing and so on, would be of interest and of entertainment value. Ashbridge’s only stated reservation was that the apparatus was not yet in a fit state to be developed further commercially, ‘but there is, I think, reason to assume that this will follow in a comparatively few years time’. The equipment had the advantage that any number of people could view the picture (the only limitation being the size of the picture in relation to the viewing distance), whereas in the case of some types of televisor it was necessary to stand in front of the screen. ‘The next piece of apparatus I saw was an application of television to the “singing arc”. The picture in this case, although large, was not very good, and I was not able to gather exactly what they have in view in attempting to develop on these lines. It may be purely a

Figure 13.1

The photograph shows, from left to right, the mirror drum motor with synchronising coils and toothed wheel; the Kerr cell and projection lamp; and the mirror drum used in Baird’s later receivers

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

268

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

question of patents, or producing something cheap, but they were not very definite on this point.’

One feature common to both these equipments was that they showed pictures which were grey in colour instead of the rather objectionable reddish colour which was obtained when neon lamps were being used. Next Ashbridge was shown the latest model of the firm’s ordinary commercial televisor. It was an instrument similar to the one installed at Savoy Hill, ‘but the picture that I saw was very much better, although fundamentally it had the same defects of ghost-like appearance and unnatural colour’. The Chief Engineer was then given a demonstration of a fairly simple type of mirror drum televisor—which, however, was not yet in a state to be marketed— which showed a picture about 9 in by 6 in directly and without magnification. This was fairly good, the colour was bluish-grey and it could be seen from any point in the room. Ashbridge felt that definite laboratory progress was being made, which ‘should lead in a few years’ time to television becoming of definite programme value’. Following these demonstrations, Ashbridge had a talk with Moseley about the general aspects of the situation concerning television. He reiterated his views that television was bound to take part in broadcasting eventually; that if the BBC adopted an obstructionist attitude then the Baird company might lapse and television would be sold in this country on whatever terms the Americans liked to impose; that it was definitely up to the BBC to assist in the development of television in the interests of the trade and in its own interests; and, finally, hinted that the BBC might practically take over the Baird company or alternatively waive all charges for transmissions and develop the technical side of it in their own laboratories. ‘In fact’, noted Ashbridge, ‘he made practically every suggestion for combining the BBC and the Television Company that he could think of.’ This latter prospect had been known to the BBC for several months, for it had been mentioned by both the Postmaster General and the Assistant Postmaster General to Mr Whitley, the Chairman of the BBC’s Governing Body17. They had suggested that the Baird company was ‘at its last gasp financially, and that the BBC might absorb it in liquidation, perhaps taking Mr Baird himself on the engineering staff of the Corporation’. Following his discussion with Moseley, Ashbridge felt that the BBC should not visualise the abandonment of television but that the Corporation ought to take steps to carry on with it, and should encourage the Baird company to a reasonable extent in what they were doing. His view was based on the thought ‘that someone must develop television broadcasting and if they [BTL] do it adequately so much the better, if not sooner or later the BBC will be forced to do it at great cost to the listening public’. Additionally, if the Prime Minister, two Postmaster Generals and Members of Parliament were impressed with the Baird television of two years ago, ‘it was obvious that they would be very much more impressed by a demonstration of the latest equipment—which the Baird company could give at any time’.

The first public 30-line service

269

Both Murray and Ashbridge agreed the situation had changed and that the tendency should be for the BBC to take the initiative, in some degree. If they failed to do this there was a possibility the Post Office might grant the company facilities such as wavelengths outside the broadcast band, and this would not be to the BBC’s advantage. On 19th October 1931 Murray18 submitted a memorandum to the Director General in which he argued that some form of cooperation should take place between the BBC and Baird Television. ‘One always had in mind that sooner or later there would arrive the right moment for the BBC to take the strategic initiative about television’, he wrote. Murray continued: ‘There is now a general re-awakening of interest in television. Fleet Street is alive to some of its possibilities: the Daily Mail is in treaty with the Baird Company for a publicity “hook-up” beginning with a display at the election rally in the Albert Hall on the 27th inst. Politicians are notoriously amenable to the blandishments of Long Acre . . . One can count on the new interest being reflected in Parliament and for this among other reasons I think it would be a good thing for the BBC to take the initiative now, and to do it wholeheartedly.’

Reith agreed and on 17th November he saw Lord Ampthill19. Two days later the Director General sent the Chairman of Baird Television Ltd a long letter20 detailing 15 proposals for a plan of collaboration between the Corporation and the company. 1. The company should provide and install a complete television system in one of the studios at Broadcasting House—the equipment to be chosen by the BBC. 2. The BBC would pay a nominal hire rental for this apparatus. 3. The BBC would operate the transmitter in cooperation with the company’s engineers. 4. The transmitter’s installation would be subject to prior tests to ensure that no interference would be caused to other programmes by its operation. 5. The BBC would bear the cost for the necessary alterations to premises, installation of special lighting, extension of cables, etc. 6. The BBC would provide the necessary engineering staff at its cost. 7. The company would provide the maintenance and replacement of parts of the transmitter at its cost and would incorporate any improvements made by them. 8. The BBC would provide a weekly one-hour programme from 11.00 to 12.00 noon or 12.00 to 1.00 p.m. on Saturdays at the BBC’s cost both with respect to programme staff and artistes. 9. That: if Bairds desired they might continue the five half-hour transmissions as at present bearing the programme costs themselves—the BBC making a reduced charge for transmission costs; (b) in this connection the BBC might later be prepared to arrange for two (a)

270

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

(c)

of the half-hour periods to be given at 12.30 p.m. on two nights a week, in which case they would undertake the programme costs of them; and any programme which Baird Television provided would originate in their studios.

10. The BBC’s engineers would be permitted regular access to the company’s laboratories with the object of improving any transmissions through the BBC’s stations. 11. That if an experimental period, of whatever length it may be, should be regarded as having been satisfactorily concluded and additional television transmitters were required, Baird Television would supply them at prime cost plus 10 per cent, no royalty being paid to the company in this connection. 12. That the transmissions be limited to Brookmans Park, vision signals being sent out on 260 m and sound signals on 356 m. 13. That the BBC should not bind themselves to continue the transmissions by the Baird system and should be able to give at any time an agreed number of months’ notice to terminate them either by abandoning the television transmissions or by carrying them on by some other method. 14. That the BBC should be free to give transmissions by other television methods whether the Baird transmissions were continued or not. 15. That if the Post Office agreed to institute an extra licence fee of 10 shillings for the use of television receiving apparatus, the proceeds less State charges would go to the BBC, the principle being that Baird Television would make its money from the sale of television receiving apparatus and from licences to manufacturers. These proposals formed the basis of some correspondence and several discussions between the BBC and BTL21. The BBC22 agreed to transmit programmes, at 11.00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, for 30 minutes each, which would be a BBC responsibility; and in addition the BBC gave BTL an assurance that the programmes would continue until 31st March 1934. Regarding the probable date for the commencement of the new agreement, the BBC thought Broadcasting House would be ready for the installation of Baird’s transmitter in May. In the meantime the BBC made an abatement of its charges for the experimental transmissions retrospective from 1st January 1932. The site for the transmitter was Studio BB, situated three floors below Portland Place. The studio had previously been reserved for dance band broadcasts and the like23. A BBC engineer, D C Birkinshaw, was appointed to the first BBC post in television, that of Research Engineer, and D R Campbell and T H Bridgewater were sent on loan from Long Acre to Broadcasting House. Between them they designed or constructed most of the apparatus which was used. Later both Campbell and Bridgewater were taken on by the BBC. It was soon noted that the initials of the surnames of these engineers spelt BBC and this was felt to be a good omen. On the programme side, Eustace Robb, a former Guards Officer, was the first television producer and G Goldsmith was an adviser.

The first public 30-line service

Figure 13.2

271

Baird 30-line scanner, operated by D R Campbell, installed in studio BB, Broadcasting House, London (August 1932)

Source: The BBC

The BBC’s press announcement24 of the new series of experimental transmissions of television was issued on 16th August and stated that these would commence on 22nd August 1932—the sound being broadcast from Midland Regional on a wavelength of 398.9 m and vision from London National on 261.3 m. John Baird was most unhappy with this and sent a letter25 to Murray the following day. ‘The announcement omits the fact that the transmission is by the Baird process. I must confess to surprise and pain in seeing that the BBC’s official announcement is not only very meagre but once more talks about experimental transmissions which I think is scarcely the case in as much as the BBC are beginning a regular period of transmissions as a result of the previous experimental transmission being successful.’

Baird’s letter seems to have had an effect, for two days later the BBC issued another press announcement26 stating that the inventor would be introduced to listeners as a preliminary to the first television transmission. ‘The first programme of the new series of television broadcasts will be varied. Louie Freear, the comedienne who broadcasts for the first-time, will sing “Twiddly Bits”, a number that she made famous in the “Chinese Honeymoon”, produced in the Strand

272

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 13.3

Fred Douglas performing during the first broadcast of the BBC’s lowdefinition television service (August 1932)

Source: The BBC

Theatre in 1901. Betty Bolton will sing and dance; Fred Douglas will entertain with conjuring tricks and there will be light songs by Betty Astell.’

The press release also announced that the Baird process would be used.

References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MURRAY, G.: letter to S. A. Moseley, 12th August 1931, BBC file T16/42 MOSELEY, S. A.: letter to G. Murray, 12th August 1931, BBC file T16/42 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to S. A. Moseley, August 1931, personal collection Chairman’s notes, 17th August 1931, BBC file T16/42 MURRAY, G.: report to the Chief Engineer (BBC), BBC file T16/42 DIRECTOR GENERAL (BBC): letter to J. L. Baird, 15th January 1931, BBC file T16/42 Ref. 5 ANON.: ‘BBC and experimental television. Portable transmitter in the studios’, Birmingham Post, 1st May 1931 Ref. 5 MURRAY, G.: letter to S. A. Moseley, 10th January 1932, BBC file T16/42

The first public 30-line service

273

11 Report on meeting attended by J. L. Baird, C. E., A. C.(I), 1st September 1931, BBC, file T16/42 12 Control Board Minute, draft, September 1931, BBC file T16/42 13 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to G. Murray, 9th September 1931, BBC file T16/42 14 MURRAY, G.: letter to J. L. Baird, 9th September 1931, BBC file T16/42 15 MOSELEY, S. A.: letter to G. Murray, 5th October 1931, BBC file T16/42 16 CHIEF ENGINEER (BBC): report to the Director General, and A. C.(I), 10th October 1931, BBC file T16/42 17 Control Board Minutes, extract 23rd June 1931, BBC file T16/42 18 A. C.(I): memorandum to the Director General, 19th October 1931, BBC file T16/42 19 DIRECTOR GENERAL: letter to Lord Ampthill, 12th November 1931, BBC file T16/42 20 DIRECTOR GENERAL: letter to Lord Ampthill, 19th November 1931, BBC file T16/42 21 Burns, R.W.: ‘British television, the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1986) 22 Statement on television, February 1932, BBC file T16/42 23 BBC: letter to Baird Television Ltd, 19th May 1932, BBC file T16/42 24 BBC announcement, 16th August 1932, BBC file T16/42 25 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to G. Murray, 17th August 1932, BBC T16/42 26 BBC announcement, 19th August 1932, BBC file T16/42

Chapter 14

Baird’s personality

In 1931, Baird was residing at Swiss Cottage, Box Hill. He was 42 years of age and unmarried, although from around 1919 he had enjoyed the company of a lady friend. Baird’s romantic life was rather unusual. During the period when Baird was selling undersocks in Glasgow he met, in a library, a young woman who would be his friend for the next decade1. He was deeply in love with her but his ill-health meant that any thoughts of marriage had to be deferred. Baird hoped that a sojourn in Trinidad, with its warm climate, would restore his health and financial state and enable him to return to Glasgow to renew his business ventures and marry his inamorata. This was not to be. When he arrived back in the United Kingdom, without his anticipated fortune, he learnt that while he had been abroad his lady friend had married and was now Mrs Hart. It was a grievous blow to his future contentment2. He hurried to Glasgow, met his friend and persuaded her to go away with him. Remarkably, her husband, who must have been a man of great understanding and compassion in romantic affairs, did not object strenuously and Baird’s lady friend shared her life between her husband and the entrepreneur for the next ten years. When Baird was in Hastings she stayed with him and Mephy at Linton Crescent and was with Baird during the early days of television. According to the future Mrs Baird her husband met his lady friend’s husband in ‘an attempt to “discuss the whole thing” but the situation was one without solution. Neither would give the young woman up, so she continued to live between the one and the other.’3 In 1931, Baird must have felt that this arrangement was unsatisfactory and that he should seek a wife. The difficulty was that for many years his work had been his life and he had had little opportunity to socialise with members of the opposite sex. He decided to use a subterfuge to meet his future partner. At that time Baird Television Ltd was operating an experimental television service and required artistes for the service’s programmes4. The company advertised for pianists and auditions were held. They were organised by Baird so that he could take a first sighting of a possible wife. While the ladies were engaged in playing Chopin and Liszt, he observed them from behind a curtain.

Baird’s personality

Figure 14.1

275

Swiss Cottage, Boxhill

Source: Mr R M Herbert

One day a friend of Margaret Albu, called Grace, telephoned her to say that she (Grace) had been invited to have ‘tea with a man who [lived] on top of Box Hill’. She preferred to be accompanied on the visit and asked Margaret Albu if she would go with her. ‘ “It will be quite easy”, Grace said. “He is sending a car for me. I’ll pick you up and we’ll be back by half-past six.” ’5 The visit took place the following Saturday. The car arrived for the two friends but on the way to Box Hill the chauffeur lost his way and it was only when he stopped to seek directions to Baird’s house that Margaret Albu knew whom she would be meeting. Previously she had possibly seen Baird in April 1925 when he had demonstrated his crude television apparatus in Selfridge’s store6. At that time she was a student at the Royal College of Music and both she and her mother were staying in a hotel in London. Margaret’s mother was always interested in anything new, so off they went to the Oxford Street shop. The demonstration did not impress Miss Albu and left her with a feeling of ‘bewilderment and faint nausea’—an effect which all mechanical devices had on her. On arrival at Swiss Cottage Grace and Margaret were introduced to John and Mephy. ‘We sat around the log fire in the drawing room although the August sun was blazing outside.’ ‘Mr Baird was a tousle-headed man of forty-two, with wide blue eyes, a courteous manner, and an air, which impressed even me, of being someone in some way different from the majority of men. As the afternoon drew to a close he said in a voice that beseeched us:

276

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

“Will you two girls give me the pleasure of coming down to Worthing for dinner? The chauffeur will drive you straight home afterwards.” ’

The two young friends agreed—Baird was a good persuader—and a pleasant drive in the coolness of a summer’s evening was made to Warne’s Hotel. After the meal when the friends were departing Baird requested Margaret Albu’s telephone number. She assented, thinking that a television engagement would result. The dinner must have been a very enjoyable one for Baird since he observed on parting: ‘I wish I was returning with you girls instead of spending the weekend alone here.’ Later he telephoned a friend and said: ‘I’m going to marry this young woman!’ Many years afterwards Mrs Baird learned that there had been ‘cartloads of young ladies’ entertained to dinner at Baird’s home, but that she had been the first woman Baird had ever fancied marrying. She has written: ‘I can still recall that scorching August afternoon, sitting on the lawn with the tall, blond Scotsman. I can picture his dreamy cornflower-blue eyes and hear the occasional outbursts of hilarity and, sometimes, vulgar language which never failed to shock people throughout our lives. ‘After tea he told me of an old spinet in the attic and invited me to try it. He beamed as I tinkled the yellowed keys, and said: “You’ve got more out of that old thing than anyone else who tried it.” ’

Two days later, when Margaret was out teaching, her mother’s maid, Doris, telephoned her to say: ‘Oh, Miss Margaret, do be home by eight o’clock. Mr Baird has phoned you five times today and will be phoning again at eight.’ Baird duly telephoned at the appointed time, but it was not to invite Margaret to give a recital on television, as she had expected, instead it was to ask her to have dinner with him at Swiss Cottage7. They then saw each other every day of that week and by its end destiny had sealed their future together. There was an age difference of 19 years between them, and Margaret’s background and upbringing was almost the opposite to that of Baird; nevertheless there was an ‘instant sympathy’ between them. ‘I knew he was loyal, without guile, and could give me the security and companionship that I wanted. As for him, he said I gave him a feeling of youth.’ Margaret Albu was born in Johannesburg on 13th March 19078. Her grandfather was a rabbi, but her father Henry Albu was not an Orthodox Jew. He was liberal in outlook and went to the synagogue just one day—the Day of Atonement—every year. His family was very musical and three of his sisters sang for the Carl Rosa Opera Company: it seems that the family was related to Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. Margaret’s mother was an Anglican, who attended High Church on Sundays, and had been raised in Yorkshire. She had emigrated to South Africa in 1903 and had followed a teaching profession. It was in Johannesburg that she had met her future husband, who also had emigrated from England to seek his fortune in the diamond fields. In 1909, when Margaret’s brother Gordon was born, the family moved to Kimberly where her father became one of the managers of De Beer’s diamond

Baird’s personality

Figure 14.2

277

Baird c. 1932

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

mine. Soon after, Margaret Albu, at the age of 3, decided what her life’s vocation would be. In her book Television Baird she related how she came to her decision. ‘At a tea party I was asked whether I should like some tea. I shook my head at the hostess. “Would you like some cake?” Another shake of the head. “Would you like to go and play in the garden?” Another shake of the head. “Then what would you like to do?” This question brought a definite answer: “I should like to play on your piano.” ’ ‘In 1911 my mother took her two children to England to visit relations, but we children wilted in the climate and I received a gloomy impression of England which has never left me. As for Gordon, he looked so pale and wan that my mother soon took us back to South Africa. ‘We spent six months recuperating at Sea Point, Cape Town, and then my father became interested in alluvial diamond mining and we went to live at Klerksdorp. ‘Our house at Klerksdorp had a deep and shady stoep and an orchard; it was within sight of the Convent of the Sacred Heart. ‘I went to the convent, starting with French and German and, best of all, had lessons on the piano and in the theory of music. ‘At my first lesson I was not even allowed to sit at the piano. Dear Sister Lioba sat me down at a table, plucked a leaf from the morning glory by putting her hand out of the window, placed the leaf on the back of my hand, and showed me how to move my thumb and fingers, making a bridge of my hand so that the leaf did not move. But I was soon at

278

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

the keyboard and began to pass the examinations of the Associated Board, always with honours.’

When Margaret was 9 years of age the family returned to Johannesburg and Margaret was enrolled at another convent. In addition she attended the Conservatoire of Music of Miss Maude Harrison, FRAM. It must have been a large Conservatoire for it had 40 certificated teachers of music and more than 450 pupils. Margaret was there for seven years. At the age of 16 she passed the teacher’s diploma of Trinity College (LTCL), and began to play in public. Two years later it was decided, presumably to advance her career, that she should go to London. The prospect was not an attractive one for the young pianist, since she had had some experience of the weather in England. However, in 1925, Margaret and her mother embarked for the UK. They arrived in the spring. ‘I nearly froze to death. My mother and I eventually took a small flat in Kensington. I hired an upright piano, horrid after my Steinway, and practised eight hours a day.’ In September 1925 Margaret Albu obtained her solo performer’s ARCM, and then early in 1926 she became a LRAM. Life in London was now much more pleasurable than it had been and she began to enjoy the amenities which the capital provided. A season’s ticket to Sir Henry Wood’s promenade concerts at the Queen’s Hall enabled her to see and hear Benno Moiseiwitch, one of her ideal pianists; Vladimir de Pachman; Cortot, Thibaud and Casals as a trio; Madame Suggia; Kreisler; Heifetz; Lotte Lehmann and many others. Margaret returned to South Africa in October 1926 and stayed there until the end of 1927, during which period her beloved father died. Her mother was now determined to leave the country, but it was with much unwillingness that she and her brother agreed to accompany her to England. After the family’s arrival Margaret learnt that Lev Pouishnov had vacancies for five pupils. She was auditioned and accepted as a student. The fee he charged was high for his young protégé but when he appreciated this he sent her pupils who were not quite up to his standards. Then she began to receive invitations to broadcast from one of the BBC studios in Savoy Hill. ‘Once, in 1930, I accompanied a singer in a television broadcast from the Baird company’s studio in Long Acre. We were all introduced to John Baird in the studio; I was dead tired, as it was after midnight, and he was obviously thinking of something else. That was our second meeting.’ Further invitations to perform in England were accepted and Margaret became a frequent player with the orchestras of Sir Dan Godfrey at Bournemouth, and Julius Harrison at Hastings. The family was now living at Sutton, Surrey, which is close to Box Hill, and Margaret had made a few friends. Life in England was still not wholly congenial to her, but at this time (1931) she was 24 and beginning to be offered good engagements. When Baird, in 1931, went to the United States of America, as narrated in an earlier chapter, it was arranged that, if his stay was likely to be lengthy, Margaret should join him. Baird spent three weeks in New York before telephoning

Baird’s personality

279

Margaret and begging her to sail on the next ship to New York and marry him. ‘He cut short my dithering in a most unromantic way. “Look here, Margaret,” he said, “this phone call is costing me a pound a minute. Will you please make up your mind quickly!” ’ She embarked9 on the SS Olympic the following week and had some difficulty disembarking at New York, ‘due to some law about women travelling alone, something to do with the white slave traffic . . .’ ‘Just as I was expecting to be put on Ellis Island John came aboard and threatened the officials with all sorts of things, including Mayor Walker. I have no idea what good that would have done but it worked, and I landed. ‘John did not look well. He said he had not left his heated suite at the Waldorf Astoria for three weeks. He was afraid of the traffic in the streets and could not escape the relays of business men who assailed him. ‘I was bewildered by the situation, the only problem appearing to be his health. Walter Knight agreed that we should get him into the fresh air and we learnt of Coney Island with its esplanade, the Broad Walk. ‘It seemed logical to marry at once, but we surprised friends, relations, and the Baird company, for we saw no reason to explain our decision to any of them. We had our arrangement that I should join John if our separation looked like lasting more than a few weeks.’

John and Margaret were married on Friday, 13th November 1931, in Baird’s bedroom. Neither John nor Margaret were superstitious about the date since their birthdays fell on 13th August and 13th March respectively. The occasion was not without its moments of surprise. A wedding ring had not been purchased, Baird was in bed with a nasty bout of flu, and the local Justice of the Peace had not been notified. Fortunately the ever efficient Walter Knight took charge of the situation. He bought the wedding ring—‘an outsize gold band the size of a curtain ring’, arranged for a special licence to be issued, and persuaded a municipal judge, Judge Murray Hearn, to travel to Coney Island and marry the pair. ‘John was quite unperturbed by the fuss. ‘He struggled out of bed into a dressing-gown and slippers for just long enough to tie the nuptial knot. ‘For the record, I spent my wedding night and four-day honeymoon filling hot water bottles! ‘I’ve still got the pictures of our wedding reception at the Waldorf Astoria. John and I are seated at the head of a horseshoe table bedecked with flowers and bootleg champagne. We’re surrounded by scores of guests I’ve never seen since.’

The marriage caused some eyebrows to be raised. Baird’s father, who was now 90 years of age, exclaimed on receiving his son’s telegram: ‘Margaret Albu? Never heard of her10.’ The directors of Baird Television Ltd were even more astounded than Mr Baird and, since they had heard nothing of the business negotiations being conducted by Baird and Knight, Moseley decided to return to New York at once: ‘his arrival was stormy. Brushing me aside and brandishing his brief-case he shouted: “John! What the devil is going on here?” That was

280

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

my first meeting with Sydney. He cooled down a little when he understood the situation.’ Baird’s lady friend, Mrs Hart, whom he had known and cherished from about 1919, also had to be informed of John’s new romance. Their love affair had survived several difficulties and had been characterised by loyalty, kindness and unselfishness. Baird was keen not to cause her any pain, but a break in their friendship had to be made. Rather than meet her to explain the situation, Baird felt it would be best if he wrote to her from New York. So, on their wedding day, John and Margaret spent a number of hours drafting letter after letter until the floor of their room was covered in crumpled paper. ‘It was a waste of time. She read of the marriage in the newspaper the same day, while she was in a restaurant, and the news was a violent shock.’11 On the wedding Baird12 wrote: ‘I think my marriage caused a certain amount of resentment among the members of the board: they subconsciously felt, perhaps, that I was using the company’s time for my personal affairs. Myself, I think that the marriage helped the negotiations, as there is nothing the American delights in more than a celebration of some sort. All our business connections in New York were invited to a magnificent dinner to celebrate my marriage and they certainly appreciated it.’

The Bairds returned to Box Hill in the middle of winter. Mephy handed over the keys of Swiss Cottage and went to live in a boarding house in nearby Dorking. After the centrally heated buildings and dry air of New York, Mrs Baird found her new environment somewhat bleak but she was determined to be a good housewife. She began by checking all the household’s account books, much to the displeasure of Baird’s housekeeper who had her own method of housekeeping. ‘And when Mephy caught flu, she told me that if he died it would be my fault because I had turned him out of his own comfortable home. So swathing him in blankets and keeping him warm with hot-water bottles, I put him in a car and brought him back to Swiss Cottage and nursed him until he was well.’ Subsequently Mephy left Swiss Cottage and eventually resided in the Isle of Wight, where he purchased a herbalist’s shop in Ryde13. Meanwhile, following an agreement that she should pursue her career as a musician, Mrs Baird continued to practise at her piano. Her music-making, however, was lost on her husband, who was tone deaf. ‘He used to say that the only tune he recognised was “God save the King”.’ On one occasion while Mrs Baird was practising for a forthcoming concert tour she suddenly realised that she might be disturbing her husband’s concentration. She went to his study to ask if this was so. ‘He looked at me deep in thought for a moment, then said: “No, carry on, I quite like the noise”.’ In 1933 Margaret Baird recommenced her career and in March she fulfilled two engagements in Glasgow. Her husband, being unmusical, had not appreciated what life as a concert pianist entailed and ‘tried everything, even feigning illness, to prevent [her] going. Eventually he gave up but stipulated that [she] stay at the Central Station Hotel, the most expensive in Glasgow.’ Further

Baird’s personality

281

concerts and broadcasts were given in 1933 in Eastbourne, Bournemouth and Harrogate14. ‘He became reconciled to my work, which must have sounded monotonous, though I tried to confine practising to times when he was out of the house. This outside interest was essential for me because our ordinary life was so strenuous.’ Mrs Baird soon found that living on the top of Box Hill was a lonely experience. Each day Baird travelled into London in his hired Daimler but Margaret had to ‘slip and slide down the hill through snow a foot deep’. She decided to buy a dog for company and went to the Dogs’ Home at Battersea. A black labrador was obtained, but Baird did not like dogs and one day when Mrs Baird was away from home sent Sambo to the vet to be destroyed. In her biography she commented: ‘I still feel it was a cruel thing to do, but John had been a bachelor for so long that he was not used to considering other people’s feelings. What is more, his father had dominated The Lodge, and no doubt he expected to do the same as his father in his own home. But I had been brought up in a very different tradition, where women were given every consideration.’ Baird did like cats, though, and usually there was a cat about the house, purring on his shoulder or being stroked by a stockinged foot. In January 1932 the Bairds left Swiss Cottage to live in a house in Hampstead, where for Mrs Baird life was much more pleasant. She learnt in that month that she was pregnant—a fact which delighted Baird, for it was his earnest wish to become a father. Their daughter Diana, ‘a sweet and good baby’, was born on 5th September, and a nanny—‘old-fashioned but kind’—was appointed to assist with her upbringing15. Married life for the Bairds soon settled down to a pseudo-routine. Nearly every weekend they escaped the hurly-burly of London to stay in Worthing on the Sussex coast. Baird loved the sea and with his wife spent many hours walking along the front. On one of these occasions Mrs Baird discovered that her husband was not particularly handy at what would now be called DIY. They were staying in a hotel in the town when Baird became ill. To keep warm, the electric fire and the electric blanket were switched on, but the fuse blew. ‘To my astonishment, he just lay in bed calling out instructions, while I perched on a chair fumbled in the fusebox. That was typical of my John. He had no hobbies and no interests apart from his work. As for me—I wouldn’t have swapped the set-up for anything.’16 Bexhill-on-Sea was another favourite resort. There, John and Margaret would stroll along the deserted beach talking and laughing, and occasionally stopping so that Baird could make notes in a small, black book. ‘These were the only times he ever relaxed. He [would] relapse into his favourite pastime of creating vivid word pictures of his youth and early experiments for me.’ Margaret Baird soon found that life with the inventor of television could be unpredictable. Early in their married life a secretary would telephone her, promptly at 6 o’clock, to say that Mr Baird was on his way home: that was her cue to begin the preparation of dinner. ‘At last I accepted the inevitable pattern of subsequent phone calls saying: “He’s on his way!” Or: “He’ll be

282

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

home in half an hour.” Usually the food had sizzled away to ashes before he arrived.’ Baird rarely presented his wife with gifts. On one occasion, when he was exceptionally late, he handed Mrs Baird a brown paper bag filled with plum stones except for one soggy plum buried at the bottom. ‘I’ve brought you some fruit’, he beamed. But he had forgotten the plums were for his wife and had eaten them all himself17. Plums seem to have had a special attraction for Baird. ‘If some important “City” man asked him home to dinner, John would be quite likely to walk with his host along his select street in his select suburb, eating plums out of a paper bag and throwing the stones into the neat front gardens they were passing. Or he would pull from his pocket a box of liquorice “all-sorts”, of which he was inordinately fond, offer it to the scandalised magnate by his side, taking the inevitable refusal with a shrug of disdain and finish the walk munching steadily until his hostess met him in the flower bedecked hall of her spotless home.’

During his stay in Glasgow Baird, like many young men, found an attraction in drinking. He mixed with some tough friends and at times they enjoyed ‘hearty alcoholic sprees’. These did not persist. A doctor advised him that his health would be much better if he became a total abstainer. Though never an alcoholic, and never in any danger of becoming an alcoholic, Baird, with what must have been great resolution, accepted the advice and abstained thereafter from any intoxicating liquor. At times this must have been quite a trial for him, particularly when he was invited to business dinners and social events where aperitifs, wines and liqueurs were served. Moseley never saw Baird take so much as a sip from any glass. ‘One after the another they were taken away untouched. It was a sheer waste of money, but a grand display of moral fortitude’18. John Baird’s sense of humour was different from that of his wife. Once, when Baird was on his way to an appointment at Isidore Ostrer’s house in Hamilton Place, he visited Fortnum and Mason’s and bought a haggis, to be a surprise for his wife. At Ostrer’s residence the butler took Baird’s hat, coat and haggis, but forgot to hand Baird the haggis when the time came for him to leave. When he arrived home ‘he sadly told me what had happened, and I could hardly stop laughing. My laughter hurt him because he could see nothing funny in an absent-minded Scottish inventor leaving a haggis behind in the mansion of an illustrious Jew.’19 Margaret Baird related that her husband’s sense of humour could be ‘coarse, cruel, and wounding. In 1934 I was in poor health and hoped to raise my spirits by having a new hat specially made, a hat with a felt crown and a brim of fluted velvet. When it arrived I put it on at once and turned to him for approval. He said: “You look like a whore!” ’20 Baird was rather proud of his command of bad language. He had served an apprenticeship among ‘hard brutal men in hard brutal surroundings’ where ‘dignity and decorum had short shrift’. In addition, at CVEPC he had been in charge of a gang of navvies whose language was coarse and whose behaviour was at times violent. Such an experience gave him a facility, during moments of

Baird’s personality

283

stress, ‘to break into a flood of Saltmarket eloquence, sufficient in its foul brutality and obscene imagery to cause a Billingsgate porter to cover his ears in horror!’21 Baird had a dominant personality, which his wife found to be one of his greatest attractions22, he could be stubborn, and he could be cutting in his comments. ‘Any kind of social life was impossible.’ One day a friend of Margaret Baird’s father called on her. They spent a pleasant afternoon during which Mrs Baird was given news of her old friends in South Africa. Later, after he had left, she asked her husband: ‘ “Do you like him?” The reply was: “No, I thought he was a horrid man.” My father’s friend was a courteous and civilised gentleman.’23 Mrs Baird found this incident revealing. ‘I think many Scots have an inferiority complex where England is concerned. Yet John’s sympathies were not narrow. When we first met and I mentioned my Jewish ancestry, he said: “The Jews are the salt of the earth.” But those with public school manners he distrusted on sight, perhaps because he had no confidence in his background, covering this lack by socialist sympathies and a coarse manner. With friends, when he relaxed, he was the kindest and most charming of men. But he took an unreasoning and acute dislike to some people, and much of the unhappy relationship with the board [of Baird Television Ltd] stemmed from this.’ ‘. . . like many a Scot, he could not make small talk with a lot of strangers, follow the nuances at business luncheons, drop a tactful word in the right ear. Like his outspoken father, he tended to despise the smoothly-spoken English and regarded their social life as a waste of time. To my cost I discovered that after we were married. . . . As a result, what was seen by some as brusqueness was really a cover for natural shyness. He simply lived in a world of his own . . . he was the perfect example of the absent-minded professor.’24

Small things could please Baird. His secretary, Dora Jackson, has related a story25 about Baird’s need for a toy nightingale. ‘He had a lot of people go down to his house at Box Hill and he wanted to impress them with the nightingales. But they only sang when they felt like it so he said to me, “Do you think you can get me an artificial nightingale?” I wasn’t surprised at anything he could ask for . . . so I went to Selfridges and they gave me this little tin can and Baird set it on top of this lovely board-room table blowing frantically and nothing happened. Then he got a carafe of water and poured some into the can, blew it and this beautiful note came out. He was absolutely delighted. Little things like this pleased him intensely.’

Baird was aware of his social limitations. In his autobiographical notes26 he acknowledged that he ‘had no business friends, plenty of acquaintances, plenty of contacts, but no friend; no one who spoke my language, no one with whom I would willingly have spent a minute more than was necessary for the purpose in hand. I was uneasy and bored in their company and they in mine. But it was not so with Moseley.’ Baird had a great admiration for Moseley’s financial and journalistic ability, his shrewdness, his penetrating intellect and his keen sense of humour. There was a unity of approach and purpose between them in their aspirations for television, and both espoused a loathing of hypocrisy, cant and

284

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

humbug which Baird felt were ‘the invariable accompaniments of dignity, decorum and self-respect’. Rather strangely, although he admired Moseley for his lack of vanity, Baird himself was vain. The public companies with which he was associated all incorporated his surname in their titles—Baird Television Development Company, Baird International Television Ltd, Baird Television Ltd and John Logie Baird Ltd—and when Hutchinson wanted to use the word British instead of Baird in the name of Baird Television Ltd there was a disagreement. And when in 1933 the Bairds moved to 3 Crescent Wood Road, Sydenham the four beech trees in the garden were called Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Baird. Moseley had no doubt whatever that Baird occasionally dramatised himself in the role of ‘the typical inventor’. ‘He was careless in his dress, he did have a shock of unkempt hair and his absent-mindedness was both genuine and notorious. But he also had a shrewd eye to the main chance, a very good opinion of himself and—thank God!—a grand sense of humour.’27 On this point, one of Moseley’s friends said to him one day: ‘You know, Sydney, that whereas most men have to speak in order to emphasize their personalities, Baird had simply to come, slowly and silently, through the door to exude his own!’ Because of this, Moseley gave him the nickname ‘personality Joe’, a name which Baird loathed although he tried to laugh it off. Baird was something of a snob, according to his close friend, and liked to mix with ‘the gentry’. ‘He affected a contempt for rank and title and was certainly not overawed by either in the ordinary way . . . but he admired success in any field and was particularly impressed by academic distinctions.’ At times his unintentional eccentricities would raise a few eyebrows among his gentry friends, but to Baird any mannerisms which provoked shock or irritation were quite unrehearsed. Baird’s carelessness with his dress has given rise to several anecdotes. Moseley recalled: ‘He had a habit of drawing his socks no more than half on to his feet and walking with the sock heel beneath his instep. But socks were always a curse to him, because his feet were tender and apt to trouble. Being scrupulously careful of his personal freshness, he used to change them two or three times a day no matter where he happened to be or what the occasion. ‘More than once I saw him stoop down at a board meeting, unlace his shoes, peel his socks off and, taking another pair from his pocket, drag them, more or less, on to his feet. He thought nothing of it and it did not embarrass him in the least.’28

On another day Baird arrived at the hotel where Moseley was staying in Westcliffe-on-Sea in a large car complete with liveried chauffeur. He was met by several porters who hastened to collect his luggage and carry it into the hotel. Baird pointed to an odd-looking bundle wrapped in a dressing gown which lay on the back seat of the car. The bundle contained all his changes of clothing and other essentials for his stay, but Baird had not thought it necessary to put them in a case. The porters seem to have treated the bundle with contempt for it was

Baird’s personality

285

the chauffeur who carried it to the reception area with ‘as much dignity as he could muster’. Such eccentricities add colour to life; they delighted his staff and Baird was so natural and so at ease with the oddities of his character that they never appeared forced. During the period when money was no object, he would stay at the best hotels though the thought of having to ‘dress-up’ for a formal gathering never occurred to him. He did not consider it unusual to walk into such an assembly dressed in ‘odd socks and an open-necked shirt’. Having seen abject poverty in Helensburgh and having lived in very frugal circumstances from early 1923 until about 1926, Baird was determined to live in luxurious comfort as soon as he was able to afford to do so. After BTDC and BIT were formed, Baird’s annual remuneration of £4000 was large by any standard. He became ‘generous to a fault and spent his money freely on creature comforts’. Moseley recalled an instance when they were walking down Fleet Street when without any provocation Baird took some small change out of his pocket and threw the lot down a drain! On seeing Moseley’s astonishment he endeavoured to give an explanation. ‘I haven’t done that for a long time, Sydney’, he said: ‘it’s just to get some of the Scots “meanness” out of my system.’ On his absent-mindedness there is a story told about him that one day he wanted to travel to London from his home and telephoned for a taxi. He went out to the gate to await the car and his mind wandered off on some problem which had been nagging him. By the time the taxi arrived he had forgotten that he had ordered it. The driver stopped and asked Baird: ‘Is this number so-andso?’ Baird said it was whereupon the driver enquired: ‘Is there anybody in?’ Baird, ever obliging, said: ‘I’ll go and see.’ He walked up to his own front door, rang the bell, and stood for a short while. When no-one answered he returned to the street and told the driver the occupant was away. The taxi departed and it was some time before Baird recalled that he had telephoned for a car29. On another occasion when he was leaving his office one night he said to his secretary: ‘Well, good night; we’ll be seeing you tomorrow.’ Tomorrow was Christmas Day. Baird had a somewhat idiosyncratic way of directing his laboratory/workshop staff. A F Birch, who joined BTDC in May 1928 and was one of the first of the company’s technical assistants, was astounded on the day of his arrival by Baird’s imperturbable belief that he had only to ask for something to be constructed and it would be executed almost immediately30. ‘Baird shuffled up to the bench where Birch was working, beamed at him pleasantly and said: “I want you to build me a 10W short-wave transmitter with plenty of side-band scope. Get what you need from the stores and let me have it in three days will you?” ’

Birch had not the faintest idea how to begin the task, but with the assistance of Sherrin, the other technical assistant, he was able to fulfil Baird’s requirement on time. Birch has left some reminiscences which portray the modus operandi of the inventor.

286

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

‘Never, in my experience, did Mr Baird discourage any technician working for him, nor did he let us see he was discouraged himself. At the same time, he was not a lavish praiser. His was the mind, brooding aloft in its clouds of pioneering ambition, which descended to earth merely to initiate his ideas through us, whom he trusted to set out their practical interpretation. ‘JLB was undaunted by the appalling limitations which beset these ideas. In the same way that early radio waited for the thermionic valve, in order really to progress, so unknowingly our JLB awaited the cathode-ray tube to be harnessed to his inventions, to make them commercially practical. ‘He was always rather shyly pleasant to his staff and would enjoy a laugh with us on occasions. To myself, he appeared very much the genius, with his untidy shock of hair, and spectacles. His prevailing fault, in our view, was a penchant for producing another idea for investigation before we’d reached any sort of finality on the previous one.’

This fault was, in Moseley’s view, more than a defect in Baird’s character; it was a disastrous flaw. Another technical assistant, J D Percy, has related31: ‘If I was working late, Baird would say, “Would you like your supper, Mr Percy?” Lyons tea shop. Free meals. Sure. But there was always a catch in it and on [the] occasion before the Derby, I was in a caravan parked outside 133 Long Acre and doing some work on it when, about seven o’clock, he came and took me across to a restaurant in St Martin’s Lane. We had a good supper and he then brought out a black lead pencil and said, “Now, I’d like you to make up this bit of equipment by 8 o’clock tomorrow morning because I want to have a variation in the lens system.” And I said, “I haven’t got any paper to take down your notes, Sir.” And he said, “Och, it doesn’t matter,” and he looked at the white, spotlessly clean tablecloth, drew a circuit on it—a lens arrangement—and swept it off the table and gave it to me and said, “There you are.” And the waiter came along and Baird told him to put the cloth on the bill. And I had to take this damned tablecloth with these dimensions and everything laid out on it and make up a lens arrangement and modify the circuit.’

Sometimes at formal dinners Baird would lose interest in the gossipy chatter taking place around him and turn his attention to a problem which required solution. He would fidget, feel in his waistcoat pocket for a stub of pencil, and then, rather furtively at first and gradually with complete concentration, he would sketch diagrams and write down formulae and equations on the tablecloth. At one restaurant which Moseley and Baird used to patronise the manager kept a number of these tablecloths for several years hoping that they would become valuable souvenirs of a great inventor. Regrettably, they were inadvertently sent to the laundry. Percy’s ‘most vivid impression of JLB was his enormous toughness, underneath the quiet, dreamlike quality of his external personality. He would stop at nothing to achieve his end, which was always the furtherance of television. He had an unmatchable sense of humour and great courage, but I shall remember his resilience till I die. Underneath our professional relationship, affection was 90% of what I felt for JLB.’

Baird’s personality

287

References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

BAIRD, M.: ‘Television Baird’ (HAUM, Capetown, 1973), pp. 31–2 Ibid., p. 37 Ibid., p. 41 ‘The Concert Party’ of BTDC, Television, January 1929, pp. 10, 30, 33 Ref. 1, pp. 100–1 Ibid., p. 51 Ibid., pp. 100–1 Ibid., pp. 97–9 Ibid., p. 109 Ibid., p. 110 Ibid. BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, socks and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 126 Ref. 1, p. 113 Ibid., p. 129 Ibid., p. 126 BAIRD, M.: ‘If only he could be here now . . .’, press cutting, source unknown, personal collection Ibid. MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952), pp. 164–5 Ref. 1, p. 127 Ibid. Ibid. Ref. 16 Ref. 1, p. 127 Ibid., p. 128 Ref. 18, pp. 168–9 Ibid., p. 97 Ibid., p. 160 Ibid., p. 164 GORHAM, M.: ‘Pioneers and the BBC’, Irish Times, 15th November 1960 Ref. 18, pp. 168–9 NORMAN, B.: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (BBC and the Royal Television Society, London, 1984), p. 68

Chapter 15

A rival and high-definition television

On 11th November 1932, Mr I Shoenberg1, the Director of Research at Electric and Musical Industries Ltd (EMI), invited the BBC’s Chief Engineer, Mr N Ashbridge, to a private demonstration of both the transmission and reception of television. ‘In my humble opinion,’ wrote Shoenberg, ‘they would be of a quite considerable interest to you.’ Ashbridge2 visited the Hayes factory on 30th November and was shown apparatus for the transmission of films using five times as many lines per picture as Baird’s equipment and twice as many pictures per second. He was impressed and thought the demonstration represented by far the best wireless television he had ever seen and that it was probably as good as or better than anything that had been produced anywhere else in the world. He wrote: ‘There is not the slightest doubt that a great deal of development, thought and expenditure has been expended on these developments. Whatever defects there may be they represent a really remarkable achievement. In order to give some idea of the cost of such work, I might mention that the number of people employed is only slightly less than that in the whole of our research department.’

The actual demonstration consisted of the transmission of a number of silent films, over a distance of approximately two miles, by means of an ultra-shortwave transmitter using a wavelength of 6 m and a power of about 250 W. On the quality of the images Ashbridge reported: ‘The quality of reproduction was good, that is to say one could easily distinguish what was happening in the street scenes and get a very fair impression of such incidents as the changing of the Guard, the Prince of Wales laying a foundation stone and so on. A film showing excerpts from a play was in my opinion not so good. Also, it was possible to follow what was going on all over the stage. On the other hand, excerpts from a cartoon film were definitely good. I think they could have given a better demonstration had they been in possession of better films. The ones they showed had been in use for several years. The size of the screen is about 5 inch × 5 inch but they have a second machine which magnifies this by about four times in area. The quality of the production can be compared with the home cinematograph but the screen is smaller.’

A rival and high-definition television

289

EMI asked the BBC to take up the system—on an experimental basis—for about seven or eight months and then later for regular use on their programmes. On this issue the Chief Engineer had the following observations to make: 1. ‘There is no doubt that the film is the only way in which we can develop the television of actualities. I cannot see any method developing in the immediate future so as to allow the direct televising, on a satisfactory basis, of say the finish of the Derby or the Wimbledon tennis matches at any rate within the next few years. 2. ‘Transmission by film would be entirely satisfactory for plays and sound could be added on another short wave channel if it were not suitable for broadcasting. 3. ‘The above remark would mean that our technique would need to change considerably and that, if the system were established on a programme basis, it would mean practically the establishment of a further alternative programme and this would be extremely costly, particularly since it would be necessary to transfer everything onto a film at any rate at the present stage of development. 4. ‘Provided that sufficient apparatus were available, a film could be made and then retransmitted within a matter of only a few hours. 5. ‘It seems to me highly desirable to develop the system so that direct television could be carried out of a studio performance. There seems some doubt as to the immediate possibility of this. 6. ‘No incident could be televised on this system which occurred at a distance from the transmitter on account of the wide frequency band involved, that is to say that ordinary music line cannot be used. 7. ‘The above implies that the studio and transmitter should always be fairly close together, that is to say a matter of yards, not miles. The range of these ultra short waves cannot approach the ranges we are in the habit of reaching with our ordinary programmes, but it would be possible technically to erect a number of transmitters in a number of important towns and cities. 8. ‘The cost of the receiver to take short wave channels, one for television and one for sound with ordinary broadcasting facilities in addition is estimated by EMI at about £100 so that the service if established would have to be looked upon as a luxury service, possibly entailing a special licence. 9. ‘If we took up the transmitting side we ought not to have difficulties in connection with development on the receiving side, having regard to the fact that EMI are prepared to make all the receiving apparatus and even manufacture their own cathode ray tubes.’

EMI was very keen that some form of television service should be started on ultra short waves and, following Ashbridge’s visit to Hayes, Mr Alfred Clark, the Chairman of the firm, paid a visit to the BBC to have a discussion with the Director General3. Clark was anxious to know what standards would be adopted for television. He hoped Reith would say that the number of pictures per second and the number of lines per picture would be 25–30 and 120–180 respectively. EMI would then have been in a position to have started an experimental service on ultra short waves early in 1933, and probably before Baird Television Ltd was in a position to do so. The emergence of a competitor in the form of EMI caused J L Baird and his associates much unease. They could not acknowledge for some considerable

290

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

time that EMI’s television system was being engineered by British workers in a British factory using British resources. For them the Radio Trust of America, through its associate companies in London, was the mainspring of EMI’s endeavours. A very noticeable bitterness is evident in both Baird’s and Moseley’s letters during the early 1930s on the progress, and support from the BBC, of the Hayes company. Baird was always ready to point out that his firm could match the advancements towards high-definition television which were being made by EMI and that therefore the pioneer company, i.e. Bairds, should be supported. In a letter dated 6th December 1932 to the Director General of the BBC, John Baird4 mentioned: ‘We have spent considerable time developing apparatus for use with ultra short waves, both with cathode-ray and mechanical scanning, and have gone as far as 240-line scanning. This apparatus, however, is entirely unsuitable for the wave band owing to the immensely high frequencies involved, but the pictures produced are of course immensely superior.’

Baird raised this matter because he understood that EMI had been giving demonstrations of apparatus under laboratory conditions and he did not want these demonstrations compared with the 30-line programmes which the BBC was sending out on medium waves. ‘Our own results in the laboratory are far superior to those which we are sending out through the BBC, but such results are only of academic interest until the ultra short wave channel is sufficiently developed to pass the very high frequencies involved.’

Baird’s concern to stress this point was evidently his belief ‘that the American Radio Trust through its subsidiaries is endeavouring to create the impression that it has something which is superior to ours’. The inventor said that his company could supply transmitters with from 90 to 240 lines as soon as the ultra-short-wave service had been evolved by the BBC’s engineers. Ultra short waves were first used by Baird5 on 29th April 1932 when he gave a demonstration of television transmission using a wavelength of 6.1 m. This took place from the laboratories at Long Acre to an antenna mounted on the roof of Selfridge’s in Oxford Street—the scene of some of Baird’s earlier experiments. Mr Selfridge was still a supporter of television and had a receiver working on the fourth floor of his shop. This first demonstration showed images of Dame Marie Tempest and Lesley Mitchell. Mitchell6 later described the event: ‘We were, I’m afraid, most inexpert, as at that time one had to stand rigidly in one spot, otherwise one’s face bulged out of one side of the screen or the other, and one’s forehead went over the top, or one’s chin went below the screen. Dame Marie’s comment indicated our reaction: “Well Mr Mitchell”, she cried, “I must say that your voice was reasonably distinct.” ’

The test was of some importance because it not only demonstrated the use of ultra short waves but also because it used a new mirror drum type of home receiver which employed a Kerr cell. Percy7 mentions that Baird had decided to build six super home receivers

A rival and high-definition television

291

giving a picture 12 in × 6 in and employing the mirror drum/Kerr cell combination in order to confound the critics who argued that pictures by the Baird system on television sets using neon tubes and discs were too small to have any entertainment value. The Kerr cells were actually made by Jacomb, and were built into test tubes—Jacomb and one assistant performing all the intricate assembly and glass work which was necessary. In addition to the five receivers which were privately allotted in the London area, one was presented to the BBC and was installed in one of their press listening halls at Broadcasting House. Percy wrote that the sets were probably the ultimate in 30-line receivers; they were bright, presented a black and white picture and were exceedingly stable in operation. The Selfridge’s demonstration marked a significant volte-face for Baird, who a few months earlier had, as previously mentioned, remarked that he was rather sceptical about using ultra short waves for television. Fortunately he quickly changed his mind and by April 1932 had obtained a licence for experimental u.s.w. transmissions from the Post Office8, much to the displeasure of the BBC, which had not been informed of the application9. Actually the use of a high frequency band for improved-definition television had been suggested to the Baird company in the letter which Sir Evelyn Murray had sent to it in March 192910. If Baird had initiated experiments then on the utilisation of ultra short waves for the purpose of giving greater detail in television images he might well have found himself in a much better position than he did in 1932–33. Against this background of the prospect of higher-definition television, the BBC had to consider the position of the Baird 30-line programmes on ordinary broadcast wavelengths in the medium band. These programmes had been started, first, to determine whether a good producer could make anything of them from the programme point of view in relation to public interest; secondly, to gain experience of the technical and programme problems presented by such a service; and thirdly, to give Baird Television the opportunity of progressing further in their research. It had been recognised for many years that 30-line television would never be a satisfactory long-term solution to the broadcasting of television, and with the advent of medium-definition television reproduction, the BBC had to give careful examination to the future of the Baird process and in particular the mass production of low-definition television receivers11. Ashbridge did not think that the programmes which had been broadcast were such as would hold public interest on a permanent basis and he therefore felt that the BBC’s agreement with Baird Television should be terminated in March 1934. EMI’s desire to install equipment in Broadcasting House was entirely reasonable. No tests on u.s.w. transmission with 120-line television signals had been effected in the UK from a built-up area. The company’s experiments had been carried out under country conditions and it was necessary for further experimental tests to be undertaken, in a large city, on transmission and reception12. The influence of large buildings and objects on the characteristics of the

292

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

propagation of the waves was a necessary investigation before a regular service could be started. Also, of course, a high building was required in order to give an adequate range. Neither Reith13 nor Ashbridge14 had any objection to such tests. Baird Television Ltd was formally informed of the proposed cooperation between the BBC and EMI at a meeting15 held on 27th January 1933. Naturally, Baird and Moseley expressed their disquietude at such a prospect. The tenor of concern was given in Moseley’s letter16, dated 28th January 1933, to the Postmaster General, Sir Kingsley Wood. ‘I wonder whether, in the welter of cynicism of modern politics, there is any sincerity in the plea for “British first”?’ Moseley was strongly of the opinion that British pioneers ought to be encouraged, not by finance but by every other legitimate means. ‘I’m not satisfied that the BBC realises its duty to the country in this respect’, he wrote, and observed: ‘The BBC which holds a monopoly by virtue of its charter granted by HM Government, seems to me to be extraordinarily cynical where the rights of a British sister science are concerned.’ On the question of the ‘tentacles of the Radio Trust of America’ extending throughout the world, Moseley feared that, if the PMG did not take steps immediately, one of them might ‘force a means of “muscling-in” through the back doors of the BBC’. If this were attempted, it would be a public scandal and Moseley would not hesitate to call a public meeting. The controversy, which is described in abundant detail in the author’s book British Television, the Formative Years, was resolved when: ‘the PMG17 [believed] that it would be right to postpone a decision in regard to the institution of tests of the EMI apparatus at Broadcasting House until [a] demonstration of Baird’s apparatus [had] taken place. The arrangement was that both EMI and Bairds would give demonstrations to be witnessed by the BBC and the Post Office and that a decision on the installation of EMI apparatus at Broadcasting House should be postponed until the results of these demonstrations [had] being considered.’

The demonstrations18 were arranged for 18th and 19th April 1933 at Long Acre and Hayes respectively, and were seen by Admiral Sir Charles Carpendale, Mr Noel Ashbridge, Mr H Bishop, all of the BBC, and Colonel A G Lee, Colonel A S Angwin, Mr A J Gill, all of the engineering side of the Post Office, and Mr L Simon, Mr F W Phillips, Mr W E Weston and Mr J W Wissenden of the administrative side. The Baird apparatus was demonstrated over wires between neighbouring rooms in the Long Acre premises. It was described by Simon19 in the following terms: ‘The transmitting apparatus was of a makeshift type and, at the receiving end, pictures about three inches by three inches were produced in black and white on the broad end of a funnel-shaped cathode-ray tube in two cases, and by [a] Nipkow disc in a third. Films were fed into the transmitters: but the received pictures were in all cases indistinct, jerky and erratic. It was stated that arrangements were being made for the presentation of a picture 9 inches × 5 inches. The best that could be said for the demonstration was that it was an interesting experiment in picture transmission with rather crude apparatus.’

A rival and high-definition television

293

At Hayes the EMI apparatus was demonstrated by wireless transmission, the transmitting apparatus being at the works and the cathode ray tube receiving set in a cottage two miles or so away. Simon observed that the complete receiving apparatus for sight and sound was complicated and involved the use of 25 valves; but it was claimed that the number of valves could be reduced and the apparatus otherwise simplified so as to reduce the cost of a television set to about £80 or £100. (Baird claimed that his company’s receiving set could be manufactured in bulk for about £30 or £40.) The demonstration consisted of the reproduction of films on a screen giving an image size of 6.5 in each way. In one case the receiving set gave a black picture on a white background and in the other on a green background. ‘The action on both pictures could be followed clearly throughout, without the guidance afforded by the accompanying speech; but the detail on the green background was superior to that on the white. A very high degree of stability was achieved. The company [were] experimenting with various substances on the cathode-ray tubes with the object of securing a black and white picture without loss of detail. They [were] also experimenting in the further magnification of the received pictures and a demonstration screen picture 9 inches square was shown. The Post Office engineers, who were present at the previous demonstration in February last, considered that marked improvements had been achieved.’20

Following the Baird and EMI demonstrations21 a conference was held at the Post Office, between the BBC and the Post Office representatives, on 21st April 1933. It was agreed that: 1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

the EMI results were vastly superior to those achieved by the Baird Company; the results were incomplete because of the different transmission methods (line and wireless) used in the two cases (also the effect of electrical interference and absorption could not be tested); further tests by wireless in a town area were essential to determine the range of reception and the effect of interference; whatever system of synchronisation was adopted in the first instance for a public service might be liable to standardise the type of receiving equipment; and a test of one system could not be a reliable judgement on the results achieved by the other.

No definite recommendations were made at the conference as to the future course of action to be taken, although during the discussion the BBC said it was anxious to start trials of the EMI system. High-definition television was now thought to be inevitable, although it was conceded that progress towards a public service would necessarily be slow. Unfortunately, the Baird company failed to appreciate that there was no future for low-definition television and persisted in its efforts to advance the sale of 30-line receivers. On 23rd May 1933, John Baird22met the PMG, Sir Kingsley

294

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Wood, and told him that his company were putting 100 £70 television sets on the market. He assured the PMG that a warning would be given to the public about the possible discontinuance of the 30-line transmissions in March 1934. On the question of short-wave television broadcasting, Sir Kingsley Wood said that he would probably arrange for experimental transmissions by the two competing systems, but that Baird must face up to the possibility that ‘the other system might prove superior, as there was some reason to believe . . .’. Here was a clear warning to Baird Television Ltd that its previously held position as the leader of British television developments could only be recovered by accepting a challenge: a challenge to produce a high-definition, ultra-shortwave television system, preferably using cathode ray tube receivers and cameras. Following several representations, particularly from Reith, the BBC’s Director General, the PMG23 reiterated his view that to give only EMI access to Broadcasting House might bestow the coup de grâce to the Baird concern. Subsequently, both firms were allowed to install experimental equipment: Baird Television Ltd was permitted first use of the accommodation and transferred some of its apparatus to Broadcasting House in September 1933. Its stay was not entirely successful and the company removed its apparatus in December 193324. During these representations some important changes were taking place in the financial structure of Baird Television Ltd. When the Gaumont–British Picture Corporation became associated with BTL early in 1932 the Corporation purchased a block of 798 000 of the 1 200 000 5s. (25p) deferred ordinary shares. Although the price was not revealed at the time, the market value of the shares was 3s. 3d. (16.25p) and therefore the deal could ‘scarcely have been put through at less than 2s. 6d. [12.5p] per share’. G–BPC’s original investment in Baird Television Ltd therefore must have been worth approximately £100 000. Now, in 1933, it became necessary to raise fresh capital and International Acoustic Films, a subsidiary of G–BPC, underwrote an issue to Baird shareholders of 200 000 5s. ‘A’ ordinary shares at par. The issue was only partly subscribed and International Acoustic Films was left with 154 574 shares, making—less a commission of 4 per cent—an outlay of about £36 000 on the deal25. G–BPC’s involvement in BTL was further increased in 1936 when a new issue of 2 100 000 20 per cent non-cumulative preferred ordinary shares of 2s. 6d. was made at par and, it was thought, the Corporation subscribed for 1 000 000 shares—an investment of £125 000. Another important change in the control of BTL occurred when Moseley26 resigned from the Board of the company. There is no doubt that Moseley contributed a great deal indeed in furthering the aims and aspirations of the various Baird companies. A powerful journalist, well known in Fleet Street—and with some considerable influence there—and a born fighter for just causes, he was clearly the type of person the company needed in 1928 when it was experiencing difficulties with the BBC.27 John Baird28 described the events which led to his friend’s departure. When Sir Harry Greer became Chairman of BTL ‘it was not long before trouble began to

A rival and high-definition television

295

blow up between Sir Harry and Sydney. This came to a head over our negotiations with the Marconi Company for a merger.’ Both Baird and Moseley were keen for the merger to take place, but this was opposed by the new Chairman. ‘Sir Harry’s first action was to attempt to freeze Moseley out of the negotiations; Moseley retaliated by a stiff note to Sir Harry and non-attendance at the next Board meeting. Then Sir Harry buttonholed me and said that either Moseley would resign or he would and asked me to convey that message to Moseley. I told Moseley, and in high dudgeon he went to Ostrer to get him “to kick the old fool out”. ‘He was astounded by Isidore Ostrer’s reception. Isidore said that he thought Moseley would be more useful to the Company off the Board than on it. The thing ended by Moseley going off, with very adequate compensation from Isidore Ostrer, and Sir Harry being left in control. Then the fun started for me. I had been giving full support to Moseley and this had completely antagonised the rest of the Board. With Moseley gone they turned on me. Daniel in the Lions’ Den was a poor show compared to Baird in the boardroom. The first thing the boys did was to smash up the Marconi negotiations, and then they turned on me. Everything I did and had done was faulty. ‘Two more directors were brought on the Board to replace Moseley and Baron Ampthill and also to cut the ground even more from under my feet. One of the new directors was an old employee of the Company whom Moseley and I had sacked, Captain Gerrard who had been in charge of our American company. The other was Captain A G D West.’

In his description of this event Moseley29 wrote: ‘Many people have wondered why I resigned. They need wonder no longer. I felt certain that, if I left at this juncture, it would clear the way for a fresh beginning between the Baird Company and the BBC. The Board seemed to sense this too. They had the impression that, if they were able to go to the BBC and say that the firebrand Moseley had taken his departure, they could begin a fresh, innocent friendship where they could receive fair play from BBC. As a matter of fact, the very opposite happened. On the day a deputation from the Baird Company informed the BBC that I had resigned from the Board, the comment attributed to my friend Noel Ashbridge was: “Now that Sydney is out, Baird will be out very soon”.’

Ashbridge was correct in his view. In the summer of 1933 John Baird and his wife moved to 3 Crescent Wood Road, Sydenham. There, he set up a private laboratory where he continued his personal television work, away from the mainstream development work of BTL which would soon be undertaken at the Crystal Palace about one mile distant. Captain A G D West30 was appointed Technical Director of Baird Television Ltd in 1933. Born in 1897, West served as a wireless experimental officer in the forces during the 1914–18 war. After obtaining his MA (with distinction in the mathematical tripos) while at Cambridge University, he gained a BSc degree from London University and then returned to Cambridge as a research student in the Cavendish Laboratory. From 1923 to 1929 he was Head of Research at the BBC and was responsible for much original research in the fields of radio transmission and acoustic measurements. He left the BBC to take a similar position with the Gramophone Company, and in 1932 entered the film industry as Chief Recording Engineer of APT Studios, Ealing. He was one of the

296

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 15.1

Captain A G D West

Source: Mr R M Herbert

founder members who formed, in 1931, the British Kinematograph Society, and subsequently became its second President. One of West’s early actions was to visit Berlin (with Gerrard and Church) and view the television advances which were being achieved there. On his return he submitted a lengthy report to the Board, which according to J L Baird was ‘extremely favourable to myself and the work I had been doing, and stated that I had provided all the essentials of an entirely successful television system and my results were at least equal to the best he had seen in Germany; all that was needed was steady and energetic development. It was a bad blow to my critics. West and I got on well and in fact he was my chief supporter on the board.’ On 13th July 1933, West31 had an interview with Ashbridge and told him ‘that Moseley was out of the concern altogether, and that Baird was in the process of going out, but would probably be retained in a kind of secondary capacity for detail research. [West] said that the past was to be wiped out entirely and he fully realised that

A rival and high-definition television

297

the conduct of the company and its relations with the BBC in the past had been appalling.’

West was able to throw some light on the proposed sale of 30-line television receivers. He mentioned to Ashbridge that the Board did not know anything about the letter which he wrote warning of the danger of placing such receiving sets on the market, having regard to the obsolescence of the 30-line system, and had they known of this they would not have gone ahead through the Bush Company for the production of expensive receivers. ‘They had made £5 000 worth of such receivers, which would probably be wasted.’ West agreed there was no future for 30-line television, but told the Chief Engineer that somehow the company would like to try to sell the 100 receivers which they had made, with some arrangement by which they could be changed for ultra-short-wave multi-line receivers when that system replaced the low-definition on medium wavelengths. West further said that the company was ready to install apparatus for 120-line television, either for film or for direct reproduction from a studio in Broadcasting House, within a month. Ashbridge mentioned that this was subject to a demonstration and asked whether he would be prepared to let [EMI] carry out their tests first and then follow on with his. ‘Naturally he was a little doubtful about this, but did not turn the idea down, suggesting that possibly they might do studio work while [EMI] do film work or, alternatively, we might carry on with [EMI] here and with them (Bairds) at the Crystal Palace. This . . . was a little vague’, noted Ashbridge. In the same month that West was designated Technical Director, the Baird company had taken a lease at the Crystal Palace—the huge glass structure, designed by Sir Joseph Paxton, which loomed over the South London skyline at Norwood. BTL rented from the Manager, Sir Harry Buckland, about 40 000 sq ft of the ground floor of the main concourse, and additional space in the South Tower, the School of Arts building and the Rotunda: the total area for the company’s use being approximately 60 000 sq ft. The site was ideal for ultrashort-wave transmission experiments as the Palace was sited on one of the highest parts of London. The top of the South Tower was 680 ft above sea level and it was considered that an antenna mounted there would enable television signals to be received at ranges of up to 30 to 35 miles in all directions. In addition the 200 acres of grounds were felt to be eminently convenient for the televising of outdoor scenes of all types. When the company acquired the accommodation it transferred all its activities from The Studio, Kingsbury and the Long Acre laboratories to the Crystal Palace. There was sufficient space for four comprehensively equipped and acoustically isolated studios, namely32: 1. 2.

studio no. 1, 60 ft × 40 ft, which was appropriate for large sets containing up to 40 actors; studio no. 2, 50 ft × 30 ft, which was designed to accommodate dramatic and musical performances having a maximum of 10 actors or musicians;

298

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 15.2

Crystal Palace

Source: Mr R M Herbert

3. 4.

studio no. 3, 40 ft × 20 ft, which was suitable for productions having up to five actors; and studio no. 4, a spotlight studio which accommodated a 200 A automatic electric arc and housed what were thought to be the largest photoelectric cells in the world.

In practice the spotlight studio was used for announcements and educational talks, and the presentation of objets d’art, still pictures, solo artistes and the like. Productions in studios nos. 1, 2 and 3 could be televised from a central camera room which had large glass windows overlooking the three studios. The television equipment used in this room comprised: 1. 2.

an intermediate film scanner and an electron camera of the Farnsworth image dissector type (see Note 1).

A rival and high-definition television

Figure 15.3

299

Experimental 180-line flying spot direct pick-up scanner. A 3 ft diameter disc, 11 thousandths of an inch thick, ran at 3000 r.p.m in a vacuum enclosure. The scanner was installed in 1933 in the base of the South Tower of the Crystal Palace

Source: The British Film Institute

Other facilities included four dressing rooms, a film cutting room, workshops, laboratories, offices and specialist rooms and apparatus for power generation, and the telecine machines. The telecine room contained two projectors for the transmission of cine films. One of these projectors was a disc scanner capable of working at 180 lines per picture: the other was an electron scanner which could be adjusted to televise films at a definition ranging from 100 lines per picture to 500 lines per picture. All these facilities were controlled from a room situated above the camera room. Here, the vision, sound and synchronising signals from all four studios and the telecine room could be processed and sent to the vision and sound transmitters. In July 1933 the Postmaster General33 granted the company a research licence to transmit on the following frequencies: 6040 kHz at 500 W, 1930 kHz at 250 W, 48–50 MHz at 500 W, and this enabled it to send experimental transmissions to

300

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 15.4

180-line intermediate film equipment in the Baird Crystal Palace studios, December 1934

Source: Mr R M Herbert

Film House in Wardour Street, London. Later these parameters were changed and by late 1934 the vision transmitter operated at 42.8 MHz and had a power output of 10 kW, and the sound transmitter, which was situated on the lowest floor of the South Tower, had an output of 500 W at 35.3 MHz. These transmitters, which were designed and built by BTL’s engineers, excited antennas which were fixed to the top of the 275 ft South Tower. The engineering of the vision transmitter was quite an achievement for BTL’s staff, since they had to avoid infringing a Marconi patent on neutralising, a technique which was utilised to prevent self oscillation when triode power valves were used. Baird’s engineers circumvented the difficulty by employing Metropolitan Vickers’ constantly pumped, demountable tetrode valves, Type 43. The transformation of Baird Television Ltd from 1933 was remarkable. Only two years previously, the company’s financial position had been somewhat dire; technical staff had been made redundant, Baird had voluntarily suffered a decrease in his remuneration and strenuous efforts had been initiated to seek some financial support from the General Post Office. Now (1933), with the resources of Ostrer’s Gaumont–British empire behind it, Baird Television Ltd was prospering and was able to engage in implementing extensive plans to further its aspirations for a British television service. By the opening of the London television station at Alexandra Palace in November 1936, BTL’s staff had increased to 382 with a total annual wages bill of £74 706 3s. 0d. Many skilled

A rival and high-definition television

Figure 15.5

301

The 240-line telecine scanner as used originally at Crystal Palace

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

tradesmen, physicists and engineers were recruited. Their work, under West’s direction, embraced the fields of photoelectric cells, valve amplifiers, photographic emulsions and processes, scanning discs, electron tubes and fluorescent screens, among others. As a consequence, about 98 per cent of the apparatus in operation at the Crystal Palace was manufactured by BTL. Interestingly, a young BSc honours graduate received £156 per annum—the same as the commissionaires—but a good glass-blower earned £275 per annum34. The facilities were unique in the UK and many demonstrations were given to the GPO and others. An indication of the progress made by Baird Television Ltd under West’s direction is given in a report written by Colonel Angwin, of the Post Office. After a visit to the Long Acre laboratories on 20th November 1933, he observed35: ‘A cathode-ray tube was used at the receiver, this being of a type specially developed by the General Electric Company, having a diameter of 12 inch and giving a picture of 10 inch × 8 inch in area. A very marked improvement in definition and stability was observed compared with that previously demonstrated by Bairds and it is now considered to be quite equal in quality to that shown at Hayes by Electric and Musical Industries Ltd.’

The demonstration had consisted of the transmission, over a short line, of three topical films at a definition of 180 lines picture, 25 pictures be second.’

302

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

a

b Figure 15.6

(a) The 10 kW vision transmitter and (b) the sound transmitter installed at Crystal Palace (1935). The sound transmitter was originally (1934) the vision transmitter and was installed on the first floor at Crystal Palace

Source: Mr R M Herbert

A rival and high-definition television

303

July 1933 was also the month during which V K Zworykin delivered his paper36, in London, on the iconoscope—an electronic camera tube. One effect of this was that EMI expanded its R&D team and vigorously pursued the objective of an all-electronic, high-definition television system. By June 1934 the EMI research department comprised 32 university graduates, 32 laboratory assistants, 4 glass blowers, 4 girl vacuum pump operators, 1 coil winder, 3 mechanics, 25 instrument and tool makers, 5 girl assistants, 7 draughtsman designers and 1 designer draughtsman—a total of 114 persons37. Of the 32 graduates, 9 had Ph.D.s—despite the fact that Ph.D.s were not particularly common in the early 1930s—and 10 had been recruited direct from Oxford and Cambridge Universities. Shoenberg’s team was probably the most brilliant team of scientists and engineers ever assembled by a company in pre-Second World War Britain. It included A D Blumlein38, the greatest British electronics engineer of the twentieth century. In January 1934 Ashbridge39 was given a demonstration of EMI’s latest television system. He was very impressed: ‘The important point about this demonstration is, however, that it was far and away a greater achievement than anything I have seen in connection with television. There is no getting away from the fact that EMI have made enormous strides.’

The demonstration had consisted of the transmission of film images, with 150 lines per picture, from the EMI factory at Hayes to the recording studios in Abbey Road, a distance of approximately 12 miles. ‘This was by means of an ultra short wave transmitter with a power of 2kW on a wavelength of approximately 6.5 m. The results were extremely good and there was no question in my mind that programme value was considerable. The receivers used appeared to be in a practicable form and looked very much like large radio gramophones. On the other hand, it has to be said that the aerial arrangements were very elaborate, being directional in order to cut out interference.’

Shoenberg told Ashbridge that the policy of EMI was to develop television energetically and that the company believed that there was a great commercial future for the firm which was first in the field with something practicable. Ashbridge mentioned to Reith that there could be absolutely no comparison between the way in which EMI was handling the problem and the way Baird Television Limited was handling it. Unfortunately BTL’s difficulties were compounded when EMI formed a new company with Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company Limited. The new company, called Marconi–EMI Television Company Ltd, was established in May 1934 and its Board of Directors comprised representatives of the two companies.40 The most surprising aspect of the merger was that MWT initially did not wish to link up with EMI. However, Shoenberg was a shrewd, capable research director. He had been Joint General Manager of MWT and knew well the wealth of talent, expertise and experience which existed in that company. With his own group’s undoubted abilities in research and development, it seemed logical that an amalgamation should occur. Consequently he put the proposition to MWT41.

304

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

‘At first they did not take very kindly to my suggestion, but at last we hired from them a transmitter, about 200 W, and they made us pay £1,000 a year for it. After that we worked for about 18 months and, when we started getting results, we went again to the Marconi Company and suggested to them that, since we were each of us concerned with half the complete transmitter, obviously closer collaboration should prove beneficial to both parties. As a result of those conversations, the two companies decided to form between them a private company . . .’

(Details of the Marconi Company’s contributions to television are given in Burns, ‘British television, the formative years’.) There was a further advantage of the merger for EMI, for the company was given a licence to use MWT’s patents. With its other agreements the Marconi—EMI Television Company had exclusive rights to all the patents relating to television which had originated with the General Electric Company of America, with the Radio Corporation of America, with Telefunken of Germany, with Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company and with Electric and Musical Industries. In one respect the task of MWT during its period of cooperation with EMI was very much easier than for the latter company. MWT had acquired its expertise and supremacy over a period of many years in the fields of wireless telegraphy, wireless telephony, radio broadcasting, facsimile transmission and low-definition television. But EMI was effectively starting ab initio in many of its investigations. It had to devise and engineer many techniques associated with the fields of vacuum physics, electron optics, wide band electronic circuits, pulse forming and shaping circuits, thin film deposition and so on. Hence, EMI’s research and engineering effort during the 1931–39 period far surpassed (‘probably of the order of 50 : 1’) the corresponding labours of MWT42. Two months after EMI’s demonstration, Baird Television showed43 its cathode ray tube receiver to a party comprising the Prime Minister, BBC representatives, Colonel Lee, Colonel Angwin and, because the cathode ray tube was of GEC manufacture, GEC personnel. Transmissions were given from the Crystal Palace using a wavelength of about 8.5 m for the vision signals and a longer wavelength for the sound signals. The pictures transmitted consisted of an introductory talk given by a speaker (showing the head and shoulders), a violin solo by a lady violinist (also limited to head and shoulders), a talk on architecture illustrated by large-scale photographs, and short extracts from two films. Colonel Angwin44 thought that the standard of reception was approximately the same as that attained in the demonstration given on 20th November 1933, with some limitations due to the radio link. ‘Some interference was obvious from electrical sources, but as far as the radio link was concerned, the conditions were fairly good. The receiving aerial was at the top of the four-storey building and fairly remote from motor car interference.’ The detail of both the head and shoulder subjects televised and the close-ups of the films was reasonably good. For larger scenes the detail was much improved. But it was not a demonstration to inspire Ashbridge, who wrote of his disappointment. The Prime Minister, though, congratulated Mr Baird on the

A rival and high-definition television

305

success which he had obtained and the very great advance on his earlier attempts. Actually, of course, J L Baird had not been associated with this development. ‘The film transmission given by EMI [was] appreciably better than that shown by the Baird Company’, Ashbridge45 observed. ‘On the other hand, however, no opportunity has been available so far to compare a demonstration under absolutely strictly comparable conditions. Moreover, the EMI Company have not so far attempted a demonstration with living objects.’ In an attempt to settle the rival claims of the two companies, Reith46 on 15th March 1934 wrote to Kingsley Wood, the Postmaster General, and proposed a conference ‘between some of your people and some of ours to discuss the future arrangements for the handling of television’. Reith thought that there were three aspects to discuss: the political, ‘using the term in a policy sense and for want of a better one’, the financial and the technical. He nominated Admiral Sir Charles Carpendale and Mr N Ashbridge. Kingsley Wood47 agreed and put forward the names of Mr F W Phillips and Colonel A S Angwin. The informal meeting, which was chaired by Philips, and to which Mr J E Wissenden of the GPO had also been invited, was held at the General Post Office on 5th April 1934. A number of general questions48 were examined by the BBC and GPO representatives, including the method of financing a public television service; the use of such a service for news items and plays; the relative merits of some of the

Figure 15.7

The mirror drum camera which Baird used during the Ideal Home Exhibition of 1933

Source: Mr R M Herbert

306

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

systems available including those of the EMI, Baird, Cossor and Scophony companies; the arrangements necessary to prevent one group of manufacturers obtaining a monopoly of the supply of receiving sets; and the possible use of film television to serve a chain of cinemas. The use of film for television purposes was of some importance at this time, because only the Baird company had shown direct television. EMI had refrained from exhibiting this form since it regarded the development in the early part of 1934 as unsuitable for commercial exploitation. The Company also felt that film had a more lasting commercial value; its view of direct television was that by its very nature it was essentially transient. With two rival companies campaigning for the creation of a television service—EMI for a new BBC station and Baird Television Ltd for a station of its own—it was agreed by the conference that a committee should be appointed to advise the Postmaster General on questions concerning television. The BBC representatives were keen that this committee should be established at once since difficult questions were arising and would continue to arise, and they thought that it would be helpful for the BBC and the GPO to have the weight of the authority of a committee behind them in any decision which they might take. The PMG agreed and the Television Committee was constituted.

Note 1 Television equipment J L Baird, and later the companies associated with his name, used variants of the Nipkow disc from 1923 until early 1937. The disadvantage of the disc is that the diameter of its apertures decreases as the number of scanned lines increases, assuming a given disc diameter, and so the light flux transmitted through the disc likewise decreases. For a high-definition 240-line picture a suitable scanning disc would be 2 ft in diameter and the holes would be just 0.001 in in radius. Such a disc could be utilised for telecine work, where light from a powerful source is transmitted through the film being scanned, but for general studio work embracing large scenes, where light is reflected from the performers and the props, the use of Nipkow discs is quite inappropriate. By around 1933 three alternative systems of televising extended scenes were being developed, namely: the intermediate film scanner, the electron camera based on Farnsworth’s image dissector tube and the charge storage camera based on the iconoscope of Zworykin. The latter type was later developed independently by EMI and became known as the emitron. According to West49, the intermediate film method was exclusively developed by Baird Television Ltd. However, it is known that Fernseh AG, a consortium which comprised Baird Television Ltd, the Zeiss–Ikon Company, the Bosch Magneto Company and the Loewe Radio Company, were developing the process from 1931–32. The method was patented by R V L Hartley and H E Ives, of Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1927.

A rival and high-definition television

307

1 The intermediate film process The equipment comprised a cinematograph camera which photographed the studio or outdoor scene onto motion picture film and also recorded the sound on the same film. The film was then rapidly developed, fixed and washed, in about 50 seconds, to produce a negative image of the scene. Scanning of the film, as in telecine practice, then enabled a video signal to be obtained. Figure 15.8 shows the intermediate film installation as used by BTL at Alexandra Palace in 1936. A Vinten camera having pan and tilt adjustments, a turret of four lenses, and a film magazine which contained 1000 ft of film—sufficient for a 20-minute programme—was mounted on top of the processing tanks. These were maintained at a constant temperature of 28° C. For development the constituents of the solution were pyrocatechin, hydroquinone, sodium sulphite, sodium hydroxide and formalin. The only high-speed fixer capable of giving the

Figure 15.8

The 240-line intermediate film equipment as developed for use at Alexandra Palace, c. spring 1936

Source: The Royal Television Society

308

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

a

b Figure 15.9

(a)Schematic diagram of Fernseh’s continuously working intermediate film scanner. It comprised the emulsioner (1), the drier (2), the cine camera (3), the developer and fixer (4), the scanner (5), and the tank (6), where the emulsion was washed off the film, and the drying chamber (7). Figure 15.9 (b) A prototype of the first equipment used for recording television pictures on a film which was subsequently developed, washed and dried, and passed into a film projector for projecting onto a cinema screen

Sources: (a) Television Today. (Newnes, London, 1935), (b) Dr G E Winbolt

A rival and high-definition television

309

necessary stability of the developed image was sodium cyanide—a deadly poison. In operation a 60 A arc illuminated the film as it passed through the film gate. This was scanned by a 60-aperture disc in which the holes were uniformly spaced around its periphery at a constant distance from its centre. The disc was driven at 6000 r.p.m. by a three-phase, 100 Hz, 0.5 h.p. motor. With this arrangement the line scan was provided by the motion of an aperture across the film, and the frame scan by the transport of the film through the gate. To reduce windage and to maintain the holes in a dust-free state the disc was run in vacuo. Synchronising pulses were generated by means of an additional series of slots, in the scanning disc, which transmitted light from an independent light source to a photocell.

2 The electron camera It was known in 1933 that ideally some form of all-electronic television system should be engineered if a public high-definition television broadcasting service were to be provided. A small, portable, noiseless, sensitive electronic camera able to function indoors and out of doors seemed to be preferable to a static, noisy, costly and dangerous mechanical scanner such as the intermediate film machine. At the end of the 1920s development work on all-electronic cameras was being undertaken only by V K Zworykin, of RCA; and P T Farnsworth, an independent American inventor of the J L Baird type. Their camera tubes, the iconoscope and the image dissector, were fundamentally different. The former possessed the property of charge storage and was moderately sensitive, the latter

Figure 15.10

Diagram of Farnsworth electron camera used by Baird Television Ltd.

Source: Television Today (Newnes, London, 1935)

310

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

did not and was insensitive. Later it incorporated an electron multiplier. Since RCA held an interest in EMI the iconoscope was not available to Baird Television Ltd and perforce the company had no alternative but to consider the image dissector based camera known as the electron camera. In 1933 Ostrer was persuaded of the need to acquire the right to the use of Farnsworth’s image dissector tube. The tube comprised an evacuated glass vessel which contained a flat photosensitive cathode and a small metal tubular structure pierced by an extremely tiny aperture. Inside the structure an anode situated opposite the hole collected those electrons which traversed through it. The tube was provided with orthogonal deflecting coils and a focusing coil. In operation, the optical image of the scene to be televised was focused onto the photosensitive surface which then emitted electrons in proportion to the incident light flux. These electrons, which effectively produced an electron image of the optical image, were accelerated towards the anode, by the electric field which existed between the anode and cathode. Focusing of the electron image in the plane of the aperture was effected by magnetic means. Subsequent deflection by line and frame time-base currents applied to the deflecting coils then permitted the focused electron image to be scanned sequentially past the aperture. The number of electrons instantaneously collected by the anode was thus dependent on the brightness of the corresponding part of the optical image on the cathode. In a more advanced version of the image dissector tube, the signal current was augmented by an electron multiplier.

Note 2 Structure and resources of BTL The transformation of Baird Television Ltd from January 1932, when Ostrer gained control of the company, to the late 1930s was remarkable. In 1931 BTL had been obliged to reduce its work force to fewer than twenty employees and was endeavouring to exercise economies. By the end of 1936, however, the company’s personnel totalled 382. Much credit must be accorded to Ostrer for the confidence he showed in the inherent potential of Baird Television Ltd, and to West for organising in just over four years the huge expansion of the company. The following summary gives some indication of the structure of BTL at 17th November 1936 together with the financial resources which had been allocated to the various departments. Research Dept. no. 1 no. 2 no. 3 no. 4 no. 6 no. 7 no. 8 no. 9

Administration Drawing office Radio transmitter Direct pick-up mechanical scanner I.F. transmitter I.F. projector Stores Workshop

£3 271 0 2 203 10 3 291 1 364 0 1 906 17 714 0 1 716 0 5 612 2

0 0 4 0 6 0 0 2

A rival and high-definition television no. 10 Electricians no. 11 Carpenters no. 12 Sound and control no. 13 Photographic no. 14 Micro-wave radio link no. 15 Electron camera no. 16 Research and measurements no. 17 Consultants no. 18 Radio receivers no. 19 Cathode ray tube research no. 20 Photocell research no. 21 Library and scenery no. 22 Technical supervisors no. 24 Telecine no. 26 Cleaners no. 27 Commissionaires no. 29 Circuit research no. 31 Special products no. 32 Demonstrations (Total personnel 247)

311

1 811 3 0 3 780 10 2 1 146 12 10 600 10 0 871 0 0 1 655 7 8 591 10 0 1 969 0 0 4 508 11 6 1 801 13 8 2 671 12 0 611 0 0 1 650 0 0 1 308 16 4 995 14 0 1 856 8 0 533 0 0 2 830 11 4 1 237 0 0 £51 508 11 6

Production Dept. no. 23 Cathode ray tube production no. 28 Production (general) no. 30 Service department no. 33 Final quality inspection (Total personnel 123) Crystal Palace total

5 308 2 4 10 089 13 10 3 590 10 0 778 5 4 £19 766 11 6 £71 275 3 0

Sydenham Laboratory (total personnel 6) Patents department (total personnel 6)

£ 1 794 0 0 £ 1 637 0 0

References 1 SHOENBERG, I.: letter to N. Ashbridge, 11th November 1932, BBC file T16/65 2 ASHBRIDGE, N.: report on television demonstration at EMI, 6th December 1932, BBC file T16/65 3 DIRECTOR GENERAL (BBC): memorandum to the Chief Engineer, 1st January 1933, BBC file T16/65 4 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to Sir J. F. W. Reith, 6th December 1932, BBC file T16/42 5 PERCY, J. D.: ‘The founding of British television’, a Memorial issued by the Television Society, London, March 1950, p. 13 6 NORMAN, B.: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (BBC and the Royal Television Society, London, 1984), p. 124

312

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

7 Ref. 5 8 Control Board Minute, extract, 19th April 1932, BBC file T16/42 9 CONTROLLER (BBC): letter to the GPO, 28th April 1932, BBC file T16/ 42 10 POSTMASTER GENERAL: letter to Baird Television Development Company, The Times, 6th March 1929 11 ASHBRIDGE, N.: letter to J. L. Baird, 30th January 1933, BBC file T16/42 12 CLARK, A.: letter to Sir J. F. W. Reith, 5th January 1933, BBC file T16/65 13 DIRECTOR GENERAL (BBC): memorandum to the Chief Engineer, 9th January 1933, BBC file T16/65 14 CHIEF ENGINEER (BBC): memorandum to the Director General, 9th January 1933, BBC file T16/65 15 Minutes of a meeting held with representatives of Television Ltd, 27th January 1933, BBC file T16/42 16 MOSELEY, S. A.: letter to Sir Kingsley Wood, 28th January 1933, Minute Post 4004/33 17 PHILLIPS, F. W.: letter to Sir J. F. W. Reith, 13th March 1933, BBC file T16/42 18 PHILLIPS, F. W.: letter to Sir J. F. W. Reith, 10th April 1933, BBC file T16/ 42 19 SIMON, L.: memorandum on Baird and EMI demonstrations, 27th April 1933, Minute Post 4004/33 20 Ibid. 21 Notes of a meeting held at the GPO, 21st April 1933, BBC file T16/42 22 Notes of a telephone conversation between the BBC and the PMG, 23rd May 1933, BBC file T16/42 23 KINGSLEY WOOD, H.: letter to Sir J. F. W. Reith, 22nd May 1933, BBC file T16/42 24 BURNS, R. W.: ‘British television, the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1986), chapter 12, pp. 274–89 25 Press cutting, ‘Gaumont and Baird’, Minute Post 5474/33 26 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952), chapter 18, pp. 213–23 27 BBC: letter to S. A. Moseley, 21st June 1933, BBC file T16/42 28 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), pp. 128–29 29 Ref. 26 30 Obituary ‘Albert Gilbert Dixon West’, British Kinematography, September 1949, 15, 3. p. 73 31 CHIEF ENGINEER (BBC): record of interview with A. G. D. West, 13th July 1933, BBC file T16/42 32 ANON.: ‘A high-definition service in London’, Television and Short Wave World, March 1935, pp. 117–21 33 GPO: letter to the BBC, 27th July 1933, BBC file T16/42 34 HERBERT, R. M.: letter to the author, 27th April 1999, personal collection 35 ANGWIN, A. S.: memorandum on visit to the Baird laboratories, 20th November 1933, Minute Post 4004/33 36 ZWORYKIN, V. K.: ‘Television with cathode ray tubes’, J. IEE, 1933, 73, pp. 437–51

A rival and high-definition television

313

37 ANON.: Laboratory staff, research department, 12th June 1934, EMI Archives 38 BURNS, R. W.: ‘The life and times of A. D. Blumlein’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1999) 39 ASHBRIDGE, N.: Report on television, 17th January 1934, BBC file T16/ 65 40 Notes of a meeting of the Television Committee held on 27th June 1934. Evidence of Messrs Clark and Shoenberg on behalf of EMI and the Marconi–EMI Television Co. Ltd, p. 3, Minute Post 33/4682 41 Ref. 24, p. 319 42 SMITH, G. B.: ‘Historical relationship between Marconi, RCA and EMI’, 1st September 1950, Marconi Archives 43 GREER, H.: letter to Sir J. F. W. Reith, 7th March 1934, BBC file T16/42 44 ANGWIN, A. S.: memorandum, 12th March 1934, Minute Post 4004/33 45 ASHBRIDGE, N.: report on demonstration to the Postmaster General and C.(A.), 12th March 1934, BBC file T16/42 46 REITH, J. F. W.: letter to Sir Kingsley Wood, 15th March 1934, BBC file T16/42 47 KINGSLEY WOOD, H.: letter to Sir J. F. W. Reith, 20th March 1934, BBC file T16/42 48 Notes on ‘Conference at General Post Office, 5th April 1934’, Minute Post 33/4682 49 WEST, A. G. D.: ‘The present position of television’, Engineering, 25th October 1935, pp. 457– 9, and 1st November 1935, pp. 485–6 50 HERBERT, R. M.: ‘The Baird intermediate film process’, Jour. Royal Television Society, May/June, pp. 134–7

Chapter 16

The London television station

The first meeting of the Television Committee was held on 29th May 19341. It comprised important persons from the BBC, the GPO, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and industry, namely:2 The Right Honourable Lord Selsdon (Chairman) Sir John Cadman (Vice-Chairman) Colonel A S Angwin, Assistant Engineer-in-Chief, GPO Noel Ashbridge, Chief Engineer, BBC O F Brown, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Vice-Admiral Sir Charles Carpendale, Controller, BBC Mr F W Phillips, Assistant Secretary, GPO Secretary: Mr J Varley Roberts, GPO To ensure impartiality, no representatives of either Marconi–EMI or Baird Television were invited to join the Committee. It was decided that all the Committee’s meetings should be held in private and that reports of future meetings should not be issued to the press. The terms of reference for the Television Committee were3: ‘To consider the development of television and to advise the PMG on the relative merits of the several systems and on the conditions—technical, financial and general—under which any public service of television should be provided.’

This brief necessitated that the Committee should consider not only British television developments but also those being made in other countries. Consequently, letters were sent to the Telegraph Administrations of France, Germany and Italy and also to the Federal Radio Commission, USA, requesting information on a number of points concerning their country’s television schemes. The Television Committee worked with commendable speed and examined 38 witnesses, some of them on more than one occasion, and in addition sent delegations to the United States and to Germany to investigate and report upon progress in television research in those countries. By September 1934 the Committee had so advanced its deliberations that it was able to commence the

The London television station

315

preparation of its report, and, but for the absence of Sir John Reith (whom the Committee wished to interview) towards the end of 1934, the Committee’s report would have been introduced before January 1935 (the actual month of publication). The first witnesses to be examined (on 7th June) were Major A G Church and Captain A G D West of Baird Television Ltd4, 5. Significantly John Baird did not give any evidence to the Committee. Previously the Committee had seen the Company’s low- and high-definition television systems in operation on 31st May and 2nd June respectively, and the EMI high-definition system on 1st June. The questioning of Church and West centred mainly on certain aspects of television which had been put forward by the company in a précis of a statement6 which had been submitted prior to the meeting and which covered the company’s history and status; the 30-line television system; high-definition television and the operation of a public television broadcasting service; nondomestic applications of television; and general and miscellaneous matters. Since the work of the Television Committee has been dealt with at great length in the author’s book British Television, The Formative Years, the Committee’s investigations and deliberations will not be repeated here. The Television Committee submitted its report to the Right Honourable Sir Kingsley Wood on 14th January 1935. It had cost approximately £965 to prepare and had taken seven months to produce. The report itself was quite short, a mere 26 pages, but this did not include notes of the formal evidence, which were presented in Appendix 2 (volumes 1 to 4), because much of it contained secrets of commercial value which had been given in confidence and under promises of secrecy. For similar reasons, Appendix 3 which included reports on developments in the USA and in Germany, and Appendix 4 which gave descriptions of each television system that the Committee had examined, were not published. Appendix 5 dealt with certain financial details that were considered to be of a confidential nature. Among the principal conclusions and recommendations7 of the report, the following had a direct impact on the immediate work of Marconi–EMI Television Company Ltd and Baird Television Ltd: Type of service 1. 2.

‘No low-definition system of television should be adopted for a regular public service’. ‘High-definition television has reached such a standard of development as to justify the first steps being taken towards the early establishment of a public television service of this type’.

Provision of service—Operating authority 3.

‘In view of the close relationship between sound and television broadcasting the Authority which is responsible for the former—at present the British Broadcasting Corporation—should also be entrusted with the latter’.

316

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Advisory Committee 4.

‘The Postmaster General should forthwith appoint an advisory committee to plan and guide the initiation and early development of the television service’.

Ultra-short-wave transmitting stations 5.

‘Technically, it is desirable that the ultra short wave transmitting stations should be situated at elevated points and that the masts should be as high as practicable’.

Initial service 8. 9.

‘A start should be made by the establishment of a service in London with two television systems operating alternately from one transmitting station’. ‘Baird Television Limited and Marconi–EMI Television Limited, should be given an opportunity to supply, subject to conditions, the necessary apparatus for the operation of their respective systems at the London station.’

Following the presentation of the report to Parliament, the Postmaster General rapidly constituted the Television Advisory Committee (TAC). Its first meeting8 was held on 5th February 1935 with Lord Selsdon in the chair. Colonel A S Angwin, Mr N Ashbridge, Mr O F Brown and Mr F W Phillips, who were members of the original Television Committee, now served on the new committee in addition to the new member, Sir Frank Smith. Mr J Varley Roberts retained his position as Secretary. A Technical Subcommittee (TSC) was also set up with Sir Frank Smith as Chairman, Roberts as Secretary and Angwin, Brown and Ashbridge as members. Among the pressing matters to be resolved were the specification of the television apparatus and the location of the London station. The first of these was referred by the TAC, at its first meeting to the TSC9, and at its second meeting, on 15th February 1935, the representatives of Marconi–EMI (Messrs Shoenberg, Condliffe and Blumlein), who had been invited to attend and give their views, advanced their waveform specification based on 405 lines, interlaced 2 to 1, to give 50 frames per second (i.e. 25 pictures per second)10. Two weeks later the representatives of Baird Television (Clayton, Church, Jarrard and West) advocated a standard of 240 lines (progressively scanned) per frame (or picture), 25 frames (or pictures) per second. BTL11 recommended progressive scanning ‘at the present stage of the art’ for the reasons that it was not considered proven that interlaced scanning eliminated or reduced flicker, ‘and even if interlaced scanning had advantages it [did] not follow that interlacing by scanning alternate lines [was] the most suitable mode of intercalation, of the many which had been and were being experimented with’. The company stated that the process of interlaced scanning did not present serious technical difficulties, but felt that the improvement in flicker, gained by this method, was not sufficient to warrant the extra complication involved at the receiver and suggested that the question should be deferred until further experimental work had been carried out.

The London television station

317

On the issue of the number of lines per frame to be used, BTL considered that the 240-line standard represented the economical and practical limit which could be recommended for standardisation for at least three years. ‘It is definitely true that the optimum definition for a picture transmitted and received by radio on a 240-line basis has by no means been demonstrated. When this has been done it will show a picture a long way ahead of what has been demonstrated by any system and will give ample definition, clearness and quality of all types of scenes as well as for close-ups’, noted BTL. The company was very anxious that the number of lines should not be raised beyond 240, and when questioned as to its views on the adoption of 400 lines it stated that a number of grave difficulties would be encountered both at the transmitter and receiver and indicated that all forms of mechanical scanning would have to be abandoned. Baird Television felt that at the ‘present state of the art, as known to them, a more pleasing result would be obtained by the faithful transmission of a 240-line picture rather than by transmitting a 400-line picture which would, of necessity, suffer during the process’. One of the most important of the issues which had to be considered by the TAC was that concerning the system of vision waveform generation12, 13 to be used for film transmission, studio scenes, and outdoor broadcasts, and the lighting intensities required for each of these different modes of television. In its tender Marconi–EMI proposed to utilise cathode-ray scanning tube cameras for all three activities and considered that adequate illumination for studio working would be produced by 18 kW of roof lighting and 6 kW of directional lighting. Baird Television Limited’s reply in the same section of the tender was much more extensive and highlighted the cumbrous nature of its equipment vis-à-vis the highly mobile emitron camera. ‘The contractor’s offer covers apparatus for studio television by the following methods: a. Spotlight scanner This apparatus is suitable for the transmission of close-ups of speakers and announcers. It is proposed that about half the area of the room adjacent to the studio [in Alexandra Palace] should be subdivided to provide a small studio, spotlight scanner room, and monitor room. The spotlight scanner cannot be used actually in a studio because it involves the use of a disc running at 3 000 rev/min, and is noisy. It therefore works through a glass window. The monitor room also has a glass window so that the control engineer can see the performer and also the latter can see his own image on a monitor tube, and so avoid moving out of the spotlight beam b. Electron image camera This would be used in the main studio for the television of larger scenes, and thus be situated within 20 ft of its scanning and amplifying apparatus. It is proposed to form a small room, partly in the corner of the studio and partly on the colonnade to house the associated apparatus. The camera is mounted on a movable truck, which can be moved within a radius of 20 ft of the apparatus. c. Intermediate film apparatus This is also suitable for the television of large scenes, but it is of a bulky nature and requires connection with the water mains and drainage. It is, moreover, noisy and must be enclosed in a sound proof booth. It is suggested that an intermediate film camera room be built on the colonnade, with a sort of “bow window”

318

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

looking into the studio, so that the camera may be “panned” to take in any part of the studio. By this means three sets could be effectively covered.’

Thus two of the three cameras/scanners were noisy and static and required a soundproof room. On the other hand the emitrons were small, noiseless, easily portable and, very important, fairly sensitive. BTL’s systems needed substantial power inputs, viz: 28.5 kW for the supply arcs for the two telecine transmitters and the intermediate film transmitters; 31.5 kW for the supply arc of the spotlight transmitter; and 94.4 kW for the studio lighting for the electron camera. An additional disadvantage of the intermediate film process was the cost of the 35 mm film stock and processing chemicals which amounted to £48 per hour or £12 per hour using split 35 mm film stock. Against this the cost of servicing the emitron cameras with tubes was £2. 10s. 0d. per transmission tube-hour. Subsequently, following some modifications, the tenders were accepted by the Television Advisory Committee. Installation of the two contractors’ television equipment at Alexandra Palace, the site of the London station, was carried out during the period December 1935 to August 1936. Extensive building operations were necessary to accommodate the heavy machinery, and sound and vision transmitters, and various rooms had to be converted for use as studios, dressing rooms, control rooms and offices. Major structural alterations were effected in the southeast tower of the Palace to support the steel antenna mast; all the existing floors, and the windows on the south and east sides of the tower, were removed; fire-resistant floors and staircases were constructed to provide five floors of offices; and bay windows were added to increase the lighting of the offices. By the summer of 1936 the work of reconstruction, installation and commissioning had reached the stage where previews of the performances of the two systems could be given at the Radio Exhibition at Olympia. Overall the demonstrations were good, although some defects were noted14. It was hoped by the TAC that these would be overcome in time for the opening15 of the London television station which was timetabled for 2nd November 1936. The opening programme, arranged by the BBC and approved by the TAC, lasted hardly one quarter of an hour and consisted of a few short speeches, of four minutes each, by Mr Norman, the Chairman of the BBC, Major Tryon, the Postmaster General, and Lord Selsdon, the Chairman of the Television Advisory Committee. The Chairmen of both the Marconi–EMI and Baird Television companies were allowed half a minute each to say, literally, a few words, and after an interval of five minutes the programme continued with the showing of the British Movietone News and then variety. Though Mr Norman’s and Major Tryon’s speeches tended to be, somewhat naturally, platitudinous in character, Lord Selsdon16 in his speech endeavoured to give some assurance to future purchasers of television sets regarding the stability (for at least two years) of the transmission standards. He was keen to point out that the service would cover the Greater London area, with a population of about 10 million people, and said that he was unwilling to lay heavy odds against

The BBC London television station at Alexandra Palace, north London

Source: Television and Short-wave World, October 1936, 9

Figure 16.1

The London television station 319

320

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 16.2

Alexandra Palace television antenna mast

Source: The BBC

a resident in Hindhead viewing the Coronation procession. For all three speakers the future of the new medium was bright and held ‘the promise of unique if still largely uncharted opportunities of benefit and delight to the community’. Baird was most unhappy with the arrangements for the opening ceremony17: ‘All the notables in any way connected with television appeared on the platform and were televised, all except Mr Baird, who was not invited but sat in considerable anger and disgust in the body of the hall among the rank and file. Thus is pioneer work recognised. This little episode was but another addition to the host of slights and insults given to me [Baird] by the BBC. What the devil had they done for television. But there they sat sunning themselves in the limelight as the men responsible for this great achievement, for so they apparently wished to appear. While I, the best part of whose life had been given to television, who had transmitted the first television image ever seen, who had first introduced television to the BBC, who, year after year, had forced the pace and pushed Britain and the BBC into a position of leadership sat snubbed and humiliated among the audience!’

The experiences gained by the BBC of the operation of both television systems under service conditions from 2nd November to 19th December 1936 were described in an important report18 written by Gerald Cock, the BBC’s Director

The London television station

Figure 16.3

321

Major The Right Honorable G C Tryon, HM Postmaster General, being televised while opening the London television station, Alexandra Palace (November 1936)

Source: The BBC

of Television. It proved highly damaging to Baird Television Limited; indeed it meant the end of the company as a supplier of television studio and transmitting equipment to the Corporation’s stations and studios. Cock stated that the Marconi–EMI apparatus had proved capable of transmitting both direct and film programmes with steadiness, and a high degree of fidelity: ‘Its apparatus being standardised throughout, reproduces a picture of consistently similar quality and requires only one standard of lighting, make-up and tone contrast in decor. Its studio control facilities are convenient and comparatively simple. It has proved reliable, and has already established a large measure of confidence in producers, artists and technicians. Outside broadcasts and multi-camera work have added considerably to the attractions of programmes. With improved lighting, additional staff and studio accommodation, single system working by Marconi–EMI would make a service of general entertainment interest immediately possible.’

Alas, the Director of Television found it difficult to say anything

322

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

complimentary about BTL’s systems. The programmes were being transmitted under practically experimental conditions and the prospect of anything approaching finality in the studio stages of transmission seemed remote. ‘Alterations in apparatus were constantly taking place. Breakdowns, with little or no warning, and, even more serious, sudden, unexpected, and abnormal distortions are a frequent experience. In such cases, it is difficult and embarrassing to make a decision to close down, since there is always the possibility that faults may be corrected within a short time. This inevitably leads to criticism of television by those who may only have observed it in adverse conditions.’

In studio operations the use of the spotlight scanner, intermediate film process and the electron camera required a different lighting technique and make-up for each picture generating system and added to the problems of the producers. Cock’s views on these matters were as follows: Spotlight scanner ‘This apparatus is limited to double portrait reproduction. Distortion of picture tone and shape still appears to be intrinsic and unavoidable. No reading is possible in the spotlight studio, nor could any artist depending upon looks and personality be expected to televise by this method. The result is a caricature of the image televised.’

Intermediate film method ‘This is extremely intricate, and depends upon so many processes that it causes continual anxiety. It is inflexible and rigid in operation, being confined to “panning” in two planes. Changes of view can only be effected at the cost of lens changes and “blackouts”; otherwise the picture is static. Its quality is variable; the delay action is extremely inconvenient for timing and other production purposes. The maximum continuous running time is at present limited to approximately 16 minutes, which adds to the difficulty of arranging programmes. The cost for film alone is £12 per hour (rehearsal or performance). Sound, recorded on 17.5 mm film and subject to development at high speed, is invariably of bad quality, whole sentences having occasionally been inaudible. It is consequently an unsuitable method of presenting any programme item in which quality of music or speech is important. Mechanical scanning produces line bending and twisting in a variable degree. Black and white contrast is however generally good.’

Electron camera ‘These cameras have quite recently been improved, but future progress is likely to be seriously handicapped by destruction of the Baird research plant and technical records in the Crystal Palace fire. Bending and twisting of lines are pronounced. The cameras are in a somewhat primitive stage of development and are still without facilities for remote (outside) or “dissolved” work. Breakdowns have been frequent. Electronic cameras do not appear likely seriously to compete with emitrons at any rate for a considerable time. They have advantages over other Baird apparatus in being instantaneous in action; in permitting good sound transmission; in mobility; and in the elimination of mechanical scanning. At present their operation seems somewhat precarious.’

On the BBC’s experience with BTL’s telecine scanner for 35 mm commercial film, Cock commented:

The London television station

323

a

b Figure 16.4

(a) The Marconi–EMI studio A showing two emitron television cameras in use; (b) the London station’s outside broadcast unit initially comprised three emitron cameras and associated equipment

Sources: (a) The BBC, (b) the Marconi Company

324

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

a

b Figure 16.5

(a) The Baird studio, Alexandra Palace; (b) the art of self defence: ju-jitsu being demonstrated by Bob Gregory and his partner in the Baird studio, Alexandra Palace

Source: The BBC

The London television station

Figure 16.6

325

Baird telecine scanner, with the monitoring and control racks in the background

Source: The BBC

‘Originally, this apparatus gave the best picture obtainable by the Baird system and possibly (flicker apart) was better than the Marconi–EMI for reproduction from standard film. Line bending and twisting have since been noticeable due perhaps to mechanical scanning and the difficulty of maintenance in first-class condition. Its contribution to programmes is limited by the present restricted use of 35 mm film.’

The Crystal Palace fire during the night of 30th November was a grievous blow for the Baird company. The fire destroyed the laboratories, workshops, studios and offices, and only the South Tower, Rotunda, and School of Arts building survived. In addition BTL lost nearly £100 000 worth of apparatus (including spares and stores) and many valuable records and drawings; the fire spread so quickly that nothing could be saved. John Baird19 has written that in the middle of dinner he was telephoned and an excited voice told him the Palace was on fire. On looking out of the window and seeing a red glow in the sky he immediately rushed out, ‘hatless and in slippers’, and sped towards the conflagration. His progress was impeded by a dense crowd of people but he managed to force his way through to the front of the Crystal Palace. By this time it was ‘a seething mass of flames—a wonderful spectacle!’ he said. Next day members of staff saw how the lathes and other machine tools of the

326

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 16.7

The remains of Baird Television Ltd’s laboratories, Crystal Palace, after the disastrous fire of November 1936

Source: Mr R M Herbert

workshop had been twisted and deformed into the most grotesque shapes by the fierce heat of the inferno. Of the losses, the value of the equipment was recovered from the company’s insurers but the records were of course irreplaceable and ‘immense disorganisation and loss of time’ resulted. The accomodation now available in the Palace was, of course, greatly reduced and every nook and cranny in the three remaining buildings had to be fully used. Television picture tubes were fabricated in the Rotunda, receivers were manufactured in the School of Arts, and office and laboratory staff were accommodated in the South Tower. Extra space was essential for the company’s well-being. New premises were acquired at Lower Sydenham and by the summer of 1938 most of the staff had been transferred to this site. A small team stayed behind in the School of Arts building and worked on a confidential project (involving the use of a television camera mounted in an aircraft and the transmission of televised images to a ground station) for the French Air Ministry. The loss of spare parts in the fire obviously prevented appropriate modifications and servicing of the various systems at Alexandra Palace from being effected. Realistically, though, these systems had been in operation for four weeks and their limitations were well known. Even loyal staff members of Baird Television Ltd later conceded that the Farnsworth electron camera, the spotlight

The London television station

327

scanner and the intermediate film scanner, as they existed in November 1936, were not apposite for a modern high-definition television service. On the Farnsworth camera, J D Percy20 who was one of BTL’s engineers at Alexandra Palace has said: ‘We read press reports of various demonstrations and leaks from America and we got mixed up with a man called Farnsworth who had an alternative electronic system [to the emitron]. It was a rotten system but it was electronic and it did produce pictures. We had every sort of opportunity and if the Baird board had been on its toes it would have sent somebody to America, found out about electronic television and said either we pack up and just make receivers or we team up with somebody who knows how television’s going to work. But nobody did. . . . ‘Camera and everything, dead silent, no wheels, no discs. Marvellous except the picture was sausage shaped. Despite all his efforts he [Farnsworth] never got it straight. It had the most tremendous distortions.’

Percy was equally scathing about the intermediate film scanner, for which he was the engineer-in-charge: ‘It was more or less grouted into concrete and, from its little glass hut, glared out at three different angles. And that was it. You couldn’t wheel it about. You couldn’t raise or lower it. You could hardly do anything with it. The thing was quite inflexible. . . . ‘A lot of us were standing on a wet floor with 10 000V running through the machine; the cameraman was hanging over the Nipkow disc spinning at 6 000 r.p.m. and if you absentmindedly sipped some of the cyanide fixing fluid which splashed on the floor, you were dead for a certainty. Liz Cowell generally trailed her long frock into it and had to be hosed down quick so, as all this was happening in the cramped little scanning room, you can say rehearsals and transmissions were always exciting. . . .21 ‘After the first week, although EMI had trouble with their telecine, the studio stuff was great and, unlike us, they never really broke down. And the first time I [Percy] saw their picture in their control room—the camera was pointing out of the balcony window over London and smoke was rising from the Muswell Hill chimneys—the thing was so peaceful, so calm, no noise, nothing at all that I thought, “Well, this is it, you know, pack up and join the navy”.’22

And on the flexibility of the two competing systems, B Greenhead23 of EMI has said: ‘It was obvious to all concerned that the inflexibility of the Baird system, from the intermediate film technique, cutting into the actual telecine unit and then cutting into the little interview studio, meant that it couldn’t go on like that, compared to a complete, flexible, all-electronic system which could fade or switch from studio to OB [outside broadcast] and back again. To us it was only a matter of time.’

Cock’s very damaging report, from BTL’s point of view, was discussed by members of the Television Advisory Committee24 on 16th December 1936. They had to decide whether the time had now arisen for them to make a definite decision on the question of transmission standards. The contracts made with both companies contained a reference to the London experimental period which was defined as terminating on the date on which a judgement was reached

328

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

concerning the system to be employed at the London station. In the light of Cock’s adverse report on the working of the BTL equipment, the Committee had to decide whether further expenditure on the advancement of a system which appeared unlikely to survive was prudent. Failing this, it could suggest that the system should be temporarily suspended until the apparatus could be handed over in a reliable and efficient state—and within a reasonable time limit. Cock foresaw that artistes and celebrities might refuse to be televised in BTL programmes, thus making the problem of producing programmes still more difficult. There was no doubt that the uncertainties and limitations of the equipment were having a deplorable effect on the production staff, whereas with the Marconi–EMI system the apparatus was sufficiently advanced and reliable to enable interesting and entertaining programmes to be devised and transmitted with ‘a high degree of reality and with complete confidence on the part of the producers and studio organisation’. With this report in mind the TAC quickly came to a conclusion: they would recommend to the Postmaster General the adoption of Marconi–EMI’s transmission standards as the standards for the London station, at any rate for the next two years. Baird Television Limited25 was to be given the opportunity of making representations, before the public announcement, to the Committee on 23rd December 1936. The discontinuance was to date from 2nd January 193726. BTL’s reply27 to the TAC’s letter of 18th December was surprisingly moderate and low-key in tone, far different from the letters which Moseley used to write on behalf of the Baird companies when events were not in BTL’s favour. Apart from a mild reference to the very short time which had elapsed since the start of the transmission and an expression of the company’s belief that the Committee could not have made its recommendations on the basis of any defects or inferiority of BTL’s transmitter, the letter contained no objection to the Committee’s decision. Indeed, the Baird directors were, in principle, in accord with the view that one standard was preferable to two, provided certain conditions were satisfied. So comparatively mild was their reply that it gives the impression that they were not dissatisfied with the recommendation. The directors, of course, would have been well aware of the broadcast quality of their system vis-à-vis that of Marconi–EMI, and although Cock’s report was private and confidential to the BBC and the TAC, nevertheless Bairds’ engineers must have given some indication to their directors that all was not well with their Alexandra Palace equipment. Margaret Baird in her biography of her husband has written28: ‘The board was relieved by the turn which events had taken. Clayton, Ostrer’s accountant, observed that the transmissions through the BBC had done nothing but lose money, the company’s only hope of making money being the sale of receivers.’ This may indicate the reason for the mildness of the Baird company’s letter of 22nd December. Moseley29 in his book on J L Baird also confirmed this opinion: ‘The directors argued that the transmissions were not of much consequence: it was the sale of Baird receivers that matter[ed]; that brought in the money.’

The London television station

329

The BBC’s last transmission using the Baird system was sent out on 30th January 1937. The Television Advisory Committee’s recommendations, approved by the Postmaster General, was a ‘terrible blow’ to Baird. ‘It seemed that he had been forgotten by the world’, his wife noted in her biography of him. ‘He bore up with practically no mention of his troubles to anyone and presented himself to his assistants and the press with his usual calm exterior, but I knew that inwardly he was seething. I could not help him very much in his deep hurt and frustration. He was too deeply hurt for any superficial compensation. He seemed to be tired and was often to be found resting on his bed.’30 ‘To be thrown out of the BBC after all these years of pioneer work’, wrote Baird31, ‘to be replaced by newcomers, was to me a bitter blow. Clayton and Greer did not seem to appreciate this. “I can’t understand,” said Clayton, “why you place such importance on this transmission. After all, the money is in the sale of receivers. I understand, of course, that from the sentimental angle it must be a blow to you. If you will pardon me speaking freely, it hurts your vanity. But simply looking at the thing as a business man from a purely business angle, I think that it’s the best thing that could have happened. We have done nothing but lose money in transmission. Now we can leave it to the BBC and concentrate on the receiver market.” ’ Although John Baird took the TAC’s decision as a personal misfortune, he was not involved in the engineering, installation, commissioning and maintenance of any of Baird Television Ltd’s equipment at Alexandra Palace. The responsibility for these tasks had been devolved to West and his staff. Moreover, Baird had not been a party to the discussions which had taken place, from 1934, between the TAC and BTL: these had been handled by West and Church. Baird was nominally the Managing Director of Baird Television Ltd, but effectively he had been eased out of his position of technical control, in 1933, following Ostrer’s consolidation of his authority over BTL’s affairs. As Moseley32 noted: ‘The new [1933] Board [with Greer and Clayton as Ostrer’s appointments] was fast losing patience with Baird and his dilatory methods. Baird the visionary was still occupied in development, whereas the practical men of the Board wanted results. They wished to sell receivers, whereas Baird was still reaching out. This difference in conception led to hostility which developed and reached a climax.’ And so from around July 1933 Baird had reverted—essentially—to personal research and development in his own personal laboratory rather than company R&D. Thus Baird’s distress in January 1937 was due to an injury to his pride. However, Baird had been a sufferer in adversity for many years and did not intend giving up his life-long interest. If the BBC would not allow him to transmit from Alexandra Palace, it seemed to him that now ‘being out of the BBC [he] should concentrate on television for the cinema and [work] towards the establishment of a broadcasting company independent of the BBC for the supply of television programmes to cinemas . . .’ This topic is considered in the next chapter.

330

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Note 1 Television in aircraft, 1936–39 The development of high-definition television led to renewed attention being given to the possible applications, particularly for gunfire control and reconnaissance operations over enemy territory, of airborne television cameras and transmitting equipment (see Chapter 4). During the spring of 1936 both Electric and Musical Industries Ltd and Baird Television Ltd received enquiries for such equipment from the French government, and from the French and Russian governments respectively. These enquiries led to the two firms producing systems based on the emitron, and on the intermediate film apparatus. Although a detailed consideration of this subject is beyond the scope of this book, the following information which relates to BTL may be of interest. For the French Air Ministry, BTL’s contract dated 12th April 1937 specified the aircraft equipment as follows: a 16 mm film camera provided with 35 mm and 105 mm focal length lenses; a film processing unit able to develop and fix the film images in 20 s; an electron camera or cathode ray tube scanning unit; a 30 cm monitoring picture tube; a vision radio transmitter operating on 8 m to 12 m with an antenna output of 250 W, and an omni-directional antenna; and a power supply. The ground station equipment was based on a mobile receiving van; a superheterodyne receiver and 38 cm picture tube; apparatus for recording the image on film; and a film processing unit able to project the film images onto a 6 ft × 4 ft screen. The television standard was given as 405 lines per picture sequentially scanned, 12.5 pictures per second (later changed to 25 pictures per second); the quotation price was £10 500; and the delivery time from the date of the quotation’s acceptance was stated to be nine months. The French government proposed to use a Marcel Bloch type 200 night bomber (No. ED83) for the subsequent trials. This was a small aircraft by modern standards, just 52 ft in length, having a wing span of 74 ft; the height of the aircraft with the plane tilted so that the floor was in a horizontal position was 17 ft. Mr R M Herbert33, who was one of the Baird engineers associated with the project, has written: ‘[There was] not a lot of room for nearly half a ton of television equipment and a crew of five comprising a French Air Force pilot and mechanic and three Baird engineers.’ The disastrous fire at the Crystal Palace in November 1936 obviously caused some disruption in the activities of BTL. Fortunately by the summer of 1938 new premises had been acquired at Lower Sydenham and most of the staff had been accommodated there. The small team which worked on the French contract stayed behind in the ‘almost derelict School of Arts building which provided a discreet retreat for [the] confidential project’. Here, ‘in the incongruous surroundings of busts and statues’, the equipment was constructed. The intermediate film system had to be miniaturised and adapted for use in the confined space of the Bloch’s fuselage. Herbert has said that this work led to ‘many problems in connection with size, weight, power supplies, change of air pressure and vibration’. The 51.8 MHz vision transmitter was located in the forward gunner’s position, and the camera viewed the ground through a hole in the floor of the fuselage. Many tests were carried out in June and July 1939. They showed that,

The London television station

331

although the range required by the contract was 10 miles, in practice ranges of up to 25 miles were feasible. A preliminary report, dated 1st August 1939, stated: ‘The demonstration indicated that good pictures could be obtained, the definition of which was exceedingly sharp. As examples of this it was possible to differentiate between certain types of vehicles and to note a white line down the centre of an arterial road, the aircraft being at a height of about 2,000 ft.’ The outbreak of hostilities in September 1939 led to a cessation of work by both EMI and BTL on airborne television. Herbert has said ‘the [Bloch] bomber moved from Villacoublay to Orleans and later Toulouse. Its ultimate fate is unknown but almost certainly it fell into the hands of the Germans.’

References 1 Report of the Television Committee, Cmd 4793, HMSO, January 1935 2 Minutes of the first meeting of the Television Committee, 29th May 1934, Minute Post 33/4682 3 PHILLIPS, F. W.: memorandum to L. Simon, 9th April 1934, Minute Post 3/4682 4 Notes of a meeting of the Television Committee, 7th June. Evidence of Major A. G. Church and Mr A. G. D. West on behalf of Baird Television Ltd., Appendix II, Minute Post 4003/1935 5 Minutes of the second meeting of the Television Committee, 7th June 1934, Minute Post 33/4682 6 Baird Television Ltd.: memorandum, 14th August 1934, Minute Post 33/4682 7 Ref. 1, p. 4 8 Television Advisory Committee, minutes of the first meeting, 5th February 1935, Post Office bundle 5536 9 Technical Sub-committee, minutes of the first meeting, 11th February 1935, Minute Post 33/5533 10 Technical Sub-committee, minutes of the second meeting, 15th February 1935, Minute Post 33/5533 11 Technical Sub-committee, minutes of the 4th, 5th and 6th meetings held on 26th February 1935, 1st March 1935 and 8th March 1935, Minute Post 33/5533 12 Electric and Musical Industries, response to questionnaire of the Technical Sub-committee on ‘Proposed vision transmitter’, Minute Post 33/5533 13 Baird Television Ltd, response to questionnaire of the Technical Sub-committee on ‘Proposed vision transmitter’, Minute Post 33/5533 14 ASHBRIDGE, N.: letter to J. Varley Roberts, 27th August 1936, Minute Post 33/5536 15 Television Advisory Committee, minutes of the 32nd meeting, 15th October 1936, Post Office bundle 5536 16 SELSDON, Lord: speech at television opening, 2nd November 1936 17 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 134 18 COCK, G.: ‘Report on Baird and Marconi–EMI systems at Alexandra Palace’, TAC paper no. 33, 9th December 1936

332

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

19 Ref. 17, p. 138 20 NORMAN, B: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (BBC and The Royal Television Society, London p. 107 21 Ibid., pp. 130–1 22 Ibid., p. 134 23 Ibid., p. 138 24 Television Advisory Committee, minutes of the 34th meeting, 16th December 1936, Post Office bundle 5536 25 SECRETARY (TAC): letter to Baird Television Ltd, 18th December 1936, Post Office bundle 5536 26 Draft of public announcement, Post Office bundle 5536 27 SECRETARY (BTL): letter to J. Varley Roberts, 22nd December 1936, TAC paper no. 34, Post Office bundle 5536 28 BAIRD, M.: ‘Television Baird’ (HAUM, Capetown, 1973), p. 135 29 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952), p. 220 30 Ref. 28, p. 134 31 Ref. 17, pp. 139–40 32 Ref. 29, p. 215 33 HERBERT, R. M.: ‘Airborne television. A spy in the sky’, Bulletin of the British Vintage Wireless Society, May 1993, 18 (2), pp. 19–22

Chapter 17

Baird and cinema television

From January 1932 John Baird and his wife Margaret lived in Hampstead, an affluent residential area of London. Their home was just a few miles from Baird Television Ltd’s laboratories and facilities at 133 Long Acre in Central London, so commuting between the two places posed no undue difficulties. In July 1933, with the renting by BTL of accommodation in the Crystal Palace, which was situated in the Norwood district of South London, the journey for Baird from Hampstead to Norwood would have been longer and more tiresome. He decided, unknown to his wife, to buy a property at 3 Crescent Wood Road, Sydenham which was approximately one mile from the Palace. Margaret Baird’s first reaction on seeing the house was one of awe1. ‘The house which John had bought was Georgian, vast, with acres of bare floors and windows high out of reach. The old kitchen, with its pantry, maids’ sitting-room, larder, and cellars, took my breath away. Weakly, I sat down on the steps. Nanny chose that moment to say: “Of course, madam, if you live here I’ll have to give notice: all my friends are in Hampstead.” ‘There was nothing for it but to make [the house] habitable. The dining-room and the drawing-room opened into each other and measured sixty feet from end to end. The heating system required a man in the cellar all day, feeding coal into the furnace with a long-handled shovel. We never really warmed the house in winter. ‘I bought acres of Wilton carpeting and haunted auctions buying the largest pieces of furniture I could to fill the rooms. The final effect combined Jacobean and Chinese. We had a magnificent sideboard and table of dark oak, Chinese carpets and rugs, the decoration [being] completed by the Chinese bowls and vases then fashionable. ‘The grounds covered three acres and contained four enormous beech trees, which John named Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, and Baird. He had the rose garden dug up and sweeping lawns laid out, probably because the garden of The Lodge at Helensburgh was mainly grass.’

Before the First World War Sydenham had been a fashionable suburb where the wealthy had had their grand houses built in the Gothic or Georgian styles. In keeping with those times some of these houses, including 3 Crescent Wood Road, had a combined coach house and stable, with living accommodation for a

334

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 17.1

John Logie Baird’s private laboratory at 3 Crescent Wood Road, Sydenham. The model is Paddy Naismith

Source: The Royal Television Society

coachman on the first floor. Since Baird intended to set up his own personal laboratory at his residence, he immediately on arrival arranged for an additional one thousand square feet of new construction to be erected next to the west-end wall of the coach house. This space plus the coach house, and the former maids’ sitting room and larder in the main house, became Baird’s private laboratory where he did his research, with his personal staff, independently of the general work which was being undertaken by BTL at Crystal Palace. From the outset of his life’s work on television, Baird had been interested in cinema television. Indeed, as noted in an earlier chapter, when he commenced his activities in Hastings the Hastings and St Leonards Observer reported in January 1924: ‘A Scotsman has come south, in fact he has come to Hastings, and this particular Scotsman is now engaged upon perfecting an invention which at some not very distant date may enable people to sit in a cinema and see on the screen the finish of the Derby at the same moment as the horses are passing the post, or may be the Carpentier–Demsey fight . . .’. A few years later, in June 1931, Baird had televised, albeit crudely, the Derby from Epsom, and in June 1932 he had shown images of the Derby on a large-screen in the Metropole Cinema. The Daily Herald reporter2 who witnessed the event was enthusiastic about the prospect which appeared to be unfolding. ‘With five thousand people in the Metropole Cinema, Victoria, S.W., fifteen miles from Epsom, I watched the finish of the Derby, while thousands on the Downs saw nothing of yesterday’s great race. It was the most thrilling demonstration of the possibilities of

Baird and cinema television

335

television yet witnessed. It made history. . . . As we sat in the darkened theatre distance was annihilated.’

Baird was not alone in concluding that a viable market existed for cinema television. Various schemes were advanced in the 1930s in the USA, Germany and the UK. These have been described in the author’s book Television, An International History of the Formative Years3. When, in 1933, John Baird began his personal investigation of cinema television he had one assistant, P V Reveley4: he had been the technical assistant who had set up and operated Baird’s mirror drum equipment at the Metropole Cinema. At first, Reveley’s only colleague was ‘George’, Baird’s gardenerhandyman. He was a relative of Mr Morse, the head carpenter at 133 Long Acre. George’s task was to restore the neglected overgrown grounds at 3 Crescent Wood Road, but soon he was helping Reveley in making parts for a new scanner. He has written: ‘What could be accomplished manually, by the use of hand tools on site, was done by George and myself. Standard components and materials were ordered direct from suppliers by JLB by telephone, working in the main from the comfort of his bedroom, from whence he maintained also a continuous general liaison with his many technical and business contacts . . .’

Special parts which had to be machined were manufactured by B J Lynes, who had his own small prototype and model-making business located in ‘mews premises somewhere in the Euston Road area’. It was Lynes who made the scanning apparatus, to J C Wilson’s design, which was installed in the basement studio of the BBC’s Broadcasting House. From time to time Wilson, at Baird’s request, would visit Crescent Wood Road to discuss with Baird and Reveley the design of a new part. ‘I [Reveley] liked to define things by making sketches, but JLB was always anxious to push on and discouraged anything he thought might lead to loss of time.’ ‘Results Mr Reveley, not reports’, Baird would say. For his new scanner Baird abandoned the three-zone television system which he had employed for the Metropole Cinema demonstration and decided to use a television standard based on 120 lines per picture, 16.67 pictures per second— each picture comprising six interlaced frames, each of 20 lines scanned 100 times per second—the aspect ratio being 5.5 (high) by 4 (wide). Baird’s choice of such a complex standard suggests that he was looking ahead to the time when he would be able to demonstrate colour television. In a colour television system of the frame sequential type each picture comprises three frames, R, G and B corresponding to the images of a scene as viewed (separately) in red, green and blue light. If now a colour picture is formed from two interlaced colour pictures (to reduce flicker as in black and white television) it is evident that six frames are required to constitute the final image. For his purpose Baird used two mirror drum scanners, driven at 6000 r.p.m. by 100 Hz synchronous motors. The scanners were designed by Reveley and manufactured by Lynes from duralumin forgings, and contained glass mirrors which were toughened before silvering. The mean facet pitch diameter and the facet

336

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

width were 12 inches and 4 inches respectively and the mirror drums had to be enclosed to reduce air turbulence to an acceptable level. Similarly the air-cooled drive motors had to be ‘more spaciously enclosed to reduce noise. [The] containment panels were of [the] cavity wall type to permit [the] removal of heat by [a] through flow of water.’ At the studio end of the transmission link one of the scanners was employed in a flying spotlight configuration—the light source being a Zeiss 10 A automatic arc lamp. Banks of either caesium or rubidium photosensitive cells provided an adequate video signal. The receiving apparatus comprised a mirror drum scanner, another Zeiss 10 A arc lamp, and a Kerr cell. Pulse generation for synchronising the sending-end and receiving-end scanners, and for interlacing the six frames of each picture, was achieved by using ‘a rotating disc cum optical sensor pulse machine’. During tests of the system at Crescent Wood Road, Baird and Reveley used a cable link, the sending and receiving units being separated by the width of the coach yard. From the outset, a Cossor electrostatically deflected, intensity modulated cathode ray tube was employed as a ‘sending control room outgoing picture monitor. It had a green colour fluorescent screen about five inches in diameter.’ Baird first demonstrated his new system at the Dominion Theatre, London on 4th January 1937. According to Today’s Cinema5: ‘Gaumont–British were overwhelmed with requests for tickets for the opening show yesterday, and of significance is the fact that the bulk of these came from members of the trade anxious to watch the public reaction to the new entertainment.’ ‘The actual program consisted of a stage prologue, and a fanfare of trumpets, after which George Lansbury, MP, made the first appearance on the special [6 ft × 4 ft] screen. A televised variety program followed, including Billy Bennet, Sutherland Felce (compère), and Haver and Lee, the latter team conducting a cross-talk act, one member appearing on the screen and the other on the stage. ‘It was explained that the temporary studio [on the roof of the theatre] was due to the destruction of the Baird station in the Crystal Palace.’

The Daily Film Renter6 noted that the experiment was received with ‘moderate enthusiasm by a packed house’, and Today’s Cinema reported that ‘the performance had considerable novelty attraction’. But not everyone was impressed. ‘While the pictures transmitted were, though rather dim, perfectly visible, television on this scale has yet to attain the clearness and precision of the pictures obtained by the smaller receiving sets. One may have been distracted by the incongruously amplified voices of those appearing on the screen, but the pictures certainly seemed to be disfigured by some flicker and “rain”, as in the early silent films, that is now unusual in ordinary transmissions of television.’7

In addition to Baird, the Scophony Company8, too, felt that a substantial market existed in the UK for cinema television apparatus. For several years it had been developing the highly original inventions of G W Walton and in December 1933 S Rowson9, the Chairman of the company and a pioneer of the British film business, observed: ‘From an entertainment point of view, scenes of

Baird and cinema television

337

current events can be transmitted by wireless or possibly by a wire, for immediate reproduction, or they may be filmed for later exhibition as desired. One master film could be sent out simultaneously to a chain of receiving stations in cinemas and shown directly on the screen.’ Later in September 1936, Sir Maurice Bonham Carter10 the new chairman said: ‘We expect to be able, before the close of the year, to have medium screen receivers installed for public demonstration in London, and by the middle of next year to have our cinema apparatus installed for public use.’ Approximately one year later Sagall11, the Managing Director of Scophony, announced in July (the month after cinema television had been discussed in some detail by the TAC) that his firm was working on a system suitable for producing a picture 16 ft by 12 ft, ‘which should be good enough for the largest kinema’. He hoped this would be demonstrated before Christmas and added: ‘Television will not kill the kinema—on the countrary. The kinema will have to have its own service for it will not accept the present Alexandra Palace transmissions. I visualise the day when it will be possible to televise ballet and other performances to 500 cinemas in the Greater London area.’

Baird Television Ltd’s interest in cinema television was clarified when Clayton and Church12 met the TAC in January 1937 to discuss the adoption of a single transmission standard at Alexandra Palace. Church asked Lord Selsdon whether permission could be given for the company to make experimental transmissions over the ether from the Crystal Palace or elsewhere in that neighbourhood, in connection with their television research, and Clayton referred to the large-screen experiments (‘visual public address’) which J L Baird was conducting at the Dominion Theatre. BTL’s intentions were confirmed when the company applied13 in May 1937 to the PMG for a licence to transmit, using a wavelength of 8.3 m and a bandwidth of 2 MHz, their own television programmes to cinemas and other places of entertainment. BTL pointed out that they had carried out experiments on largescreen television for the past two or three years and had undertaken experiments in a London cinema for the past year. Clayton14 in his letter further mentioned that the method of transmission was different from that used by BBC and therefore could not be received on a home television set as used in connection with BBC programmes. The company’s application was brought to the attention of the TAC but it was unable to recommend that the suggested wireless service to cinemas should be authorised, ‘as there was no available room in the ether’15. Undaunted by the Post Office’s letter of refusal of June 1937, the Baird company, in association with the Gaumont–British Picture Corporation (G–BPC), gave its first large-screen reproduction of a BBC television programme in the Palais-de-Luxe cinema, Bromley, on 7th December 1937. The demonstration, which occurred at a distance of 30 miles from the BBC’s London station, was a great success, noted the Bromley and West Kent Mercury16. ‘The programme was at all times perfectly clear, both from the front of the

338

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

theatre and from the back. The focus was excellent and there was never sufficient interference to disturb the enjoyment of the audience.’ Marsland Gander17 of the Daily Telegraph described the event as ‘easily the most impressive I have seen’. The pictures at the Palais-de-Luxe were seen by Mr Isidore Ostrer, President of the Gaumont–British Picture Corporation, and Mr Mark Ostrer, the Managing Director, and they decided immediately to give demonstrations to the public. They intended to equip 15 of the 300 cinemas in the London area. Though the legal position concerning the BBC’s monopoly of television broadcasting seemed to G–BPC to be obscure, nevertheless they considered the issue should be put to the test. Pending the possible establishment of a new central transmitter for this purpose, G–BPC proposed to reproduce in its cinemas short excerpts from the BBC’s programmes which would be added to the news film. The BBC was, of course, not unaware of the progress, and interest being shown, in television for the cinema. Because it was unlikely that all members of the public would be able to afford to purchase a television receiver for their home use, the possibility existed that a strong demand from the public for cinema television would emerge following the start of the high-definition service at Alexandra Palace. Baird had aroused public interest with his crude 30-line images, hence it was reasonable to assume that pictures having an improved definition would prove to be very attractive. Baird’s intention was ‘to obtain the backing of the entire industry in an application to the Government for permission to broadcast special television programmes to cinemas’18. He had been refused a licence by the Postmaster General but, of course, he had had much experience in mustering support for his cause in the past when such rebuffs had been given. Now, with G–BPC’s powerful help, he would seek the aid of the entertainment industry to persuade the Government to accede to his request for a licence. Baird had convinced the Ostrer brothers of the need for cinema television and, with their financial backing, probably felt that he was on secure ground. In his autobiographical notes Baird has related in an anecdotal way some of the background to this episode in the history of cinema television19. ‘[I] had built up a big screen and projector. This, with Ostrer’s consent, had been installed in the Dominion Theatre, so that some sort of start had been made. The BBC decision [in favour of M–EMI] was a blow to Ostrer and he was thoroughly dissatisfied and was even hinting at withdrawing his support from the company [BTL] when, by a heaven-sent opportunity, I was thrown in contact with him at the [1937] Television Exhibition of the Science Museum. I was filled to exploding point with enthusiasm for cinema television and let him have it in full force. Ostrer (when once one established contact) was very impressionable and he rose at once. We had tea together and discussed the position at length. “Some vital personality is needed to force this thing through”, said [Ostrer]. “We need fresh blood. It will be a big fight—we need a fighter.” ‘Several names were mentioned and then the name I had been waiting for—Sydney A Moseley! . . . We parted on most friendly terms. I was back in the picture. Some of the other directors were out—for the moment anyhow. I wasted no time. I pushed forward

Baird and cinema television

339

my plans and working all day and most of the night, was able to give a demonstration at the Dominion a few weeks later on 4th February 1938.’

(This followed a press preview on 12th December 1937.) At the public demonstration20 images 12 ft × 9 ft in colour were shown, the television signals being received by radio, using a wavelength of 8.3 m, from the Crystal Palace, about 10 miles away. The demonstration took place during the ordinary programme and appeared to be a complete surprise to those members of the audience who had not received a specific invitation to be present. It seems that the only people who were especially invited to the show were some BBC and GPO representatives and Appleton, who was a friend of John Baird. The transmitting apparatus consisted of an 8 in diameter mirror drum, provided with 20 mirrors inclined at different angles, revolving at 6000 r.p.m. These mirrors reflected the scene to be transmitted, through a lens, onto a rotating disc provided with 12 concentric slots positioned at different distances from the disc’s axis. Each of the slots was covered by a colour filter, blue-green and red being used alternately. The disc rotated at 500 r.p.m. and by this means the fields given by the 20-line mirror drum were interlaced six times to give a 120-line picture repeated twice for each revolution of the disc. At the receiving end a similar system of drum and disc was used with the exception that the mirror drum was 12 in. in diameter. Light from a 12 0A highintensity arc lamp was transmitted through a Kerr cell and then concentrated

Figure 17.2

The 20-facet mirror drums of the mechanical colour camera which were used at the Dominion Theatre demonstrations in December 1937 and February 1938

Source: Mr R M Herbert

340

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 17.3

Baird’s 120-colour television mirror drum camera which was utilised for the Dominion Theatre demonstrations

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

onto the moving aperture in the disc. Baird claimed that the projected picture could be seen from all parts of the Dominion Theatre, which had a seating capacity of 3000. The advantages claimed for Baird’s ‘multi-mesh’ system were that it 1. 2. 3.

had a ‘high frame frequency, with an accompanying high l.f. [low frequency] cut-off’; produced a ‘reduction in flicker and a considerably increased light efficiency’; and employed an ‘exceedingly simple optical system of very high efficiency’.

Colonel A G Lee21 of the Post Office’s Telecommunications Department was present at the demonstration and recorded his impressions. ‘The scenes televised consisted of half-length views of announcers and mannequins, one at a time, the Union Jack and a side view of the head and shoulders colour portrait of the King. The picture was reasonably bright, but probably not bright enough for public performances, and the colours seemed satisfactory for a first demonstration, although in my view completely spoilt from a technical aspect by some 30 or 40 bright green vertical bars having a very appreciable width. The bars moved slowly across the picture and were

Baird and cinema television

341

always present and the definition was much inferior to that obtainable on the 405-line television from Alexandra Palace. The number of lines used was not stated, but it is estimated that not more than about 120 could have been used from the definition attained. This low definition was particularly noticeable in the reproduction of the King’s portrait, the vertical edge of the King’s forehead . . . weaving in and out very markedly, although there was no general movement of the picture thereon.’

Lee observed that, while the audience applauded the demonstration (and particularly the portrait of the King), they did not seem particularly enthusiastic: possibly the bright green bars and low definition disappointed them. Still, from a technical point of view, Lee found the show interesting and confirmed that ‘considerable progress’ had been made in colour television, but that there still remained a lot of work to be done on the subject ‘before the public [would] treat it as anything more than a mere novelty’. Those members of the public who saw television for the first time on the above occasion would probably have formed a poor impression of the possibilities of ordinary television now available to the London population, Lee concluded. Another demonstration was given on Thursday morning, 17th February, before members of the Television Society, the press and a number of distinguished guests22. Lord Selsdon was present on this occasion and later he wrote: ‘Needless to say it [the system of colour television] is in a very crude state at present and, as he [Baird] can only use 8.33 frames/second of each colour, the resultant picture is badly framed by bars, the number of lines for each colour is of course admitting a very low order of definition, and a pretty strong arc light has to be used in order to get any illumination. Still with all its defects, he is producing a [12 ft × 9 ft] colour picture.’

Ostrer was, of course, invited to the 4th February demonstration. Afterwards he and John Baird had a long talk on the possible future of cinema television, which led to Ostrer arranging to get in touch with Moseley forthwith. ‘A few days later, to the utter dismay of other members of the Board, Ostrer appeared at the Crystal Palace accompanied by the “arch-villain” Sydney. Here was the man whom members of the Board had been criticising being shown round and consulted by the “deity” himself, who obviously had it in his mind to place him in the dominant position in the company. It was one of the few occasions when I [John Baird] have seen my critics look thoroughly upset. “Good Lord!” said one to me, “do you know who Ostrer is bringing with him?—Moseley!” and then, realising that I did not share his outlook, “Oh! I suppose you know all about it!” ‘As the Board had all but forced Moseley’s resignation, some of the members were none too pleased to see him, but Ostrer’s word was law. Ostrer and Moseley were now united in brotherly love and close communication, causing much snorting and gnashing of teeth among the anti-Baird party. They dissembled their grief, however, and greeted Moseley as the long lost brother. ‘The situation ripened nicely. A little private meeting followed, at which Moseley, Ostrer, West and myself were present. We had a happy little meeting.’23

It was decided to form a new company which would progress the development and installation of television equipment in cinemas and which would effectively

The colour television projector (a) and the associated power supply (b) for the Dominion Theatre, 1937/38

Source: Mr R M Herbert

Figure 17.4

a

b

342 John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Baird and cinema television

343

control Baird Television Ltd. John Baird wanted the word ‘Baird’ included in the title of the new company, but the others believed that, if the whole of the cinema industry were to be involved it was preferable to have a general, comprehensive title—at least at the outset. Cinema Television was chosen and it was registered with a nominal capital of £250 000. J L Baird became President at a salary of £4000, Sir Harry Greer was appointed Chairman and Clayton became the Managing Director. Moseley was to have been a member of the Board, but as events unfolded he never joined. Baird thought it was because Moseley did not immediately take up the invitation extended to him, but there were difficulties. Some members of the Board were hostile to Moseley and Ostrer decided that Moseley could be more useful off the Board than on it24. Moseley has written: ‘Ostrer almost persuaded me to [join the Board] in the first instance—and I had another ally in Archie Church—but I did not see how I could work with some of the others and . . . I was still too tired to start fighting all over again.’ Baird was certainly keen to have Moseley selected as a Director: his lively and vivid intelligence and personality would have been of great help not only to Baird but also to the company, especially at the commencement of the Second World War. Unfortunately John Baird could not use his influence as President to press the matter, because at that time he had been invited by the Australian Government to present an address at an important radio convention to be held in Sydney. The invitation seemed particularly attractive not only because the Government agreed to pay all Baird’s expenses, but also because BTL’s representative in Sydney considered the proposed visit as ‘a heaven sent opportunity for opening out in that country’25. So, on 22nd February 1938 Baird and his wife sailed from Marseilles on the Strathaird. Of the voyage itself, the most noteworthy feature was the reception accorded to the Bairds in Bombay. ‘We had an agreement with an Indian syndicate which had acquired our television rights for India. This led to me becoming the guest of H R H the Maharajah of Kutch . . . What a meal! All other banquets pale before it! Dish followed dish, delicious and exotic. I ate heartily and was horribly ill for nearly a week afterwards. In fact, we reached Perth in Australia before my internal organs had got back to normal.’

Mrs Baird, too, was very much impressed by this occasion. As the only woman present, she sat on the right-hand side of the Maharajah, an elderly man whom she found to be cultured and distinguished. ‘The elegance of the occasion, the frangipani on the table with its beautiful appointments, fairly took my breath away.’ After leaving Bombay, smallpox broke out on board. The Bairds were vaccinated and following some deliberations were later permitted to disembark in Adelaide’s outer harbour. They continued their journey by train across Australia to Sydney, via Perth, bypassing Melbourne and missing the arrangements which had been made there. At Perth they were met by Mr L T Bean, who represented BTL’s Australian interests and who had been responsible for

344

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

arranging the visit. Baird gave a lecture to the Perth Radio Society, and then he and his wife were taken on a tour of the town and Freemantle by a professor from Perth University. In Sydney Baird was given ‘a splendid reception . . .and the press (with a little nursing) rose to the occasion and, in fact, gave [him] such publicity as, in the words of a letter Mr Bean afterwards wrote to the Board “had never previously been accorded to any visitor to Australia, not even to the most distinguished royalty” ’. At Sydney University Baird presented a carefully prepared address to an enthusiastic audience. Baird was very much impressed with Australia and with the social conditions which prevailed there. ‘It was a beautiful place with a beautiful climate and one boon which, to me, raised Australia to a unique position. There were no natives; no filthy Arab beggars, as in North Africa, no indolent negroes as in the West Indies; no swarms of wretched poverty-stricken blacks, as in Bombay. But the people were such people as we find at home, road sweepers included.’ His view of a social utopia where extreme poverty had been eradicated by means of State assistance, and where extremes of poverty and riches had been eliminated, appeared to him to have been approximated in Australia. ‘I saw no acute poverty and no “slums” as we understand that term, and on the other hand I saw no evidence of flaunting wealth, and found indeed an almost startling absence of anything in the nature of class distinction. It was a country entirely inhabited by petty bourgeoisie and as I myself belong to that class I felt pleasantly at home.’ All too quickly the Bairds’ sojourn came to an end and they were back again on the Strathaird. ‘I thought the life on board ship ideal and would willingly have continued cruising through these tropical waters indefinitely, but soon we were back in Marseilles and soon after that I was sitting again at that board room table—“Gentlemen, is it your pleasure that I sign these minutes!”. And so on. The machine ran round with little apparent change.’ Life resumed at Sydenham; a charming young lady from Lincolnshire, Miss Yarker, was appointed governess to the Bairds’ two children, and two country girls were employed as maids26. Baird and his family continued to enjoy an affluent lifestyle, and Baird Television Ltd seemed to be on the verge of a potentially prosperous future, but the European situation was ominous and caused grave concern. On 7th March 1938, two years after German troops had invaded the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland, German forces invaded Austria and annexed the country with no opposition. In May Hitler decided to occupy the Sudetenland, and German divisions began to move into a position for an invasion, but France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union all announced that such a move would elicit an immediate military response: Hitler was obliged to abandon his immediate plan. Thereafter, throughout the summer, the Nazis promoted ‘incidents’ in the Sudetenland in an attempt to strengthen their argument that the plight of the Sudeten Germans should be settled quickly. These incidents and Hitler’s oratory at a Nuremburg Rally led to a revolt in the

Baird and cinema television

345

Sudetenland, which was rapidly crushed by the Czeckoslovakian Government of President Benes. At this point Mr N Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, attempted to avert by diplomacy what threatened to become an imminent armed conflict. Peace was prolonged by the Munich discussions of 29th September 1938, when France and Great Britain agreed that Germany could begin occupying the Sudetenland from 1st October 1938, in return for Hitler’s guarantee that this would be his ‘last territorial demand in Europe’. The two Allies believed, naïvely, that this would bring ‘peace in our time’. Mrs Baird felt certain, as did Moseley, that there would be a war and urged her husband to take his family to South Africa. Eventually, Baird leased a furnished house in Minehead, Somerset and, though the imminence of war receded temporarily after the Munich accord, Mrs Baird and the children resided there for six months. They returned to Sydenham in January 1939 and in April spent three weeks in St Tropez. While in Minehead, Margaret Baird organised a series of six monthly concerts for which she engaged, and accompanied, Brosa, the violinist, Garda Hall, a South African singer, Betty Humby (who later became Lady Beecham) and Gaby Valle, the soprano27. For more than two years the issue of cinema television was discussed by the Television Advisory Committee. The BBC’s representatives on the TAC were particularly concerned at the plans and pretensions of Baird Television Ltd and Scophony Ltd for cinema television. The Corporation’s misgivings were several28. 1.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

The establishment of television posed a threat to the furtherance of domestic television, as the sales of receivers might be limited if the public could view television in the cinema. There was the possibility that the BBC would have to pay increased costs to various sporting organisations for the rights to televise outside events. This was because the Corporation thought the companies would be able to make large profits by admitting programmes for advertising purposes, and would be able to force up the price of outside broadcasts to a figure beyond the resources of the Corporation. The Corporation was apprehensive that artists engaged by a private television company for televised performances in cinemas would be debarred from appearing in the BBC’s programmes. The position concerning copyright in television transmissions was somewhat uncertain. The BBC feared poorly reproduced images in cinemas would militate against the sale of sets. Congestion of the ether might result if companies were allowed to transmit by means of radio links.

In addition to these practical objections, the Corporation considered that an application by a company for a licence to transmit their own television programmes to cinemas and other places of entertainment would be contrary to the spirit of

346 1.

2.

John Logie Baird, television pioneer the Television Committee’s 1935 report, in which it was recommended (paragraphs 39 and 40) that the conduct of the public broadcast service of television should be entrusted to a single body, and that that body should be the BBC; and the report of the Ullswater committee: to permit a company to transmit televised images to cinemas was tantamount to setting up a second public broadcast service in competition with the BBC.

But against these points there was a feeling that cinema television was inevitable and that the Postmaster General could not be instrumental in holding up such a development and, furthermore, the provision of television services to cinemas provided the only means whereby those who could not afford to buy a receiver could enjoy television. During the uneasy European situation of 1938 the procrastination of the Post Office in regard to cinema television led the leader writer of the Daily Film Renter29 to observe: ‘Surely it would not be too much to expect from the Minister to say definitely, one way or the other, that cinemas may or may not transmit television programmes to their patrons. The television industry, as well as exhibitors, would welcome such a ruling, which would have a beneficial effect for all parties, including the BBC. To impede the progress of this new science, at a time when this country is still ahead of all its competitors, would be a great pity, but in refusing to define the policy of the Government the P M G is actually bringing this about.’

However, while the Postmaster General was not able or willing to state his policy, the Gaumont–British Picture Corporation Ltd was quite clear about its company policy. At the meeting held to adopt the Directors’ report30 and audited accounts for the year ended 31st March 1938, Mr Isidore Ostrer mentioned: ‘In regard to our television interest in Baird, owing to the co-operation between Gaumont–British and the Baird Company, the Baird Company are in a position to install immediately—and in fact have already installed one large-screen set—in theatres and cinemas. The Derby was shown in one of our West End theatres and the audience saw the Derby finish more clearly and probably more satisfactorily than the great majority on the course. ‘The importance of this revolutionary advance in television—where we are in a position to present to you the Test matches, the tennis matches, in fact almost everything of real interest whilst it is going on—is obvious. You can see the Test matches from your armchair; it is largely due to our vision and co-operation with the Baird company that we are in this unique position, and further that Baird leads the world at that moment in cinema reception of events. ‘What I am leading up to is this: we have asked the BBC for permission to show television in our cinemas, other cinemas and theatres to have the same right.’

The Derby transmission which Ostrer mentioned in his address was shown on 1st June 1938 in the Tatler, a Gaumont–British newsreel house in Charing Cross Road, London, before an invited audience, which included the trade leaders

Baird and cinema television

Figure 17.5

347

The original cathode ray tube large-screen projection equipment used in the Tatler cinema, London, on the occasion of the trooping of the colour in 1938

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

Isidore Ostrer, C M Woolf, S Eckman Jnr., A Jarrat and W R Fuller (‘If that is not evidence of interest in the demonstrations, I don’t know what is’).31 The equipment used included ‘a giant cathode ray tube’ which projected an image of its screen onto a cinema screen comparable in size with that used for ordinary cinema work32. It will be recalled that Baird’s previous Derby spectacular, in 1932, had used a zone television system by which three images were projected side by side. Reaction to the broadcast was mixed: ‘Technically, big screen television is still behind the film; but yesterday’s entertainment had a thrill which cannot be duplicated of a film of a news event; the thrill of the unexpected. . . . Yesterday’s show once again demonstrated that big screen television can play a part in cinema entertainment if it is used at the time for special news events such as the Derby or a boxing match, in which the main thrill depends on not knowing in advance what is going to happen.’33 ‘The show confirms my conviction expressed on the occasion of the last demonstration, that the time will come soon when every cinema will have to have television as a normal part of its entertainment; and it also confirms my view that television will not be a rival to films but an ally, to be used only for special events.’34

348

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

‘This is bluntly exactly what the transmission was like. At moments, had it not been for the commentator, I shouldn’t have known whether I was looking at this year’s Derby or last year’s winter sports! That was just now and again when the screen was a mass of blurred black and white, in which I could pick out here and there what appeared to be the top of a roundabout or the figure of a horse in the distance. At other moments I clearly saw the owners strolling about the paddock—the horses being paraded—and the serried rows of people on the grandstand. When, however, the commentator told me I was looking at the King and Queen walking up to the Royal Enclosure—I just had to take his word for it.’35

This mixture of exclamatory reporting on the one hand and rather brutal, realistic coverage on the other, reflected, from the time in 1925 when Baird gave his first public demonstration, a characteristic of Baird’s and BTL’s previous demonstrations There is no doubt that Baird’s publicity methods put the name of John Logie Baird firmly before the public. John Logie Baird was the inventor of television in the eyes of the general public; they knew of the struggles he had experienced in the early days of television and probably had much sympathy for him; he embodied the layman’s concept of a rather absent-minded inventor, and his rather shy, kind and courteous manner endeared him to reporters; above all, he was the one person in a company who could be identified with the invention of television. EMI had no such personality; neither Shoenberg nor Blumlein were known to the general public and while G W Walton’s name was often mentioned in connection with Scophony’s experiments and inventions, no aura surrounded this particular inventor. Not surprisingly, therefore, though Baird’s ‘Derby show’ attracted considerable interest in the press, the Scophony cinema television performance seemed less popular with the news medium. Scophony’s presentation36 was held in a salon of the Kensington store of Derry and Toms and utilised a 6 ft by 5 ft screen. It was seen by an invited audience of approximately 500. According to the Daily’s technical representatives both Bairds’ and Scophony’s shows ‘at times reached remarkably high standards, particularly during the later stages of the actual race, when the finish was shown with a degree of clarity little short of modern newsreel presentation, in each case definition being so good as to bring spontaneous demonstrations of enthusiasm from the massed viewers’. The sequel to the Tatler presentation was threefold: 1.

2. 3.

the actual Baird equipment used was put on view at the official Gaumont– British Equipment stand at the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association (CEA) Exhibition at Folkestone; similar apparatus remained installed in the theatre to give private trade shows of cinema television; and Gaumont–British Equipment invited immediate enquiries concerning the new medium.

Today’s Cinema in an editorial37 headed ‘To what use?’ commented on point 3 mentioned above.

Baird and cinema television

349

‘We may not like the idea of television, but we cannot afford to be indifferent to it. . . . Therefore showmen will want to have a look at big screen television for themselves. . . . They should ask themselves: “To what use can we put this thing?” They must realise that there are many difficulties to be surmounted before television can be converted from a potential opposition to the film industry into a useful adjunct and ally. Many technical advances have to be made; there is the problem of negotiating rights before rediffusion; there is the undoubted fact that the enormous novelty interest which television now possesses is not a permanent asset, and that a greatly improved television programme service is just one of the many necessary developments.’

Apart from these points, the important and complex issues of copyright and licensing greatly exercised the minds of the TAC, the BBC and the cinema trade for many months. On 18th January 1939 the TAC38 received a deputation from G–BPC (Mr Isidore Ostrer, Colonel Micklem, and Captain West). At the meeting the BBC’s representative made an announcement which surprised the film trade and led to television being shown in cinemas before fee-paying audiences. It was the breakthrough which the trade wanted. The deputation reaffirmed its views in relation to large-screen television and its possible repercussions in the home and in the national sphere, and in particular stressed how important it was that cinema interests should not fall into the same position in the field of television that arose when ‘talkies’ were first introduced. In that case, Ostrer said, the American corporations were able to dominate completely the British cinema interests by placing severe restrictions on the showing of American films in cinemas which were not equipped with their apparatus, and the United Kingdom paid not less than £5 000 000 unnecessarily in terms of excessive monopoly prices for apparatus and servicing, although equally good apparatus was available in this country. To such a length was this carried out ‘that even the Gaumont company was compelled to install American equipment in a large number of its own theatres’, although the company eventually managed to break the virtual monopoly position, and thereby save the country some millions of pounds. Ostrer informed the TAC that cinema interests in America were satisfied that television in cinemas was bound to come in the near future and were making plans accordingly—‘with practically unlimited funds’. He foresaw that America could at a given moment dominate the apparatus end of the business in Britain in the same way as it had done in the talkies, with the result that millions of pounds would flow unnecessarily to the American corporations directly or indirectly. In the circumstances, he asked that every encouragement should be given in this country to Gaumont–British or any other organisation to make a start with the public showing of television in cinemas without delay in order to keep ahead of the USA. Ostrer mentioned that, under the conditions prevailing at the time, no company engaged in developing and exploiting television could earn profits, because of the smallness of the home sales of television sets. On the other hand, the expenses incurred in maintaining management and technical staffs, workshops

350

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

and laboratories were heavy and companies were starved for finance, thereby leading to the arresting of technical development. The granting of permission to show television in cinemas, however, would open an important source of revenue to the television companies and the difficulties of finance would be eliminated. Gaumont–British wished to make a start with the showing of outside television broadcasts and Ostrer suggested that, as in the case of news reels, one body should act on behalf of all cinemas direct with the promoters of the televised events for reception in cinemas, but that such an approach should only be made after the BBC had made their arrangements in respect of home television reception. He agreed that cinemas should also make some payment to the BBC for the broadcasts and thought that cinema reception of television would assist sales of home receivers. All of this would help to improve the programmes and the transmissions and would be beneficial in every way. Ostrer thought that in time ‘second feature’ films might be replaced by a television programme and the money saved by the non-purchase of these sometimes inferior films, (mainly American), used to pay for the television programmes produced at home. Captain West reported on the very considerable technical progress which had been made with the projection equipment since the Committee had visited the Tatler in November 1938: the television picture was now ‘actually brighter than the cinema picture’, its size had been increased to 15 feet and it could now be viewed equally well from any part of the theatre. The conclusion for Gaumont–British was clear: it was of ‘vital importance that (cinema television) should not be held up for a minute longer than necessary . . . any delay would be the equivalent of giving the USA corporations unnecessary advantages’. Gaumont–British were convinced it was generally accepted as a ‘natural law’ that cinemas and theatres in Britain could not be prevented indefinitely from showing television to the public. For the BBC Mr Graves rather surprisingly said they ‘were sympathetic to the idea of the reception of television [outside broadcasts] in cinemas’. Unfortunately, the Minutes of the 57th meeting of the TAC give no explanation for this remarkable volte face. Selsdon, Phillips, Brown and Smith had been either sympathetic to, or realistic in regard to, cinema television, but from January 1936 Ashbridge and Carpendale, and later Graves, had all argued against the introduction of television broadcasts in cinemas. The BBC had obtained Counsel’s opinion on the matter and Sir John Reith and the Board of Governors of the Corporation had made their apprehensions known to Sir T G Gardiner and Lord Selsdon. A number of factors may have influenced the Corporation’s change of attitude. First, Counsel’s advice regarding the non-enforcibility of any possible legal action taken by the Corporation to prevent the reproduction of televised sporting events in cinemas; secondly, the apparent inevitability of cinema television and the prospect of adverse criticism from the press and the House of Commons in the event that the BBC did not agree to Gaumont–British’s request; thirdly, a realisation that cinema television could be beneficial to television broadcasting generally on the lines suggested by Ostrer; and fourthly, a

Baird and cinema television

351

feeling that cinema television would not come about for some considerable time because of the ominous state of the international situation. The BBC of course had been subjected to much attack from the press and other quarters in the latter half of the 1920s because of its apparent lack of enthusiasm for the development of television. An acrimonious and at times bitter dialogue had existed between the Corporation and the Baird companies and their supporters: Moseley had mustered all his professional skill, which was considerable, as a journalist and writer, to win support for the Baird cause; questions had been asked in Parliament; and the Prime Minister, Postmaster General, the Prince of Wales and other leading figures had been appealed to by Moseley and others in an effort to compel the BBC to show favour to Bairds. Later, following the start of the low-definition era of television, relations between the BBC and BTL had been good, but once BTL had learnt of the ‘intrusion’ of EMI into the field of television, further animosity had been engendered between BTL and the Corporation. Moseley, Greer, Baird and Ampthill had all argued forcibly about the danger of American big business taking over British television interests, and now Ostrer was warning of a similar threat in the case of cinema television. With the history of these events no doubt firmly in their minds, Reith and his controllers (including Ashbridge, Carpendale and Graves) may have felt, in view of the impending possibility of a second World War—which would lead to a cessation of television broadcasting—that further objections to the reproduction of television in public places was not worth the powder and the shot. In any case, Ostrer’s arguments based on the situation which had prevailed during the introduction of the ‘talkies’ were very cogent and, together with the known opinions of Selsdon, Brown, Smith and Philips of the Television Advisory Committee, may have swayed the BBC to adopt a more conciliatory stance. The first occasion at which television was shown in cinemas before a paying audience occurred on 23rd February 1939, when the BBC televised the lightweight title fight between Eric Boon and Arthur Danahar39. Both the Baird and Scophony companies took advantage of the BBC’s change of attitude and made their large-screen apparatuses available for the purpose. BTL’s equipment, which was described as the outcome of several years’ development work on cathode ray tubes, was installed at the Marble Arch Pavilion and at the Tatler Theatre. Each twin projector unit—one was a reserve— contained cathode ray tubes, which operated at 45 kV. The size of the image on the screen of each tube was 5.5 in by 4.4 in and this was projected by 14 in f/1.8 and 10 in f/1.6 Taylor, Taylor and Hobson lenses at the above mentioned cinemas respectively. The units were mounted in the centre of the stalls of the two cinemas so that no seat was obstructed by the apparatus, and the 45 kV EHT supply was obtained from equipment housed in protective cages sited beneath the stages of the cinemas. Much effort had been expended on the development of the projection cathode ray tube, which was of a novel design and became known as the ‘teapot’ tube

352

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 17.6

One of the original large-projection cathode ray tubes used by Baird for his direct projection of television pictures onto a cinema screen

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

because of its shape. The fluorescent screen was deposited on a metal plate and the optical image formed on it by the electron beam was projected from the same side as the scanning beam. This arrangement had several advantages40: 1. an increased illumination, with anode voltage for a given beam current, compared to that obtained with a glass screen; 2. an increased illumination by a factor of two because of the lack of absorption of the emitted light in the screen material; 3. a greater uniformity of field illumination since the emitted light from the screen did not have to traverse the possibly variable thickness of the fluorescent material; 4. the possibility of controlling the temperature rise of the screen; and 5. the possibility of accurately shaping the image to conform to the field of focus of the projection lens.

At the Marble Arch Pavilion (1400 seats) and at the Tatler Theatre (700 seats) 15 ft × 12 ft and 12 ft 6 in × 10 ft silver screens were used. A contemporary account of the demonstrations mentioned that these screens gave an even distribution of light values throughout the theatre and that the projection units gave a highlight illumination of the screen at the order of 20 lux. This was considered to be adequate and no dimming of the exit lights or of the general theatre lighting was required. At the Monseigneur News Theatre Scophony41 employed its supersonic light control system together with a standard cinema Connolly arc. A 6 ft × 5 ft picture was produced on a flat, translucent screen, using rear projection, and the apparent brightness was of the order of 3 ft lamberts in the highlights.

Baird and cinema television

Figure 17.7

353

Improvements in cathode ray tube projection on 8 ft × 6 ft (2.44 m × 1.83 m) screen: (a) illumination falling on the screen; (b) equivalent illumination when using a glass-beaded screen; (c) equivalent illumination when using the special screen which reflects light only into the area occupied by the seats of the theatre

Source: Jour. Br. Kinematograph Soc., 1939, 2

In all these demonstrations the signals were received by means of antennas mounted on the roofs of the theatres. The signal strength was ‘adequate’ and no interference from car ignition systems or flashing neon signs was experienced. It is interesting to note that the promoters of the boxing fight had approached the BBC in the first instance regarding permission to show televised pictures of the fight in certain cinemas rather than vice versa. The BBC’s agreement to the proposal was only given as an exceptional arrangement. No payments passed between the promoters and the Corporation and of course the television transmission was available to home viewers as well as to the cinema audiences. There seems little doubt that the reception of the bout in the three cinemas was successful and that the cinema television lobby obtained some useful (misleading, according to Sir Cecil Graves of the BBC) publicity. On 27th July 1939 John Baird showed in his private laboratory at Sydenham his modified large-screen colour television system. The transmitter mirror drum now had 34 facets and produced—with the same angular velocities for the drum and disc as previously used, namely 6000 r.p.m. and 500 r.p.m respectively—an image of 102 lines per picture, triple interlaced. The picture frequency was 16.66 per second. The most interesting aspect of the modified overall system was the use of BTL’s recently developed ‘teapot’ projection cathode ray tube in the

354

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 17.8

Projection television receiver installed in the Marble Arch Cinema for receiving special television programmes

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

receiver in place of the rotating mirror drum and slotted disc. To achieve a coloured image Baird used a rotating disc having 12 circular filters, alternately red and blue-green, situated in front of the screen of the c.r.t.. The test signals were transmitted from Crystal Palace to Baird’s home in Sydenham. No description of the quality of the images obtained appears to be available, but writers who reported on the system described it as ‘a very great advance in television technique’42. The reproduction of the Boon–Danahar fight, in February 1939, aroused a ‘great deal’ of apprehension in the minds of artistes and the Corporation found some evidence that a number of them were ‘afraid’ that large-screen television would become general. As a consequence, the BBC considered it prudent to allay the fears of these artistes, and owners of rights, by inserting a small carefully worded paragraph in the Radio Times43 saying that they would not be contemplating giving ‘general permission for its television programmes to be shown in places of public entertainment, either cinemas or anywhere else’. Moreover the BBC was anxious about the insecurity of the Corporation with regard to the control of television in cinemas and urged the TAC to consider the desirability of having a protective clause in the wireless receiving licence. This insecurity stemmed from the opinion which Counsel had expressed to the BBC on the matter. In addition the BBC was not keen to become entangled with the

Baird and cinema television

355

Baird and Gaumont–British concerns, and there were problems with the promoters of special events. Some of these would not in any circumstances allow their events to be rediffused, while others would only permit their events to be televised if they obtained some payment from the rediffusers. Cock, the BBC’s Director of Television, was particularly exercised by these problems and told the TAC that he was ‘at present adopting an attitude of bluff in order to obtain the events essential for the television service’. But he felt it was only a question of time before this bluff was called and suggested that the TAC should issue a full statement of policy on the issue. Effectively the only method of controlling television was by the wielding of the Postmaster General’s powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904. The Law Officers of the Crown had considered the problems raised by the propagation of television signals and on the strength of their advice the Post Office44 proposed, to the TAC, to restrict the scope of the ordinary 10s. (50p) wireless receiving licence to sound broadcasting and to issue a new licence at a higher fee to cover both television and sound broadcasting reception. This latter licence was to carry a condition barring reception of television, except with the written consent of the BBC, in places where a charge for admission was made. In the meantime since the Law Officers had thought that the position regarding television transmission was arguable, they recommended that in order to make the position safer some written message or notice should be televised in association with every programme. This advice, which the BBC adopted, enabled a safeguard to be introduced pending the establishment of the twolicence system. The new licences could not be made available at Post Offices for sale to the public for some months and in addition there would be a further period of one year before the expiration of the validity of all licences of the existing type. Another aspect of the general problem concerning cinema television which was clarified by the Law Officers’ opinion was that relating to charges. The BBC had made no direct charge to cinemas for the reproduction of outside broadcasts in cinemas because they had regarded their legal situation in the matter as being uncertain, but now, following the Law Officers’ deliberations, the BBC could review its policy. Phillips thought the PMG could cancel the ordinary wireless licence held by an offending cinema and issue in its place a special licence containing a clause prohibiting the reproduction of television programmes without the consent of the BBC. In this way, Philips felt, it was unnecessary and inexpedient to defer establishing the principle of imposing a royalty on cinemas until the new licences were ready for issuance. Apart from the BBC, certain theatre and cinema interests also were rather worried about the reception of television in cinemas and, after the showing of the Boon–Danahar fight, a number of them requested a meeting with the PMG. The PMG sought the TAC’s advice and it was agreed45: 1. ‘that the PMG could not see his way to authorise cinemas to establish a wireless television service of their own;

356

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

2. ‘that for the present the arrangement for allowing cinemas to reproduce television broadcasts transmitted from Alexandra Palace would be limited to outside broadcasts; and 3. ‘that the whole question was still under consideration by the Committee’.

Actually the ‘whole question’ was to be under review by several committees for very many years and it was not until 1960 that a definite recommendation was given on the subject of cinema television46. In March 1939 Isidore Ostrer47, encouraged by the successful cinema shows of the Boon–Danahar fight, announced plans for the furtherance of cinema television. This coincided with a statement48 by Baird Television Ltd which gave details of its scheme for raising some new capital. The additional capital was needed partly for financing the manufacture of cinema and home receiving sets and further R&D work, and partly for discharging some existing debts of about £250 000. The Directors of BTL proposed to create and issue £400 000 5 per cent preference shares, (at holder’s option prior to 31st March 1944). The shares were to be given the principal lien on earnings, for in addition to their right to a fixed non-cumulative preferential dividend of 25 per cent per annum, (payable in priority to the existing preferred and deferred ordinary shares), they were to participate to the extent of one-quarter of any further profits. On the new issue Ostrer told reporters that the Gaumont–British Picture Corporation would subscribe to ‘some substantial part’ of it. At this time (March 1939) G–BPC’s total investment in Baird Television Ltd was about £250 000, none of which had produced any return whatsoever. The new stock issue was thus to redeem the existing loans, Gaumont–British benefiting to the extent of having its advances repaid. Ostrer explained to a reporter of the Financial Times49 that his corporation’s interests in Baird Television Limited were as follows: ‘Everyone in the trade now recognises the power of television as a competitor. This is television year [1939], and the strides made lately have been enormous. Everyone in the film world visualises that home television will become as popular as radio and can see that the effect on cinema attendance within the area covered by television might well be disastrous. Television is at present confined to the area supplied by the Alexandra Palace service, but in that region is situated no less than a quarter of the cinema money capacity of the country. ‘While the trade now admits the great danger of home television, I foresaw this 10 years ago, and that is why I insisted that Gaumont should take an interest in the radio– television fields. My insistence also extended to the development of cinema television, for only in doing this can we counteract the appeal of the home television.’

The financial record of Baird Television Ltd during the ten years of its existence was most unsatisfactory, for the company had ‘piled up a loss of £663 776’. For the year ending 30th June 1938 the loss was £103 274 (against one of £119 903 for 1936–37) and, at the above date, the bank overdraft stood at £15 000 while the work in progress was only £8 000. Notwithstanding this dismal record, Ostrer felt that BTL was now in a

Baird and cinema television

357

position to make profits from its cinema television expertise. He considered his corporation had ‘got in on the ground floor and consequently [stood] in the best position to reap the benefit of the big developments which must now follow the successful transmission of the Boon–Danahar fight . . .’. In London alone the corporation had 80 cinemas, each of which would require two cinema television sets, (one for emergencies) at about £1000 each, so for Ostrer it was ‘self-evident’ that the first cinemas to be equipped with television would have ‘a great advantage’ over those without the apparatus. Sir Harry Greer, too, was enthusiastic and stated in his Chairman’s Address to BTL50: ‘I would like to stress the vast importance of cinema television in this country. Every cinema in the world must ultimately have its large television screen . . .’. This was certainly optimistic forecasting at a time of considerable international unease. John Baird has recorded51: ‘We had orders pending to fit the Gaumont–British cinemas with large-screens, and our home receivers were considerably the best on the market and were in great demand. Orders were pouring in. Our stores were stocked with receivers and we had a staff of nearly 500 men. Television was coming into its own!’

Not everyone had such a euphoric view of the new BTL scheme to raise capital. A reporter of the Financial News wrote on 10th March: ‘Having regard to all the circumstances and even to the possibility of orders for equipment for cinemas on a large scale, the odds seem to be against the wisdom of risking more money in this venture. . . . We would repeat what we said when commenting on the report last year—if any reasonable price can be obtained, shareholders should sell. While no objection can be raised to this extremely drastic scheme from the Baird side, Gaumont shareholders should consider whether they ought not to demand a meeting to decide whether or not their company should risk money in television.’

Later, at the adjourned ninth ordinary general meeting of BTL, Sir Harry Greer announced that he had received proxies from 1775 shareholders (representing 4 340 374 shares) for the scheme and only 5 against (representing 1775 shares)52. There seems little doubt that 1939 held the promise of being a turning point in the Baird company’s fortunes. After many years spent in developing television, at a cost of about £1 500 000, substantial orders had been taken for receiving sets and, if the Government’s proposed additional television transmitting stations had been completed at Birmingham and Manchester, the company’s sales would have been further increased. BTL had shown a first-class exhibit at the Radio Show in August and, in addition, the development of BTL’s large-screen projector had reached a point when an order for the provision of 55 large-screen sets at an average price of £2700 each had been placed with the company. When hostilities commenced between the United Kingdom and Germany in September 1939, five of these sets had been installed in the following London cinema theatres53:

358

John Logie Baird, television pioneer Marble Arch Pavilion New Victoria Kinema Gaumont, Haymarket Gaumont, Lewisham Tatler Theatre

1290 seats 2564 seats 1382 seats 3047 seats 650 seats

References 1 BAIRD M.: ‘Telvision Baird’, (HAUM, Capetown, 1973), pp. 128–9 2 ANON.: report, Daily Herald, 2nd June 1932 3 BURNS, R. W.: ‘Television, an international history of the formative years’ (Peter Peregrinus, London, 1998), pp. 308–29 4 REVELEY, P. V.: ‘Some memories of John Logie Baird’, 8pp, personal collection 5 ANON.: ‘Trade flocks to see television. First public presentation of new system’, Today’s Cinema, 5th January 1937 6 ANON.: ‘World television premier. Initial public demonstration’, Daily Film Renter, 5th January 1937 7 Press extract, ‘Television in the cinema’, January 1937, Post Office bundle 5536 8 SINGLETON, T.: ‘The story of Scophony’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988). 9 ANON.: ‘Television may be “on the phone” soon. A new idea in transmission’, Evening News, 29th December 1937 10 ANON.: ‘We see Scophony Television’, Television and Short-Wave World, July 1936, pp. 391–3 11 ANON.: report, Kinematograph Weekly, 15th July 1937 12 Minutes of the 37th meeting of the Television Advisory Committee, 4th January 1937, Post Office bundle 5536 13 Minutes of the 42nd meeting of the Television Advisory Committee, 2nd June 1937, Post Office bundle 5536 14 CLAYTON, H.: letter to the Postmaster General, 31st May 1937, Post Office bundle 5536 15 Post Office, a letter to Baird Television Ltd, June 1936, Post Office bundle 5536 16 ANON.: ‘Television in a cinema’, Bromley and West Kent Mercury, 10th December 1937 17 GANDER, L. M.: ‘Television at 15 cinemas’, Daily Telegraph, 8th December 1937 18 Ibid. 19 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952), pp. 220–1 20 HERBERT, R. M.: ‘Seeing by wireless’ (PW Publishing, Croydon, 1997), p. 22 21 LEE, Colonel A. G.: report on ‘A demonstration of colour television by wireless given at the Dominion Theatre, London, 4th February 1938’, Post 33/5271

Baird and cinema television

359

22 ANON.: report on ‘Baird colour television’, Television and Short Wave World, March 1938, pp. 151–2 23 Ref. 19, p. 221 24 Ref. 19, pp. 222 25 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 142 26 Ref. 1, p. 141 27 Ibid. 28 BURNS, R. W.: ‘The history of television for public showing in cinemas in the United Kingdom’, IEE Proc., December 1985, 132, Pt. A, No. 8, 42–3 29 ANON.: report, Daily Film Renter, 24th March 1938 30 Directors’ Report, Gaumont–British Picture Corporation Ltd, 1938 31 ANON.: report, Today’s Cinema, 2nd June 1938 32 CRICKS, R. H.: ‘A remarkable television feat. The Derby on an eight-foot screen’, Kinematograph Weekly, 9th June 1938 33 Onlooker: report, Today’s cinema, 2nd June 1938 34 Ref. 33 35 ANON.: report, Daily Film Renter, 2nd June 1938 36 Company Meetings, ‘Scophony Limited’, The Times, 31st December 1938 37 Editorial, ‘To what use?’, Today’s Cinema, 3rd June 1938 38 Minutes of the 57th meeting of the Television Advisory Committee, 18th January 1939, Post Office bundle 5536 39 ANON.: ‘The progress of television. A significant experiment. The cinemas look ahead’, Observer, 26th February 1939 40 RUSSELL, G. H.: ‘A survey of large-screen television’, EBU Bulletin, March/April 1954, 24, (5), pp. 123–44 41 D. M. R.: ‘Scophony equipment’, J. BKS,1939, 2, pp. 113–16 42 MAYBANK, N. W.: ‘Colour television. Baird experimental system described’, Wireless World, 17th August 1939, pp. 145–6 43 Radio Times, 3rd March 1939 44 Minutes of the 58th meeting of the Television Advisory Committee, 14th March 1939, Post Office bundle 5536 45 Minutes of the 60th meeting of the Television Advisory Committee, 19th April 1939, Post Office bundle 5536 46 Ref. 28 47 ANON.: ‘Gaumont and Baird. Reason for the association. Interview with Mr I Ostrer’, Financial Times, 31st March 1939 48 ANON.: ‘Television financing. Baird Company’s proposals’, The Times, 10th March 1939 49 Ref. 47 50 ANON.: ‘Baird Television Ltd. Success of large-screen projections in cinemas’ The Times, 3rd April 1939 51 Ref. 25, p. 145 52 Ref. 50 53 WEST, A. G. D.: ‘Development of theatre television in England’, J. BKS, 1948, pp.183–200

Chapter 18

The war years

On Friday 1st September 1939 the London station at Alexandra Palace ceased to transmit television programmes1. As a consequence, orders which had been placed with Baird Television Ltd for home receiving sets were cancelled, sets which had been delivered to dealers were returned, and the orders for cinema and theatre large-screen projectors were abrogated. All receiver development ceased at BTL’s Sydenham works and the company was effectively reduced to bankruptcy. The Board had to advise the debenture holders of the position2. Gaumont–British held about £300 000 worth of bonds in BTL, the total issued capital of the company being £1 087 5003, and as a result a Receiver was appointed by order of the Court. Eventually BTL was put into liquidation—the bond holders acquiring the company’s assets in payment of their bonds. John Baird’s contract and salary of £4000 per annum were immediately terminated4 on the appointment of the Receiver, but, as he was in the ‘middle of some extremely interesting and, [he] believed, important work on colour television’, he decided to continue this at his own expense in his private laboratory at 3 Crescent Wood Road, Sydenham. He ‘sent in [his] name to the authorities and expected to be approached with some form of Government work, but no such offer materialised’5. Moseley was particularly bitter about the Government’s lack of interest in Baird. ‘Obviously it should never have been necessary for him to have to look for [work] and . . . I am baffled as to why the British authorities did not seek him out and harness his magnificent inventive genius in the war effort. They never did and I shall always resent their conspicuous neglect of my old friend.’6 The Board of Baird Television Ltd also tried, and failed, to obtain Government orders for special ancillary apparatus for the fighting Services. Greer, in a letter7 dated 17th November 1939 to the President of the Board of Trade (the Right Honorable Oliver Stanley), begged him to give his careful consideration to a proposal for the Government to assist BLT by providing the necessary finance to carry it through until the end of the war or until such time as the Government decided to resume television transmissions. He urged Stanley to

The war years 361 give sympathetic interest to his letter, not merely on behalf of the company’s 9000 shareholders and staff, but on behalf of British trade and British supremacy in the television industry, ‘an industry which bade fair to provide a new outlet for thousands of research workers and hundreds of thousands of highly skilled workman before it was suppressed or possibly destroyed by Government action’. Greer thought the expense of such an operation would be small in relation to the enormous benefits which might accrue. ‘There were precedents, the dye industry affording the best example, but the aircraft industry had also been heavily subsidised’, observed Greer. ‘Only a fraction of the money that [had] been spent by the Government in these two directions would be necessary to enable this and other television interests in this country to continue their work on research and development throughout the war period. As in the case of the two industries [mentioned] the Government could protect the Exchequer by appointing representatives to the Board of our Company’, wrote the Chairman of BTL The Board of Trade passed Greer’s letter to the Post Office, as it considered it was more appropriate for the Postmaster General to reply to it than for their President. However, the Post Office did not agree and presumed that the question as to whether the Government should give any financial assistance to any industry which was threatened with serious loss or even extinction as a result of the war was one for the Board of Trade. In any case the Post Office did not regard the future of the television industry in the United Kingdom as being bound up ‘to any appreciable extent’ with the fortunes of Baird Television Ltd and therefore did not think that Government financial assistance could be justified on the grounds of national interest. The Post Office suggested that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research should be approached with a view to considering the possibility of utilising BTL’s research organisation. The Receiver and Manager for Baird Television Ltd was appointed early in November 1939—the motion for his appointment being made before Mr Justice Crossman by the plaintiffs of the debenture holders’ company, the grounds being that the company was unable to carry on its business. John Baird wrote to Moseley in mid-January 1940 and told him8: ‘The position is that the Company will very shortly be sold to the highest bidder—that means Gaumont–British. When this takes place, they will either (a) reconstruct, (b) absorb the assets into Gaumont–British, (c) close down for the duration of the war.’ The assets were taken over by Cinema Television, owned and controlled by Gaumont–British. The commencement of the Second World War should not have come as a surprise to the Directors of BTL. In 1936 German troops had reoccupied the Rhineland and Mussolini had conquered Abyssinia. Three years later Austria had been annexed by Germany and, by the end of March 1939, Moravia, Bohemia and the Sudetenland had been occupied, and the United Kingdom had given its pledge of support to Poland. The portents for war were ominous9. Some perspicacious observers, particularly W S Churchill and his supporters, correctly forecast the outcome of the aggressive moves by Hitler and Mussolini. Early in 1938 E Bevin, MP, warned10:

362

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

‘Those who are building up their hopes upon some internal dissension breaking up regimes, and those who are hoping that war will be avoided by some miraculous happening, are building on sand. I have never believed from the first day when Hitler came to office but that he intended, at the right moment and when he was strong enough, to wage war in the world. Neither do I believe with that kind of philosophy that there is any possibility to arrive at agreements with Hitler or Mussolini.’

It would appear that the Directors of Baird Television Ltd did not apprehend the menace of the foreboding European situation and did not contemplate the cessation of the 405-line television service from Alexandra Palace. They did not endeavour to obtain Government defence contracts or to diversify the company’s range of products. And yet when war was declared, vast quantities of radio, radar, electronic and communications apparatus were needed. BTL’s plans seem to have been predicated on the permanence of the 405-line television service from Alexandra Palace. But in wartime such a service could not be maintained. Essentially the arguments against the continuation of the television broadcasts were: 1. 2. 3. 4.

the frequency bands which had been allocated for television were required for defence purposes; the technicians who were capable of providing the service were needed for war work; the Government had to conserve money and would not be justified in expending resources for a limited audience; and manufacturers of television sets were heavily engaged in supplying communications and radar equipment for the war effort.

In 1937 Local Authorities were ordered by the Home Office to introduce air raid precautions. Following the 1938 Munich crisis 35 000 000 gas masks were distributed to the civilian population, volunteers were recruited for air raid protection (ARP) duties, trenches were dug in some London parks, and a scheme for the evacuation of several million people from the centres of mass population which were likely to be bombed was prepared by Sir John Anderson. He was designated Lord Privy Seal in November 1938, with special responsibilities for air raid protection and Civil Defence: Government expenditure on these activities increased from £9 500 000 in 1938 to £51 000 000 in 193911. Anderson’s scheme divided the country into evacuation, neutral and reception areas, and made provision for the transport and accommodation of more than three million children, mothers and hospital patients from congested areas to safety zones throughout Great Britain. Posters showing disconsolate children implored: ‘Mothers, send them out of London’. Approximately 1 500 000 persons took advantage of the Government’s assistance, but some 2 000 000 independently joined the exodus. These matters affected the Baird family. Mrs M Baird has written that on the day war was declared: ‘The first thought was to get the children out of London because everyone expected that

The war years 363 Hitler would use gas. John took a map and a ruler and drew a line westwards from London. The line ended at Bude on the Cornish coast, almost two hundred and fifty miles away. By persistence on the telephone at two o’clock in the morning he had us booked into a small hotel there. I hated leaving him, but there was no choice and, with suitcases packed in haste, we left the next day.’

After a week or two, Mrs Baird succeeded in finding a suitable furnished house and a very good preparatory school, which had been evacuated from Bexhill, for the children. Miss Yarker, the governess, had returned home to Lincolnshire and, since Mrs Baird did not have the large house in Crescent Wood Road to run, she decided to look after the children herself. ‘Then John used his arts of persuasion on my mother and she left Sutton to join us. At the end of September she arrived at an hotel, having come by car for she had with her Sultan, a black labrador, Titus, a black cat, four canaries, and a pair of budgerigars. Later John brought down Smoky, a grey and white cat he had rescued from Sydenham. The animals were uneasy in the hotel and my mother joined us in our furnished house. She had been reluctant to leave Sutton and regretted the move more than we thought.’12;

Mrs Baird visited her husband at Sydenham as often as she could, but when blast from exploding bombs twice shattered the windows and brought down some ceilings the Bairds stayed at the Palace Hotel in Bayswater. At other times John Baird resided in various hotels near to his private laboratory. Here he had two assistants, E G O Anderson and W Oxbrow. Living alone in hotels after the luxuries of 3 Crescent Wood Road, with its spacious grounds and staff, and the comfort of his family, must have been a depressing time for Baird. The war situation in the summer of 1940 was grim. The British Expeditionary Force had retreated to Dunkirk and had been evacuated in May–June, and the Battle of Britain had commenced in July. Only bad news filled the newspapers. Then13: ‘One blazing hot day in August I [John Baird] was sitting basking in the sun in the garden at 3 Crescent Wood Road, hoping that no air raids would arrive, when I was handed a letter. Dear Sir, . . . I could not for a moment realise it. Mephy, whom I had just written to and had arranged to visit, dead! Suicide! Impossible—why should he commit suicide? Why, without one hint or suggestion suddenly take this irrevocable final step out of everything? The hopeless finality, the tragic terrible loss, struck me with a brutal force, a terrible loss indeed, and one that could never be replaced. Why did I not go over to Ryde sooner? I could have stopped it. Why did I not write earlier? He never received my last letter, it was delivered the day after his death. Poor Mephy! Ryde, being opposite Portsmouth, had been having continual air raid alarms. He could not sleep and his nervous system must have given way completely. On Friday morning he took no breakfast and went to his little studio in Herb Cottage, locked himself in and attached a tube to his gas ring, turned on the gas and, lying down, covered himself and the tube with a blanket and went to sleep never to wake again! The next day, when he did not return to his lodgings, the police broke down the door and found him.’

This was a low point in Baird’s life. He found his whole position very distressing and was in poor spirits. He decided to have a short holiday outside London

364

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

and booked into a hotel, which also advertised medical treatment, with the intention of resting for a fortnight. Soon after arriving at Tempsford Hall, in Bedfordshire, Baird suffered a heart attack and was told by the resident physician that he was too fat and the fat was pressing on his heart. He had to slim, otherwise he was liable to drop down dead. ‘In fact I was walking on the edge of a precipice. [The doctor] undertook to cure me, the cure being a complete fast. Being thoroughly frightened by his diagnoses I went through the treatment, rigorous though it was, and fasted for 50 days and 50 nights. For the first two weeks I had a few ounces daily of raw carrot and mustard and cress. This brought on acute sickness and indigestion and had to be stopped and for a fortnight I lived on nothing but water. For the rest of the fast I was allowed 12 grapes daily. At the end of this time I had lost three stone in weight, dropping from 11st. 10lbs. to 8st. 7lbs. When I finished the treatment some people told me I looked dreadful—“An emaciated scarecrow”, others, that I looked 100 % better; whatever my appearance may have been, I certainly felt very much better. ‘While this fast was going on I did not stay in bed but wandered about the grounds of the hotel and there made many pleasant friends, among them Mr Philip Morrell. We had many conferences and I told him much of my past life and he very forcibly pressed on me that I should write my autobiography before the details faded from my mind. This project had been in my thoughts for many years and I had prepared a number of notes. While the cure was progressing I commenced to put the project definitely into practice. I had a typist to call at the hotel and it was there that the first chapter of “Sermons, Socks and Television” was dictated.’

Baird, now reinvigorated and much healthier, pressed on with his television work and the task of developing a 600-line colour television system14. Mechanical scanning could not be used, so Baird employed a cathode ray tube, of the type which had been employed in the projection units at the Marble Arch Pavilion, as a flying spot scanner. Again the two-colour process was adopted with the two-segment (blue-green and red) colour filter rotating in front of the screen of the c.r.t. The number of lines per frame was 200, three frames being interlaced to produce the picture, and the frame rate was 50 Hz. In operation the person being televised was scanned sequentially by blue-green and red light beams and the reflected light allowed to fall onto three large photoelectric cells. The receiver also utilised a similar cathode ray tube and rotating filter. A 2.5 ft × 2.0 ft picture was obtained by enlargement of the image produced on the screen of the c.r.t. and was the largest ever produced—at that time—for domestic reception. Few technical details were published by the technical press about Baird’s latest system, but fortunately the inventor’s patent of 7th September 1940 enables the principle of scanning to be easily understood. The patent15 gives a clue to Baird’s choice of a 600-line standard since the object of the invention was to provide a system for reproducing coloured or monochrome 600-line pictures and for receiving pictures ‘using the normal number of lines at present in common use’. Now, a 405-line picture comprises two interlaced 202.5-line frames. Hence, as Baird observed:

The war years 365

Figure 18.1

J L Baird with the dummy model which he used in his colour television experiments. Baird’s assistant E G O Anderson is on the right

Source: Paul Popper Ltd

‘for [this] purpose a field consists of a primary scan of 200-lines interlaced three times to give a 600-line picture at a picture frequency of 16.6 per second and a colour picture frequency of 8.3 per second when reproduced on a receiver with a suitable interlacing circuit. On a receiver without a suitable interlacing device, satisfactory 200-line pictures are produced.’

With this method, the same colours do not overlap in alternate complete 600line pictures; instead, in the first picture a red 200-line frame is interlaced with a blue-green frame and a red frame, while in the second picture a blue-green frame is interlaced with a red frame and a blue-green frame, that is the red lines of the first picture are covered by the blue-green lines of the second picture and vice versa. Baird described his 600-line colour images as having a ‘very fine quality’. An indication of the quality was given in the April 1941 issue of Electronics Engineering and Short Wave World, which contained a Dufaycolor colour photograph of the colour television image: from this it is easy to appreciate Baird’s remark. The photograph is of Paddy Naismith, one of the visitors to the press demonstration. Since 1941 Dufaycolor film gave results which were much inferior to

366

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

present-day colour films, it may be conjectured that Baird’s colour images were even better than portrayed by the print. On the demonstration, Wireless World commented16: ‘The demonstration can only be described as a very considerable success. The cover picture was of more than adequate brilliance, both pleasing and restful to watch. The various tone values were reproduced with a degree of truth comparable with the Technicolor films which we are now used to seeing at the cinema. A notable point in connection with viewing the colour pictures is an apparent stereoscopic effect which makes the picture stand out to a remarkable degree. The effect was quite apparent when still pictures were used as the subject, but became even more so when their place was taken by a girl with red hair, the tones and sheen of which were reproduced perfectly.’

Baird’s only competitor in the colour television field in 1940–41 was the Columbia Broadcasting System. On 4th September 1940 CBS in New York demonstrated equipment developed by Dr P C Goldmark, chief television engineer, and his group17. The picture-generating apparatus comprised a Farnsworth image dissector tube and a three-colour filter disc rotating at 1200 r.p.m.; the display apparatus consisted of a 9 in diameter cathode ray tube together with a rotating filter disc of the same type as used at the transmitter; and images from 16 mm Kodachrome film were sent by line from the transmitter to the receiver. The size of the c.r.t. 343-line image was 5.5 in (height) × 7.25 in (width), and the frame rate was 120 Hz18. CBS’s system was an example of a three-colour, frame sequential colour television system—a crude form of which had been demonstrated by Baird on 3rd July 1928—and resulted from a detailed examination by Goldmark, and colleagues, of the various ways of combining different interlace ratios, colour frames, scanning lines and frame and picture rates. Special attention had been given to the design of the shapes of the filter segments and to their transmission characteristics. Goldmark noted in a subsequent paper: ‘The infra-red contaminates all colours as it passes freely through the red, blue and green filters.’ Baird had observed this effect in 1938 and had patented a simple remedial measure, namely an infra-red filter. The same solution was used by the CBS engineers. One of the witnesses to the demonstration was G Cock, who had been the BBC’s Director of Television prior to the closure of the London television station at Alexandra Palace. He was most impressed19. ‘The television exactly reproduces the colour film, even when colour in the latter is exaggerated. . . . ‘There was no over-lapping of colour and the effect was very fine. It made the black and white picture alongside look very poor, as colour appears to increase definition and give depths.’

Though CBS’s work was not of a startlingly novel nature, it showed what could be achieved by a large and prosperous organisation, with a well endowed R&D group, compared to that of an inventor working during bombing attacks

The war years 367 in a private laboratory in a suburban house with just two assistants and inadequate funds. Without a salary or any income, Baird’s financial situation in 1941 became somewhat parlous. He had to maintain his house and laboratory at 3 Crescent Wood Road, support his family in their rented house in Bude, pay the weekly wages (£12.00) of his staff, purchase the various materials and apparatus used in his R&D work, render hotel accounts for himself, and be financially responsible for numerous miscellaneous matters. He decided to approach Sir Edward Willshaw20, the Chairman of the Cable and Wireless company, and seek some assistance. ‘He came to see me to say he had no funds and would have to shut down his laboratory at Sydenham and dismiss the few rather exceptional men who had worked with him over a long period of years and who would be irreplaceable if he started up again. He was very depressed and disconsolate and, after going into the matter carefully and in detail, I told him that we would take him on as a consultant at a fee which would cover the expenses of his laboratory and staff and so enable him to keep his men together and to go on with his experiments.’

As a consequence of Cable and Wireless Ltd’s magnanimity, John Baird was appointed a Consulting Technical Advisor to the company at a salary of £1000 per annum, for a period of three years, the appointment dating from 1st November 194121. A press notice was issued. Willshaw told Baird that his ‘appointment would be unconditional and there would be no agreement, and that [Cable and Wireless] would not tie his hands in any way’. The company clearly was showing considerable benevolence in assuaging Baird’s difficulties at this time. ‘We simply wanted to help him during the war period, but [said] we would like him to devote part of his time to the development of television in its application to telegraphy, and if anything came of it, or of television, he might feel—although under no obligation whatever—that, as we had been kind and generous to him, he might give us the first opportunity of benefiting from his experiments.’22;

On 18th December 1941 Baird demonstrated to some members of the press apparatus to show coloured images in relief23. His wartime demonstrations were civilised, relaxed events, with Baird handing out ham sandwiches and a press release while the apparatus was being set up. Sometimes one of his voluntary helpers, who was an accomplished pianist, would provide an impromptu recital on Mrs Baird’s Steinway grand piano24. Baird had previously experimented with the production of stereoscopic images in 1928, but at that time a stereoscope had to be used for viewing these: now his latest invention dispensed with this optical device and made use of anaglyphs. The effect of a relief in a reproduced scene can be recreated, wrote Baird25, by observing simultaneously with a stereoscope two plane views taken from positions corresponding to the separation of the observer’s eyes. Figure 18.2 illustrates the principle. Two views of a truncated cone are projected onto a screen at

Diagram used to illustrate the principle of operation of an anaglyph method of stereoscopic viewing

Source: Electronic Engineering, February 1942, p. 620

Figure 18.2

368 John Logie Baird, television pioneer

The war years 369 a, b, c, d and a′, b′, c′, d′. When seen through a stereoscope the views merge to give a solid figure image A, B, C, D. In the method which incorporates anaglyphs it is possible to combine the two separate views into one picture provided they are capable of separation, the left and right eyes viewing only the left and right eye scenes respectively. This can be achieved by generating and transmitting two appropriate scene images using red and blue filters respectively and reproducing the images slightly displaced on a screen. If these are seen through glasses fitted with a red filter for, say, the right eye and a blue filter for the left eye, then each eye sees only the picture corresponding to its viewpoint and the scene appears to have relief. Another way of achieving the effect is to use light at the transmitter which has been polarised into two components at right angles to each other and to discriminate between the images, subsequently reproduced at the receiver, by means of a viewer fitted with suitable polarising glasses. At his December 1941 private demonstration, Baird showed a combined stereoscopic and colour television system which dispensed with the need for a stereoscope or special glasses. Schematic diagrams illustrating the principle of operation of the transmitter and receiver are given in Figure 18.3. In the apparatus demonstrated the frame frequency was 150 Hz and the scanning was arranged so that five interlaced 100-line frames gave a 500-line picture, successive 100-line frames being coloured green, red and blue. At the transmitter the primary scanning beam of light, after having passed through one of the colour filters and projection lens, was divided by a system of two pairs of parallel mirrors into two secondary beams spaced apart by a distance equal to the average separation of an observer’s eyes. By means of the rotating shutter disc, the scene was scanned alternately by each secondary beam. The receiver included a colour disc identical to that of the transmitter and a rotating shutter, both synchronised to the corresponding discs at the sending end of the system. Hence each eye of the viewer alternately observed red, green and blue images. The shutters used differed at the transmitting and receiving ends as shown in Figure 18.3. At the transmitter it was found desirable to maintain constant the total illumination of the scene, in order to avoid flicker, and the shutter was accordingly provided with a spiral boundary between its opaque and transparent regions. This was not necessary with the receiver shutter and it was found sufficient to provide a plain mask, Figure 18.3. Both the transmitter and receiver utilised ‘teapot’ projection cathode ray tubes, as previously employed at the Marble Arch Pavilion cinema in 1939. The performance of Baird’s stereoscopic television system was described in the February 1942 issue of Wireless World 26. ‘As in some of Mr Baird’s earlier 30-line demonstrations, it [was] necessary for the viewer to sit directly in front of an image forming lens and in this latest development, although the picture quality is vastly superior, the tolerance in the matter of movement of the head is smaller since the left eye must not know what the right eye is seeing, and vice versa. That is not to say that any special skill or endurance is called for in finding and holding the viewpoint which makes the picture “come to life”, and one can readily accede to the

370

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 18.3

Schematic diagrams showing the layout of the apparatus which Baird used to show stereoscopic colour television

Source: Electrician, December 1941, p. 359

The war years 371 inventor’s suggestion that the system might be usefully employed in a “seeing telephone” system. . . . ‘If the colour reproduction lacked the ability to differentiate the subtler shades, it dealt faithfully with the bolder colours. The stereoscopic effects were an unqualified success and when the person being televised reached towards the “camera” his arm at the receiving end seemed to project out of the lens towards the viewer.

Fortunately the truth of this assessment can be tested, for the prescient editor of Electronic Engineering had arranged for a colour photograph to be taken of the c.r.t. screen images. Baird’s earlier anaglyph colour/stereoscopic television system was seen on 22nd April 1942 by four members of the BBC’s staff, namely, Birkinshaw, Campbell, Rendall and Schuster27. On the stereoscopic television demonstration Schuster wrote: ‘[It] seemed to be a separate process in one medium which could not be combined with colour. Its effectiveness appeared to vary with each individual’s sight. It seemed to create a greater sense of depth between the centre of the picture and the background. The greatest objection to it is that one has to wear peculiar glasses in which one side is coloured blue and the other red.’

On the colour television demonstration Schuster observed: ‘The transmission was, of course, by closed circuit and shown on an 8in. × 6in. tube. The two-colour process gave good blues and oranges, less good red and, as far as one could

Figure 18.4

J L Baird viewing an image on a cathode ray tube in his private laboratory, c. 1941–42

Source: London News Agency Photos Ltd

372

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

judge, poor green. The human face came through reasonably well and much more effectively than the still picture. The definition was poor and movement, if not very slow, produced colour blurring. The picture appeared adequately though not really well lit.’

Baird’s efforts were certainly most creditable—and especially so considering the difficulties under which he worked. In an interview he said: ‘It is costly, but there is one compensation. I have so many expenses in connection with my own work that I have nothing to pay in income tax. I have no subsidy from the Government. . . . I had a very anxious time when blast from nearby bombs blew in my door. I was under the dining room table most of the time, but my thoughts were all with my apparatus.’

During the war, Baird travelled to Bude as often as he could and there became a family man again. He would read to his children, Diana and Malcolm, from Alice in Wonderland and from the stories of Edward Lear, and tell them stories which he had composed. Baird could have become a considerable writer—as his book Sermons, Soap and Television indicates. He had a good grasp of the English language, a natural, unforced style of writing, and a novelists’s imagination. These abilities he used to good effect in telling his children of the exploits of a pair of flies, Izzy and Dizzy, who lived with their mother, Mrs Flossy Flannelfeet, in various hotels and suffered from the cold and wartime food. In this way he could paraphrase his own problems28. He tried to demonstrate to his children some of the wonders of science:

Figure 18.5

Baird working in his private laboratory at 3 Crescent Wood Road, c. 1942–43

Source: Mr R M Herbert

The war years 373 how, for example, different colours could be produced from the three primary colours, how a simple convex lens could be used to focus the sun’s rays and cause paper to ignite, and how speech could be transmitted using a string and two tins. Baird’s visits to Bude were pleasant times for him. Away from the sirens, air raids, bombing distractions and tensions which marred his life in London, he could relax with his family and enjoy walks by the sea. He would roll up his trouser bottoms and plodge for miles where the soothing surf met the beach. Baird was a slow walker and this suited the children. Together they would look at the plants and animals along the coast and explore the local cliffs and caves. The family’s enjoyment of the region was further extended in 1943 when the Bairds rented half a farmhouse. An amusing incident occurred one day when Baird was sitting by himself on the beach. He was dressed in a black overcoat with an astrakhan collar, and a cloth cap, pulled well down for warmth, and, with his long hair, he looked particularly dishevelled. He was making notes about television when a young man in uniform approached him. Mrs Baird, who was nearby, thought the youth wanted Baird’s autograph, but the conversation took too long for that. She decided to join them. ‘John, scarlet in the face with anger, was trying to convince the youth that he was not a spy! He had no papers on him, and it took me quite a few minutes and the production of John’s ration book to convince the young military policeman that this was John Logie Baird, president of the non-existent Baird Television Company. The military policeman had never heard of Baird or television, but after a lot more talk he let us go home.’29

All too soon Baird’s stay would come to an end and the long, tedious and uncomfortable journey to London would begin. Meanwhile, Mrs Baird continued her piano playing and in November 1942 she performed Mozart’s A Major piano concerto with an orchestra in the pavilion at Torquay. Further concerts, in aid of the Red Cross, were given in Bude and at times Mrs Baird accompanied the singers who were engaged. These concerts were organised by Dr D G A Fox, Director of Music, Clifton College, which had been evacuated from Bristol. A notable event was arranged in 1943 when Baird sat for the sculptor Donald Gilbert. Unfortunately Baird could not afford to purchase the original and this is now in the National Portrait Gallery, London. A copy has been mounted in Hermitage Park, Helensburgh. The sculpture is a fine piece of art, but Mrs Baird has stated that the most vivid likeness of her husband is the painting by Keir-Lawson. This shows his ‘determined chin and the kindness in his gaze’. Baird’s thoughts were never far from the subject of television and, shortly after he had achieved some success with colour television and stereoscopic television using rotating fitter discs, Baird pondered on the problem of devising a system which would dispense with mechanical components. He endeavoured to adapt a system of colour photography known as Thomascolour30 which had been devised by Richard Thomas to enable motion pictures in colour to be shown from black and white cine film. The method reached the stage of

374

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

commercial exploitation in 1946, after more than 16 years had been spent on development work. The system was based on the colour additive principle. Essentially three images of a given scene were recorded simultaneously on each frame of a 35 mm black and white film (see Figure 18.6), the three images being dependent on the red, green, and blue colour content of the scene. The images were of course negative images, but, by processing, black and white positive images could be obtained. In projection the three images per frame were combined simultaneously by a special projector lens to give a picture in natural colours. Again red, green and blue filters were employed. According to one enthusiastic report: ‘Pictures of a good fidelity . . . are made available with unusual speed and economy. The entire process from exposure to projection can be done in 45 minutes, compared with days for the subtractive, dye-coloured films. The film and processing costs are those of low-cost black and white film.’

Another observer had a different view: ‘After the First World War, we had a spate of additive systems, most of them employing two or three small images in the space of a normal frame; obvious objections to such systems were the loss of definition, and the difficulty of registration when the film shrank. . . . All additive systems, however, resulted in a loss of light in projection, theoretically two-third[s], but at least half. For this reason attention turned to the subtractive processes, notwithstanding the many advantages of the additive principle, notably ease of processing.’

In Baird’s colour television method31, patented on 13th May 1942, and shown in Figure 18.7, the three images A, B, C, corresponding to the three primary colours red, green and blue, are reproduced side by side in sequence on the fluorescent screen of the receiving cathode ray tube and superimposed by means of an optical system D, E, F, G on a screen H. Each of the three lenses D, E, F is separated from the screen of the cathode ray tube by a distance equal to its focal length and similarly the distance between G and H is made the same as the focal length of G. The three lenses D, E, F have their optical centres on perpendiculars through the centres of each of the three images respectively. By this arrangement the rays of light issuing from each of these lenses are rendered parallel: they are brought to a focus on the screen H and therefore the three images are combined. This optical projection scheme was not original, but it had not been used previously in a television system. With the Thomascolour film method, each image frame corresponded in size with that associated with a 16 mm film. Hence, as the definition of 35 mm and 16 mm film images are equivalent to 1080-line and 510-line televised images, it might be expected that the Thomas colour system would have an inferior resolution performance compared to a conventional 35 mm film image. Regarding this point, C Haverline (the Vice President of the Thomascolour Company) stated at a Federal Communications Commission hearing on colour television standards:

Diagrammatic representations of the Thomas system of colour cinematography and colour television

Source: Tele-Tech, February 1947

Figure 18.6

The war years 375

376

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 18.7

The optical arrangement of Baird’s three-colour television system

Source: British patent no. 555 167, 13th May 1942

‘It appears that . . . [with black and white television], dividing the picture into three separate images will reduce the mathematical definition by 50%. However, based upon our experience with motion pictures where a 35 mm frame is divided into three images and re-combined on to the screen, we are certain that no loss of apparent definition will result.’

In additive colour television systems, the methods of analysing, in colour, a scene or image can be classified according to the type of scanning used, namely: 1. 2. 3.

scanning each picture frame successively in the three primary colours; scanning each picture line successively in the three primary colours; and scanning each picture point successively in the three primary colours.

Of these, Baird and CBS had demonstrated variants of the first method. The method could produce good colour images but gave rise to colour flicker. In an effort to reduce this effect Baird, in October 1942, patented a method based on type 2.32 Figure 18.8 illustrates Baird’s ideas in diagrammatic form. He wrote: ‘I arrange that the lines of a television image which follow in sequence are produced in different colours by passing the light from the scanning spot in sequence through fixed colour filters, the passage through each filter giving colour to one line of the picture. These coloured lines [are then] projected on the field in the desired positions by means of suitable optical devices.’

One form of device comprised three mirrors C1, C2 and C3 slightly inclined to each other so that the three coloured parts were interlaced on the surface E to give a picture having three times the number of lines of frame A. The idea was certainly most ingenious even though it meant that coloured filters were required. It was thought that the flicker effect would be reduced by displacing the successive frames of each set of three in such a way that each individual line was scanned in each of the basic colours in an appropriate sequence. No evidence exists to show whether Baird actually put his ideas into practice. It would seem that the problem of interlacing three 200-line scans to form a picture having a 600-line definition would be formidable. Taking a picture size of

The war years 377

Figure 18.8

Diagrams illustrating Baird’s line sequential colour television system

Source: British patent no. 562 334, 10th October 1942

24 in × 18 in and assuming horizontal scanning, the separation between two consecutive lines would be 0.015 in. Consequently the positioning of the three interlacing frames would have to be carried out to a smaller tolerance than this—and be independent of vibration and temperature effects. Probably the successful accomplishment of the task eluded Baird and hence accounts for the lack of reports on the method. An alternative means of achieving the same effect was provided by Baird’s telechrome tube. The ideal colour receiver is clearly one which does not utilise either mechanical components (such as moving shutters or discs), or colour filters or other devices which introduce absorption losses. Baird pondered on this problem and subsequently on 25th July 1942 patented his highly original inventions which he called telechrome tubes33. These employed either double or triple, separate and independent, electron guns and multiple fluorescent screens depending upon whether two- or three-colour reproduction was required. Baird conceived that if two ‘teapot’ tubes were combined and a fluorescent screen, coated on both sides with suitable phosphors (say orange-red and bluegreen), was positioned so that the two electron beams independently scanned

378

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Figure 18.9

Diagrams showing the principles of Baird’s two-gun and three-gun telechrome tubes

Source: British patent no. 562 168, 25th July 1942

each surface, a two-colour tube could be obtained. Figure 18.9 shows the arrangement envisaged by Baird. If now the two orange-red and blue-green screen images were properly superimposed a picture in colour would be obtained34. The practical implementation of the invention obviously posed some problems, since a large glass bulb was needed to accommodate the two electron guns and large-screen. Baird’s ingenious solution was to modify a mercury arc rectifier bulb. These bulbs were at that time fabricated in considerable numbers by the Hackbridge and Hewittic Rectifier Company, among others and were used in the power supplies which provided the direct current for various railway systems, including the Southern Railway. Fortunately for Baird, Mr Arthur Johnson, a retired glass technologist—who had previously been employed by Baird Television Ltd—was a past employee of the Hackbridge and Hewittic company and

The war years 379

Figure 18.10

Baird with the world’s first multi-electron gun, colour television receiver (1944)

Source: Radio Rentals Ltd

was familiar with the mercury arc bulbs. He undertook to convert a bulb to Baird’s design35. Figure 18.10 shows Baird and his telechrome tube. The 10 in diameter clear mica screen was coated on one side with an orange-red phosphor and on the other side with a blue-green phosphor. Baird also considered a three-colour version of his telechrome tube in which one side of the mica screen was ridged to form two fluorescent screens (Figure 18.9). One of Baird’s two-colour telechrome tubes has survived and is at the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television, Bradford. In this tube one of the electron guns has been positioned so that its axis is perpendicular to its associated surface. Baird in his patent stated that this arrangement simplified ‘the set-up of the apparatus’. On 13th January 1944 Baird invited G B Banks, of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company Ltd, and Messrs Higgett and Smale, of Cable and Wireless Ltd, to a demonstration of two-colour television and stereoscopy. Their report36 makes interesting reading. As with many demonstrations given by Baird to technically competent observers, and the press, friends and the general public, reactions to Baird’s work ranged from the harsh realism of the former to the effusive optimism of the latter. Baird’s visitors observed: ‘[Baird] seems to have given up the 3-colour scheme we saw on a previous occasion and now claims that 2-colour is sufficiently good. This [is] apparently because he thinks it simplifies the problem of adapting colour to the standard BBC transmission (pre-war)

380

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

which is likely to be continued, at least for a period, after the war. We can confirm the improvement of 2-colour over monochrome and the demonstration leaves no doubt of the value of colour television, but we consider that the 3-colour system will have to be adopted eventually if true colour representation is to be attained. ‘We also consider the modifications to the existing transmitter and receivers necessary for colour television are so great that this simplification is of negligible value. Secondly, Mr Baird thinks the 2-colour system provides a temporary solution for stereoscopic television. ‘He has discontinued the system of stereoscopy previously demonstrated because of insuperable difficulties of viewing . . . We regard stereoscopic television as something in the nature of a stunt . . .’

On Baird’s two-colour television system the visitors reported: ‘The colour and detail of the picture was very crude owing to imperfections of the coloured coatings. Nevertheless, the difficulties are not insurmountable and the system has definite possibilities . . . [W]e think that Mr Baird, despite difficult working conditions, has done a real service in demonstrating the value of colour television. Apart from the coated mica screen, we do not think any new invention has been demonstrated, and we consider that development on a scale far beyond the capabilities of Mr Baird’s present organisation is necessary for successful results.’

The first press demonstration of the two-colour tube was held on 16th August 1944 and a News Chronicle reporter subsequently wrote37: ‘By means of a new cathode-ray tube, Mr Baird has caused a new medium of perfect colour to blend with his stereoscopic television. As I stood by the camera I saw my own photograph flash on to the television screen across the room. The image was in colour as natural as any colour film I have seen. The light wood grain of my pipe stood out clearly, a bead of perspiration on my forehead was highlighted, and the book in my hand was pictured so plainly that the coloured title of it could be read. I moved my hand backwards and forwards, tilted a cigarette packet away from the camera and saw that the effect of distance on the screen was quite natural.’

Several reports and articles mention Baird’s new colour television system, but these are woefully inadequate and do not give any technical details of the phosphors used, or the operating voltages of the tube, or of the steps taken to superimpose the two images, or of the light flux produced. However, the magazine Electronics in October 1944 recorded: ‘The tubes give a very bright picture due to the absence of colour filters and the fact that special powders are used giving only the desired colours, which are seen additively. The tubes give excellent stereoscopic television images when used with a stereoscopic transmitter, the blue-green and orange-red images forming a stereoscopic pair and being viewed through colour glasses.’

While Baird was working on the development of his latest invention, the war effort was progressing in the Allies’ favour. By September 1943, Rommel and the Afrika Corps had been driven out of North Africa and Sicily; Italy had been invaded; the U-boat had effectively been defeated; and German night bombers no longer posed a threat to the United Kingdom. On the Russian front, German

The war years 381

Figure 18.11

Baird viewing an image on his telechrome tube, 1944

Source: Unknown

forces were reeling under the onslaught of Soviet troops; and in the Far East the Americans and their allies were retaking the territories which had been conquered by the Japanese. At home, plans were being prepared for the invasion of Europe. Also, some thought was being given to the problems which would have to be resolved when the war was concluded. Churchill expounded his views on these in a memorandum dated 19th October 1943. The memorandum began: ‘It is the duty of His Majesty’s Government to prepare for the tasks which will fall upon us at the end of the war.’ One of these tasks concerned the reopening of the London television station at Alexandra Palace and the development of television in the early post-war years. In good British fashion, a committee, the Television Committee, was appointed in September 1943 to consider this matter. Its terms of reference38 were: ‘To prepare plans for the reinstatement and development of the television service after the war with special consideration of— (a) the preparation of a plan for the provision of a service to at any rate the larger centres of population within a reasonable period after the war; (b) the provision to be made for research and development; (c) the guidance to be given to manufacturers, with a view especially to the development of the export trade.’

The members of the Committee were The Right Hon. The Lord Hankey; Sir Stanley Angwin and Sir Raymond Birchall of the GPO; Sir Noel Ashbridge and

382

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Mr W J Haley of the BBC; Sir Edward Appleton, DSIR; Professor J D Cockcroft, ADRDE, and Mr R J P Harvey of the Treasury. Reference to the appointment of the Committee was made in the House of Commons on 18th January 1944 although the first meeting of the Committee was held on 26th October 1943. Subsequently a further 30 meetings were convened at which witnesses from GEC Ltd, Marconi–EMI Television Ltd, Scophony Ltd, STC Ltd, the Board of Trade, the BBC, the British Film Producers Association, the Ministry of Education, the Radio Industry Council, the REP Joint Committee and J L Baird were examined. Baird was the only private individual invited to give evidence. Prior to their examination these organisations and Baird had been asked to prepare papers outlining their responses to six questions posed by the Committee. Baird’s paper39 is of some historical interest and is reproduced in Appendix 2. Briefly, he argued that: 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

the broadcasting of television should start again as early as possible with a system capable of being received on pre-war receivers, and with a guarantee of at least three years’ service; a thorough investigation should be made of all improved systems, and that any new system introduced should be operated in parallel with the old system for a reasonable time; the monopoly of the BBC should cease, and broadcasting developed so that separate, independent broadcasting companies run by private enterprise could coexist with the BBC; any new system should have a definition standard of the order of 1000 lines per picture, and the picture should have colour and stereoscopic depth; an international standard of transmission should be adopted, and every effort should be made to establish an international system of broadcasting, so that programmes could be radiated by television stations throughout the continent of Europe (and ultimately the world) and be received by viewers without difficulty; and the export market of television goods should be much encouraged.

The Television Committee was in agreement with the general tenor of these points and in its Report, dated 29th December 1944, it concluded that: ‘the television service should be restarted in London on the basis of the system in operation before the war . . .’; ‘the aim should be to make the television service self-supporting as soon as possible . . .’; ‘the aim should be to produce an improved television system having a standard of definition approaching that of the cinema [para. 25 mentioned ‘of the order of 1 000 lines’] and possibly incorporating colour and stereoscopic effects’; ‘the desirability of adopting common international standards should be kept constantly in mind’; and ‘the successful development of television at home [would be] of prime importance to the development of an export trade’. Cinema television, a subject dear to the heart of Baird before the war, was considered by the Television Committee, but it felt that the large-screen

The war years 383 reproduction of television programmes was not likely to be generally acceptable until the standard of definition approached that of the cinema. The history of television for public showing in cinemas in the United Kingdom has been the subject of one of the author’s papers40 and will not be repeated here; suffice it to say that cinema television was discussed by the Broadcasting Committee (1949), by the Daniel Committee (1952) and by the Pilkington Committee (1960). For reasons given in the author’s paper, the latter committee ‘recommended against the introduction of a service of television for public showing’. Essentially, the post-war progress of the domestic television service and the need to protect the service so that it was not deprived of the opportunities available to it led to the abandonment of interest in television for viewing in cinemas. On 29th February 1944 Baird was invited41 to attend the Court Meeting of Cable and Wireless and explain his suggestion for the immediate establishment, in London, of a colour television studio operating under an experimental licence. He gave details of the finances which he thought would be needed to implement the scheme, and probably hoped that Cable and Wireless would advance the necessary expenditure. Baird reiterated the point he had made to the Television Committee that the existing monopoly enjoyed by the BBC should be withdrawn and that after the war licences should be issued to commercial undertakings to permit them to engage in broadcasting. He said that if Cable and Wireless had a television studio, on the lines he was advocating, the company would be in a very favourable position for priority treatment if future general licences for broadcasting were issued by the Government. For C&W, Sir Edward Willshaw had previously reminded the Directors of certain existing agreements under which the Marconi and Holding Companies—but not the Operating Company—were precluded from entering into the entertainment field prior to 1949. Consequently, after discussion, the Court felt it could not accept Baird’s suggestion as it might have unfortunate repercussions upon the company’s well established relations with the British Post Office and the BBC. The Court reaffirmed its interest in the development of television in its application to telegraphy, and agreed to continue until further notice Baird’s appointment as Consulting Technical Adviser at a salary of £1000 per annum after the expiry on 1st November 1944 of his present agreement.42, 43 Very few details exist of Baird’s work on the application of television to telegraphy. It is known that he worked on adapting the intermediate film system to ‘the transmission of facsimile messages by substituting a stream of message form or pictures for the film’. If, say, a single page of 500 words of text could be transmitted at the rate of 25 pages per second—the frame rate of the intermediate film television process—then the information transfer rate would be vastly increased compared to that of existing facsimile schemes. Unfortunately ‘no long-distance radio circuits would permit the transmission unless the speed of scanning were enormously reduced’. ‘Mr Baird found it difficult to believe this and wanted to “try it out”.’ Willshaw has written that Baird wished to have one of C&W’s main transmitters placed entirely at his disposal for experimental

384

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

purposes. ‘This, of course, was not a practicable proposition during the war, as we were short of transmitters, and the increase in Government and Service traffic was very heavy.’44 When Messrs Banks, Higgett and Smale visited Baird on 13th January 1944 he referred to this matter and said he now appreciated that the problem was ‘without solution until the speed was reduced to that comparable with what [C&W were] already using’. Consequently, C&W’s engineers concluded ‘no valuable contribution [had] been made to the direct business of Cable and Wireless, i.e. to the handling of messages and pictures over long-distances’. They added: ‘By means of a large number of short distance relay circuits working on low power at very short wavelengths it would be worth reconsidering such a system of facsimile transmission. Such relays [were] technically possible but their establishment obviously introduce[d] non-technical questions of an international character.’45 A claim46 has been advanced—quite strongly but without any relevant documentary evidence—that during the war Baird worked on a secret signalling system. No primary source information is available in the archives of Cable and Wireless on such a scheme, and the author’s very extensive searches in the UK’s Public Record Office have so far failed to locate any appropriate documents. The only published reference to Baird’s work on facsimile transmission appears to be that which was published in the Manchester Guardian on 17th August 1944. It stated: ‘Mr John Baird, inventor of television, is planning to revolutionise wireless telegraphy so that complete typewritten pages may be sent at the rate of 25 a second to anywhere in the world. The present speed, used largely for pictures, is one page every six to 10 minutes. ‘Today messages written in London to be wirelessed overseas have to be changed letter by letter and word by word into electrical impulses which are broadcast and then translated into letters and words again at the receiving end. Mr Baird intends to increase the speed of photo-telegraphy, the sending of pictures by wireless, by some fifteen thousand times, and he proposes to radio not only pictures but plans and messages. Blueprints, charts, machine and architectural drawings, and newspapers could, he says, be radioed in seconds. ‘At the moment Mr Baird is working on the elimination of the only serious difficulty: the new system will have to be operated on ultra short waves which will travel only comparatively short distances before the message or picture fades. By having equipment to pick up and relay the impulses every fifty miles of the route, messages and pictures could be sent at twenty five a second from, say, London to Rome. ‘At the moment there is no means of trans-Atlantic transmission. Mr Baird is convinced that these difficulties will be overcome. He said yesterday that his new instrument makes an international newspaper possible. A whole newspaper could be transmitted about the world in a matter of seconds.’

The following month, on 25th September 1944, Sir Edward Willshaw informed the Court of Cable and Wireless that Baird—whose primary interest was in television—had produced nothing of technical advantage to the company during his appointment as Consulting Technical Adviser. The Court agreed that the appointment be terminated and that Baird be given three months’ notice.47

The war years 385 There can be no doubt that the Cable and Wireless company’s bounteous action in November 1941 is an exemplar of industrial moral and social responsibility. Abandoned by the Government, Baird was given succour during a difficult period. As Willshaw has written48, in a letter dated 7th August 1951 to Moseley: ‘My company, through kindness of heart and on purely humanitarian grounds, eased his path during the war up to the date of his death and enabled him to carry on with his experiments’. Such patronage and indulgence towards a ‘lone’ inventor were very rare in war-torn Britain. Willshaw seems to have had a most kindly attitude to Baird’s efforts. In his letter Willshaw mentioned: ‘Years ago I also endeavoured to bring about an arrangement between the Marconi Company and Baird for a joint company to develop television under the name of “Marconi–Baird”, or “Baird–Marconi”, but at that time I had not the influence which I had later and so it came to nought . . .’. He considered Baird to be a genius and thought his early death was a great loss to science. Towards the end of 1944 Baird, who was staying with his wife at the time, suffered an attack of an illness which left him in a feverish state for a week. His doctor recommended that he should leave London and stay in a place, away from air-raids, where tranquil conditions would hasten his return to good health. Crowborough was chosen and there the Bairds spent several weeks enjoying the invigorating air. In 1945 it was apparent that the war would end within a few months. Baird’s health was failing and the eight-hour journey to Bude was much too wearisome and uncomfortable for him to make many visits to see his family. Mrs Baird decided to leave Cornwall. Since her home at Sydenham was too damaged to reoccupy and because it was almost impossible for repairs to be effected, she decided to seek a property on the south coast within easy travelling distance of London. Bexhill, a town situated in Sussex between Eastbourne and Hastings, was selected because the children’s school, Sandown, was returning to its former premises. The move was made with difficulty49. Mrs Baird ‘found an unfurnished house to rent and moved an ailing mother, two children, the inevitable birds and animals, furniture from Sutton and Sydenham, and all the things we had accumulated at Bude. John was so breathless that he could not lift a suitcase, and my mother, with heart trouble, was a virtual invalid. ‘Bexhill, exposed to the east winds, was cold; I knew no-one except the teachers at Sandown, and John and my mother were invalids. I did much of John’s correspondence for him. . . . He was very ill but determined to carry on [at Crescent Wood Road].’

Baird much enjoyed the bracing stimulus of the resort’s sea-air and spent as much time as he could spare with his family. The last two years of Baird’s life were filled with sadness and anxiety for Mrs Baird. Her husband’s physical condition—but not his mental state—was the cause for much concern. Doctors and specialists were consulted, X-rays and angiograms were taken, and opinions were advanced. All agreed that rest was necessary, but inactivity was a state which Baird could not willingly

386

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

tolerate. His ardent and visionary spirit demanded the furtherance of new challenges. Towards the end of 1945 Baird moved his private laboratory to an elegant three-storeyed Georgian mansion at No. 4 Upper Grosvenor Street, London W1, with the intention of establishing a new company. His schoolday friend Jack Buchanan put up a sum of money (believed to be about £5000) to launch a new venture which, with typical Baird vanity, was registered as John Logie Baird Ltd. The directors were J Buchanan (Chairman), J L Baird, J DonaldsonHudson, H Norman Letts and K F Shelley, KC. E G O Anderson, who had been employed by Baird from 1936, was appointed Chief Engineer; a Mr Millet became the manager, and a Mr Castle was taken on as a buyer. Arthur Johnson, the retired glass technologist, who in 1944 had fabricated Baird’s telechrome tube, was asked to carry out similar work at the new premises50. No. 4 Upper Grosvenor Street had space for offices, laboratories, a studio and a control room. It was chosen because it was felt that it would attract potential purchasers of the company’s products. One of the employees was A E Sayers. He had joined the Baird Television Development Company in June 1929 as an ‘instrument makers improver’ but later became a personal assistant to Baird. Sayers stayed with Baird until April 1941 when he was directed to war work. After his release in 1945 he returned to Crescent Wood Road and subsequently remained with John Logie Baird Ltd until May 1945. He has recorded some impressions of No. 4 Upper Grosvenor Street51. ‘Our premises . . . had a studio and control room on ground level, a large gas oven specially installed for extra large glass work, but very little glass work was actually done. The glass worker was a Mr Johnson who worked part time. Upstairs was a workshop area, but no machinery whatsoever except for hand held tools, and welding equipment. No drawing office existed at first, but I became the draughtsman, leaving one other to run the workshop side. Some tv tubes and projection tubes were made. . . . Mr Baird very seldom showed up, he was mostly at CWR or Bexhill; he was not very well.’

The reason for Baird’s infrequent visits was made known to Mrs Baird one day in November 1945 when Baird took his wife and children to London to show them his company’s premises in Upper Grosvenor Street. The four-storey building was without a lift and Baird’s ascent up the staircase was painful and characterised by much pausing and gasping for breathe on each step. Sayers has written: ‘We did not have a suitable camera or a TX [a transmitter] to show the Victory Parade [on 8th June 1946]. It was intended to show the BBC broadcast in one news theatre in Baker Street using a projector receiver we had made at Grosvenor Street. The BBC signals were full of interference so we gave up. Instead Mr Anderson took the 27 inch CRT set to the Savoy and it was shown in a room surrounded with lots of mirrors.’ (The news theatre was probably one which was owned by Capital and Provincial News Theatres. One day, ‘quite out of the blue,’ a Mr Seeman visited the Bairds and showed an enthusiasm for the future of television which they found appealing. Baird became a

The war years 387 member of the Board of Capital and Provincial News Theatres and was given facilities in a news theatre, in the heart of London, for his experiments with large-screen work.) The principal product of John Logie Baird Ltd was an impressive all-purpose piece of equipment which displayed a bright television picture on the flat 22 in × 19 in screen of a 27 in diameter cathode ray tube, and which incorporated in the cabinet a Plessey 11-band radio receiver and a Plessey auto-change gramophone record player. In 1946 a production unit was set up at 466 Alexandra Avenue, Rayners Lane, Harrow and there several costly but well specified television receivers were manufactured. The Adelphi had a distinctive bow-fronted cabinet, the Garrick was provided with an all-wave radio, and the Lyric was a superb example of the cabinet makers’ art. Presumably Jack Buchanan, the actor Chairman, chose the theatre names of the sets. It is believed that 600 receivers were constructed at Rayners Lane. Over the Christmas period of 1945 the weather in Bexhill was exceptionally mild, Baird seemed to be in good health, and he enjoyed staying with his family for about a fortnight. He returned to London on New Year’s Day, but after a few days caught a bad chill. After a month his wife took him back to Bexhill to convalesce.

Figure 18.12

A Baird de luxe television receiver built before the war. It incorporated a 15 in cathode ray tube, an all-wave radio, an automatic record changing gramophone, and a cocktail cabinet

Source: Dr G E Winbolt

388

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

Baird did not live to see television, which he had pioneered from 1923, become the universal medium of entertainment of the post-war years. One day in February 1946 he went for a walk, returned home tired, went to bed, and suffered a stroke during the night52. Nurses were engaged to attend to him, as Mrs Baird’s own health was near to breaking point and her mother was almost bedridden. For the next 13 weeks Baird spent much time in bed fighting for his life. ‘John was restless and ill: supposed to stay in bed, he used to get up and wander around the house. He had a longing for fruit, hard to find so soon after the war, and we sent to Covent Garden for grapes. In every room we had a coal fire and an electric heater, in spite of which John was always cold, sleeping at night with his electric blanket full on. Our bill for electricity ran at about sixty five pounds a quarter, which alarmed me. He dreamed of a holiday in the sun, even talked of visiting South Africa, but a dream was all it was. ‘As summer came he was able to go for short walks [and to everyone’s surprise he appeared to be making a wonderful recovery]. I was glad and said: “You are much better than you were.” ‘He looked at me and said: “I am much worse.” ‘On 14th June he was having a restless night. I gave him a drink of water and he looked at me and said: “In spite of all thy faults I love thee still.” ‘We settled down and I waited to hear him breathing quietly before I went off to sleep. ‘When I woke next morning the room was unnaturally quiet and I knew at first glance that he was dead.’53

Fate had dealt Baird a cruel blow. Although he had been stricken in body, his mind had been alert and active to the very end. He was a visionary and had been making plans for the future up to the day before his death. Baird’s death certificate recorded the medical ailments which led to his demise as stroke, coronary thrombosis and arteriosclerosis. Immediately afterwards, Mrs Baird arranged for her beloved husband to be buried beside his parents in a cemetery in the town of his birth, Helensburgh. Many friends and colleagues attended the funeral. Later a memorial service was held on 26th June 1946 at St Saviour’s, Walton Street, London. Baird did not die a rich man. When probate was granted in 1947 the certificate showed that Baird’s wealth at death was just £7370, a sum which would be equivalent to about £147 000 in 199654.

Notes After Baird’s death John Logie Baird Ltd was purchased by Scophony Ltd on 29th November 1948. A few months later, on 12th February 1949, Scophony Ltd changed its name to Scophony–Baird Ltd. A further change took place on 14th August 1952 when Scophony–Baird Ltd was renamed Baird Television Ltd. On 19th March 1954 Mr A W M Hartley acquired the right to use the Baird trade name and his firm became Hartley Baird Ltd. Subsequently Hartley sold the trade name Baird to Radio Rentals Ltd and after some time the trade name was obtained by Thorn Electrical Industries Ltd.

The war years 389

References 1 NORMAN, B.: ‘Here’s looking at you’ (BBC and the Royal Television Society, London, 1984), p. 212 2 GREER, H.: letter to the Rt. Hon. Oliver Stanley, President of the Board of Trade, 17th November 1939, Post 5474/33 3 ANON.: ‘Television financing’, press extract, Post 5474/33 4 BAIRD, M.: ‘Television Baird’ (HAUM, Capetown, 1973), p. 143 5 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’, (Royal Television Society, London, 1988), p. 145 6 MOSELEY, S. A.: ‘John Baird’ (Odhams Press, London, 1952), p. 226 7 Ref. 2 8 Quoted in Ref. 6, p. 231 9 WOOD, D., and DEMPSTER, D.: ‘The narrow margin’ (Hutchinson, London, 1961), pp. 35–51 10 YASS, M.: ‘The home front’, (Wayland, London, 1971), p. 11 11 Ibid., pp. 14–15 12 Ref. 4, p. 144 13 Ref. 5, pp. 146–7 14 ANON.: report on ‘Baird high-definition colour television’, Journal of the Television Society, 1941, 3, (6), pp. 171–2 15 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in television apparatus’, British patent no. 545 078, application date 7th September 1940 16 ANON.: report, Wireless World, c. April 1941 17 ANON.: ‘Colour television achieves realism’, New York Times, 5th September 1940 18 GOLDMARK, P. C., DYER, J. N., PIONE, E. R., and HOLLYWOOD, J. M.: ‘Colour television’, Proc. IRE, April 1942, pp. 162–81 19 COCK, G.: memorandum to Controller (P) and Controller (E), 6th September 1940, BBC file T100 20 WILLSHAW, E.: letter to S. A. Moseley, 7th August 1951, reproduced in Ref. 6, pp. 245–6 21 Minute 2080, 28th October 1941, Cable and Wireless archives 22 Ref. 20 23 ANON.: ‘Television in depth’, Scotsman, 19th December 1941 24 HERBERT, R. M.: ‘Seeing by wireless’ (PW Publishing, Croydon, 1997), pp. 24–6 25 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Stereophonic television’, Electronic Engineering, February 1942, pp. 620–1 26 ANON.: ‘Stereoscopic colour television’, Wireless World, February 1942, pp. 31–2 27 SCHUSTER, L. F.: memorandum to the Director General (BBC), 28th April 1942, BBC file T100 28 Ref. 4, p. 150 29 Ibid. 30 ANON.: ‘Thomascolour for television’, Journal of the Royal Television Society, 1947, 5, (3), pp. 107–8 31 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in colour television apparatus’, British patent no. 555 167, application date 13th May 1942

390

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

32 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in colour television’, British patent no. 562 334, application date 10th October 1942 33 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Improvements in colour television’, British patent no. 562 168, application date 25th July 1942 34 ANON.: ‘J. L. Baird’s telechrome’, Journal of the Royal Television Society, 1944, 4, (3), pp. 58–9 35 Ref. 24 36 ‘Report on a visit to Mr J. L. Baird’s laboratory, 13th January 1944’, by G. B. Banks of MWT Co. Ltd, and Mr Higgett and Mr J. A. Smale of Cable and Wireless Ltd. 37 ANON.: ‘Baird gives television colour and depth’, News Chronicle, 17th August 1944 38 ‘Report of the Television Committee, 1943’ (The Hankey Committee), Privy Council, 29th December 1944 39 BAIRD, J. L.: memorandum to the Television Committee, undated but 1944, paper TC (44) 19, Post Office Records and Archives 40 BURNS, R. W.: ‘The history of television for public showing in cinemas in the United Kingdom’, IEE Proc., December 1985, 133, Pt. A, No. 8, pp. 553–63 41 Minute 2579 of the Court meeting held on 29th February 1944, Cable and Wireless archives 42 WILLSHAW, E.: letter to J. L. Baird, 30th March 1944, Cable and Wireless archives 43 BAIRD, J. L.: letter to Sir Edward Willshaw, 30th March 1944, Cable and Wireless archives 44 Ref. 20 45 SMALE, J. A.: letter to Mr Travers-Laney, 6th December 1978, Cable and Wireless archives 46 WADDELL, P., and MCARTHUR, T.: ‘The secret life of John Logie baird’ (Hutchinson, London, 1986), pp. 243–61 47 Minute 2753 of the Court Meeting held on 25th September 1944, Cable and Wireless archives 48 Ref. 20 49 Ref. 4, p. 155 50 HERBERT, R. M.: ‘John Logie Baird Ltd 1945–48’, October 1999, 2 pp, personal collection 51 SAYERS, A.: letter to R. M. Herbert, 12th October 1988, personal collection 52 Ref. 4, p. 156 53 Ibid. 54 BURNS, R. W.: ‘John Logie Baird’, in ‘New dictionary of national biography’, in preparation

Epilogue

Two ‘greats’

After Marconi’s death, Sir Ambrose Fleming1, a friend of both Marconi and Baird, wrote an appreciation of the great radio pioneer which could equally well have applied to Baird. ‘In the first place, he was eminently utilitarian. His predominant interest was not in purely scientific knowledge per se, but in its practical application for useful purposes. He had a very keen appreciation of the subjects on which it was worthwhile to expend labour in the above respect. ‘He had enormous perseverance and powers of work. He was not discouraged by initial failures or adverse criticisms of his work. He had great powers of influencing others to assist him in the ends he had in view. He had remarkable gifts of invention and ready insight into the causes of failure and the means of remedy. He was also of equable temperament and never seemed to give way to impatience or anger . . . He also owed a good deal to the loyal and efficient work of those who assisted him.’

Marconi set out on his life’s work during the period which Maclaurin2 has characterised as ‘the era of the entrepreneur inventor’. ‘Success was dependent not only on the ability of the inventor to make a significant technical advance, but on his capacity to carry through a successful innovation—a rare combination of skills.’ Entrepreneurial skill was needed to develop the radio industry in addition to inventive talent, scientific research and speculative capital. Marconi had the early advantage that progress in the new medium of wireless telegraphy was not determined by the existing large industrial organisations and research laboratories. But when Baird attempted to establish his low-definition television system after 1926 there were several industrial giants, including the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, General Electric, the Radio Corporation of America, Bell Telephone Laboratories and Telefunken, which had well endowed R&D laboratories and expert and well experienced staffs, as well as the financial resources, to further television. Baird, unlike Marconi, faced formidable competition. Nevertheless companies were formed and the business strategies of these seemed to owe much to the formation and development of the Marconi companies.

392

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

On his arrival in the UK in 1896 the unknown 21-year-old Marconi had the great good fortune to receive patronage and encouragement from W Preece, the Engineer-in-Chief of the British Post Office, and the Post Office. And when Marconi’s demonstrations before serving officers of the Army and the Royal Navy were successful, his future prospects seemed assured. Marconi’s rudimentary scheme of wireless telegraphy had an almost immediate application to signalling and to safety at sea. Baird was not so fortunate. He did not obtain any early support from the one body, the British Broadcasting Corporation, which could assist him, and his television system had no direct relevance to safety. When Marconi commenced his work in 1895 a rudimentary demonstration of wireless telegraphy, which pointed the way forward, had already been given by Lodge in 1894. The development of wireless telegraphy, from the date of Hertz’s 1886 experimental investigations of electromagnetic waves to 1894, was relatively short compared to the development of television. More than fifty years were to elapse from the date of Willoughby Smith’s notification, in 1873, of the photoconducting properties of selenium, before a crude demonstration of television could be given in 1925. During this period a profusion of patents and ideas from inventors, scientists and engineers from around the world had been published on ‘seeing by electricity’. The way ahead was certainly not so obvious as in the case of wireless telegraphy. After Baird had given his January 1926 demonstration and indicated how television could progress, the implementation of his system by others was not found to be particularly easy. The well equipped British Admiralty Research Laboratory, at the National Physical Laboratory, was not able to emulate Baird’s achievement, although Dr R T Beatty of ARL had been given a demonstration by Baird. Both Marconi and Baird had the same policy with regard to the protection of their methods and apparatuses; they patented everything which they could devise: for who can ‘look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not’? Nonetheless there was an important difference in their attitudes to the patents of others. Maclaurin3 has written: ‘Marconi’s contributions to the commercialisation of wireless made him more important as an innovator than as an inventor. But he succeeded in getting possession of many of the principal patents in the radio art, despite the fact that the most important wireless discoveries and inventions were not made by him or his associates.’ The principal patents in Marconi’s name were on improvements relating to vertical antennas, coherers, magnetic detectors and methods of selective tuning. His British patent (no. 7777, filed in 1900) on selective resonance became one of the most famous in wireless history. The pioneer work on selective resonance had been undertaken by Oliver Lodge, and a patent had been issued in his name on his method of tuning, but when Marconi realised the importance of tuning in wireless communications he applied himself immediately to make Lodge’s method more practical. Several suits were initiated by Marconi against his rivals, and were successfully concluded, but in 1911 the prior Lodge patent was upheld against Marconi.

Two ‘greats’

393

Again, although Branley patented the coherer it was Lodge who first conceived of using it as a wireless detector. He did not feel that he had made an important invention and consequently did not apply for a patent. Marconi made some improvements to the device and obtained a number of basic patents for its utilisation in wireless communications. Similarly, his development work on the magnetic detector was based on a discovery by Lord Rutherford. The directors of the various companies associated with Baird did not follow the patent policy of the directors of the Marconi companies and made an error of judgement in not seeking out potentially worthwhile television patents. The importance of patents cannot be overstated. Two examples, involving Farnsworth and RCA, and Chevallier and RCA, will suffice to establish this point. Philo Farnsworth, a ‘lone inventor’ of the Baird type worked for many years from 1926 on an all-electronic system of television. His electron camera was based on an evacuated glass vessel, containing a photosensitive cathode and an anode, which he called an image dissector tube. R&D work on this and related cathode ray/photoemissive devices resulted in 73 patents and 60 applications by 1938, of which Farnsworth contributed about three-quarters. Although his camera tube could not compete effectively with Zworykin’s iconoscope tube, nevertheless Farnsworth’s patents covered a number of basic features of electron optics and were of some importance and worth. In particular, Farnsworth’s patent of 7th January 1927 and Zworykin’s patent of 29th December 1923 led to an interference case being opened on 28th May 1932. Much legal wrangling between RCA and Farnsworth ensued, but eventually RCA was persuaded that a settlement with Farnsworth was necessary. Negotiations led to a contract with Farnsworth Television dated 15th September 1939 according to which RCA was granted a licence at a cost of $1 000 000 over a period of ten years. Again, RCA was obliged to enter into negotiations with P E L Chevallier and F Holweck in respect of their hard vacuum cathode ray tube. This had been seen by Zworykin when he had visited, late in 1928, the Laboratoire des Etablissements Edouard Belin, Paris. Zworykin immediately realised that their tube was superior to the type which he was using and he bought a Holwek and Chevallier tube from the Laboratoire des Etablissements Edouard Belin. The result of Zworykin’s journey was the purchase by RCA of Chevallier’s patent of 1929 and the engineering of an electron gun, with electrostatic focusing, which came to be at the heart of all camera and display tubes built and sold by RCA and some of its licensees. On this episode in television history, Zworykin’s biographer, A Abramson4, has written: ‘Zworykin’s trip to Paris changed the course of television history.’ On the other hand, the directors of the Baird companies placed too much reliance on Baird’s ability to further single-handedly the art of television and did not pursue a policy of purchasing the patents of others. Hence, when mechanical systems of scanning gave way to electronic methods of scanning in the mid-1930s, Baird Television Ltd was at a disadvantage and the patents of the company (which by the end of 1930 comprised the 88 patents of Baird and four from other members of the company) became almost valueless.

394

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

A further point of difference between Marconi and Baird concerns their attitudes to consultants. Marconi fully appreciated the benefits which would accrue to the well-being of his companies from their expertise and experience and employed them for many years. So far as is known none of the early Baird companies employed consultants. Possibly this difference stemmed from the different educational backgrounds of the two inventors. Baird had followed a four-year engineering course and engineering apprenticeship and had been awarded an Associateship of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow. He was not an amateur, and was probably as well qualified in engineering as the majority of the engineers who worked in industry in the 1920s. Marconi did not matriculate, did not follow an apprenticeship or a formal, structured course in engineering, and did not obtain a recognised qualification in this discipline; essentially he was an amateur inventor. He may have felt after his initial experiments that he lacked certain engineering skills and knowledge and that consequently staff possessing the requisite expertise and experience should be appointed. Marconi surrounded himself from an early stage with a group of very able engineers and technicians including Dr W H Eccles, Dr Erskine Murray, W W Bradfield, A Gray, C S Franklin, H J Round and others. By 1900 there were 17 professional engineers in the Marconi company in the UK. Bell Telephone Laboratories, GE, RCA, EMI and others, during their work on television, employed highly competent engineering staffs. This was not the position, prior to about 1932, in the Baird companies. Baird was the ‘kingpin’ of BTDC and BIT: the work which was undertaken in their laboratories was almost entirely based on his ideas and if anything happened to him which interrupted the flow of these ideas there was a possibility the companies would collapse. He had to be insured—for £150 000. Both Marconi and Baird initially had a ‘blind spot’. Marconi considered the Morse code to be quite suitable for ship signalling and for transoceanic communications, and he saw no real need for wireless telephony. Like Baird, Marconi’s approach to his work was pragmatic. He was not interested in investigating scientific fields which did not appear to have an immediate commercial viability. This blind spot was a temporary disadvantage for the Marconi company and the furtherance of communications. Luckily for Marconi some of the important early work on wirelesss telephony was undertaken by two of his rivals, de Forest and Fessenden, and neither inventor had access to financial or engineering resources or skills comparable to those of the Marconi companies. Baird’s blind spot was his persistence—certainly to 1931—in believing that lowdefinition television, using the medium-wave band and mechanical methods of scanning, would suffice for popular television broadcasting. This persistence was against the advice which he had been given in March 1929 by the Postmaster General that he should press on with experiments on a much lower band. Unfortunately for Baird both RCA and EMI, which had very well resourced R&D departments, were actively working towards an all-electronic, highdefinition solution to the television problem. Unlike his fellow countrymen Lord Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell, Baird was not an intellectual giant. But, as with Marconi, he possessed qualities of

Two ‘greats’

395

perseverance, enterprise and inventiveness which enabled him to succeed where others had failed. Baird’s and Marconi’s early investigations exemplify a statement of Benjamin Franklin: ‘I have always thought that a man of tolerable abilities may work great changes, and accomplish great affairs among mankind, if he first forms a good plan, and cutting off all amusements or other employments that would divert his attention, makes the execution of that same plan his sole study and business.’ Baird’s life and work from the spring of 1923 until the winter of 1925/26 is unique in the annals of British twentieth-century electrical engineering. Here was a 35-year-old man with no extended experience of research and development work, no workshop or laboratory facilities, no scientific apparatus of any sort, no employment and no external source of funding, no access to acknowledged expertise or experience, and only one friend in Hastings to give encouragement, seeking in a small room in a suburban house the solution to a problem which had defied the efforts of inventors and scientists around the world for approximately fifty years, and which Dr C V Drysdale, the Superintendent of the Admiralty Research Laboratory, described in 1926 as ‘extremely difficult’. That Baird succeeded in demonstrating for the first time anywhere even a crude form of television is to his everlasting credit. It was a most remarkable and outstanding accomplishment which has not been paralleled since. In the opinion of T H Bridgewater, who worked for Baird from 1928 and who retired as Chief Engineer, BBC Television: ‘This achievement can never be taken from him. It must not be forgotten and should be glorified for the prodigious pioneer effort it represented—in the same way as other great pioneer feats of British exploration and invention have been honoured through the centuries.’ Baird’s subsequent technical work to about 1931 deserves much praise. His endeavours in showing the principles of operation of spotlight scanning, noctovision, phonovision, long-distance television, colour television, stereoscopic television, daylight television, zone television, two-way television and largescreen television were mutatis mutandis wholly consonant with those being undertaken by the mighty and prestigious Bell Telephone Laboratories. His pre-war investigations, at his own expense and in a private laboratory attached to his home, of cinema television (which prior to the outbreak of the Second World War seemed to have a bright future), and his wartime development under very arduous conditions of medium- and high-definition colour television and stereoscopic television are especially commendable. These latter developments were without equal in the United Kingdom at that time. Looking back over the endeavours of Baird, it is apparent that he was inspired by the work of Marconi. Baird5 once said of him: ‘Although the invention of no single device of fundamental importance can be attributed to Marconi it was he who ventured forth like Christopher Colombus and forced upon the attention of the world the existence of a new means of communication.’ Neither Marconi nor Baird was an original scientist; rather they were tenacious experimenters who with great resolution, initially single-handedly, sought

396

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

to demonstrate narrow-band wireless broadcasting and narrow-band television broadcasting respectively, and to advance the possibilities which their work seemed to suggest. Marconi was generously rewarded for his efforts. Honours— medals, honorary degrees, honorary membership of prestigious institutions, government awards, and the Nobel Prize in Physics—were heaped on him. He became not only a national hero but an international hero: he was greatly respected around the world. Baird fared less well. The Scottish universities (two of which, Glasgow and Aberdeen, had honoured Marconi), which might have been expected to honour a compatriot, shamefully ignored Baird. Only the Royal Society of Edinburgh, at the suggestion of Major Church, awarded Baird with an Honorary Fellowship. And yet Baird had had a much more difficult task than Marconi. Sir Noel Ashbridge6 once remarked: ‘There is no doubt that the experiments of J L Baird accelerated serious and urgent consideration of the practical possibilities of a public television service.’ He should be remembered, as Bridgewater7 has written, as ‘a kindly, courteous, sensitive and brave man—a man with a passionate faith in television’s destiny in the service of mankind . . .’.

References 1 FLEMING, A.: Obituary, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 1937, 26, pp. 57–62. 2 MACLAURIN, W. R.: ‘Invention and innovation in the radio industry’ (Macmillan, New York, 1949), p. 245. 3 Ibid., p. 43 4 ABRAMSON, A.: ‘Zworykin, pioneer of television’ (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1995), p. 236 5 BAIRD, J. L.: ‘Sermons, soap and television’ (Royal Television Society, London, 1998), p. 108 6 BRIDGEWATER, T. H.: ‘Baird and television’, Journal of the Royal Television Society, March 1967, p. 68 7 Ibid., p. 68.

Appendix 1

J L Baird’s patents

1 222 604, 26th July 1923, Mosaic of lamps switched by a commutator 2 230 576, 29th December 1923, Nipkow disc with lenses in the apertures 3 235 619, 12th March 1924, Use of serrated disc to reduce the inertia effect of selenium cells 4 236 978, 17th March 1924, (1) Use of a generator at the sending end, and a synchronous motor at the receiving end of a television link. (2) Use of one disc with a spiral of holes and another with radial slots to minimise the inertia effects of p.e. cells 5 253 957, 1st January 1925, 12th January 1925, 23rd January 1925, Rotating lens discs subject to translational motion 6 265 640, 6th August 1925, Optical lever. Lensed discs rotating in opposite directions to give a fine division of an image 7 266 564, 1st September 1925, Colour television, stereoscopic television 8 266 591, 1st September 1925, Use of two detectors and two interrupters rotating at different speeds. The p.e. cells produce signals having different sub-carrier frequencies. Use of single carrier frequency for transmitting the combined signal 9 267 056, 1st September 1925, Glow discharge lamp having electrodes of large mass to dissipate heat 10 267 378, 1st September 1925, Received television signals amplified by different amounts prior to being displayed 11 269 219, 21st October 1925, Modulated arc as a light source for television 12 269 658, 20th January 1926, Spotlight scanning system 13 269 834, 21st October 1925, Synchronisation of sending-end and receivingend apparatuses. Use of special image at the receiver 14 270 222, 21st October 1925, Use of the first derivative of the output current of the p.e. cell 15 275 318, 3rd May 1926, (1) Use of synchronous motor fed from a variable frequency oscillator. (2) Adjustment of phase by rotation of the motor stator. (3) Use of a spot of light in the received image for automatic control

398

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

16 284 770, 3rd November 1926, A variable resistor using a rubber tube 17 285 738, 15th October 1926, Array of tubes, optic fibres mentioned 18 288 882, 15th October 1926, 26th January 1927, 10th March 1927, Use of infra-red radiation. Noctovision 19 289 104, 15th October 1926, Recording television signals—both vision and sound—on a record 20 289 307, 15th October 1926, Various ways of scanning images using Nipkow discs (with holes, or slots, or lenses, or a combination) 21 291 121, 30th November 1926, Phosphorescent screen (chemical or mechanical) and a method of obliterating images 22 291 634, 3rd December 1926, A light valve using a pair of gratings 23 292 185, 21st December 1926, Use of electromagnetic radiation instead of visible light 24 292 365, 22nd December 1926, Stereoscopic pictures 25 292 632, 26th January 1927, Multi-recording of television signals (concurrently) and subsequent transmission in sequence 26 294 267, 21st January 1927, Two or more light sources cooperating with two or more spirals to give a brighter image 27 294 671, 26th January 1927, Projecting optical images on phosphorescent or fluorescent screens by ultra-violet or infra-red radiation 28 295 210, 9th August 1927, A spot of light on an object becomes a luminous cross 29 297 014, 10th March 1927, Viewing an object by Hertzian waves 30 298 582, 11th May 1927, Selective reception of electromagnetic waves 31 299 076, 20th June 1927, Facsimile transmission. Drawings, etc., are cut into strips, then scanned 32 299 402, 26th May 1927, Bubble scanner 33 300 183, 7th May 1927, Light-sensitive cell of the selenium type. Provision of temperature control 34 300 517, 13th May 1927, Synchronisation using pendulums. Signals generated by the making and breaking of a light beam 35 300 592, 13th May 1927, Variable width slit as a light valve for use in recording sound signals on a film 36 301 097, 26th May 1927, Variable speed controller, operated automatically by movement of a light spot over a p.e. cell or cells 37 301 364, 28th May 1927, Apparatus for converting sound waves into electric currents based on the use of organ pipes 38 301 847, 7th June 1927, Use of a constant speed motor and special commutator to control the speed of a d.c. motor 39 302 187, 11th June 1927, Use of multiple commutator switches in television. Bank of lamps receiver 40 303 771, 5th July 1927, A scanning system to give greater definition in the centre of an image. Intercalation mentioned 41 306 158, 17th August 1927, Spotlight-scanning—improvement of optical efficiency. Use of additional mirrors and lenses (including quartz rods)

J L Baird’s patents

399

42 309 965, 19th October 1927, Two-way television. Synchronism effected at either the sending-end or the receiving-end 43 312 406, 30th November 1927, Scanning—use of short focal length lens and scanning disc to give a brighter image at the receiver 44 312 560, 30th November 1927, Colour television. Use of two discs at both the sending-end and the receiving-end, and two lamps. Stereoscopic television mentioned 45 314 591, 4th January 1928, Colour television. Three-spiral discs used 46 317 143, 15th May 1928, Scanning (mechanical) arrangement to give orthogonal rectangular images 47 318 278, 31st May 1928, Scanner disc used additionally as the diaphragm of a loudspeaker 48 318 295, 2nd June 1928, Light-sensitive cells of the selenium type 49 319 304, 20th June 1928, Multi-spiral scanning disc to give different image formats 50 319 307, 20th June 1928, Colour television. 51 320 627, 16th April 1928, 24th May 1928, Spotlight scanning. Use of reflectors to improve the optical efficiency 52 320 628, 16th April 1928, Controlling the speed of electric motors for TV apparatus 53 320 639, 16th April 1928, 25th April 1928, 14th May 1928, 26th May 1928, Synchronisation. The signal is introduced into the transmission line carrying the picture signals. Various arrangements 54 320 687, 20th June 1928, Switching arrangement for receivers 55 320 909, 25th April 1928, Gramophone in which either the turntable or a scanning disc or both may be driven from a single electric motor 56 321 138, 31st May 1928, Use of two scanning discs, one of which rotates at a sub-multiple of the speed of the other, so as to alter the size of the received image 57 321 196, 4th May 1928, Electric discharge lamps, concave anode 58 321 389, 5th June 1928, Colour television 59 321 441, 11th July 1928, Stereoscopic television 60 321 930, 20th June 1928, Electric discharge lamps, flat anode 61 321 961, 20th June 1928, Variation of p.e. cell aperture with different object distances in combination with a lens disc 62 322 481, 6th June 1928, Use of rectangular shaped apertures 63 322 776, 9th June 1928, Colour television 64 322 822, 11th July 1928, Multi-turn receiver scanning disc provided with neon lamps 65 322 823, 11th July 1928, Colour television. Receiver uses three lamps 66 323 817, 10th October 1928, Receiver screen—arcs are formed between rotating spikes and a fixed plate 67 323 818, 12th October 1928, Receiver—superimposition of a background onto the received image 68 324 029, 3rd October 1928, Transmitter—use of strip with characters on it

400

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

69 324 049, 10th October 1928, Phonovision 70 324 399, 26th October 1928, Means, using Nipkow discs, for receiving television transmissions from more than one transmitter 71 324 904, 2nd November 1928, Recording of signals on ‘pole-finding’ paper 72 324 949, 5th November 1928, Use of groups of p.e. cells situated at different distances from the scanning disc 73 324 955, 7th November 1928, Synchronising device 74 325 524, 21st April 1928, Glow discharge lamp circuits 75 325 527, 21st September 1928, 4th October 1928, Receiver disc scanner having point electrodes—which produce electric discharges—and either a fluorescent or phosphorescent screen. Use of infra-red radiation to erase image 76 325 854, 26th October 1928, Combination of glow lamp, scanning disc and magnifying lens 77 326 192, 5th November 1928, Projection of a lamp array onto a screen 78 326 230, 5th December 1928, Arrangement for viewing an image either horizontally or vertically 79 326 251, 10th October 1928, Reduction of the number of lenses in a lens disc 80 328 616, 31st January 1929, 4th February 1929, Use of concave mirrors in a mirror scanner. The scanner, light source and screen are co-linear to reduce distortion 81 328 691, 4th February 1929, Discharge lamps 82 329 664, 19th February 1929, Flat and ‘cupped’ Nipkow discs. Variable definition. Rectangular image fields 83 330 220, 31st January 1929, Use of chemically treated paper to give an image when exposed to, say, blue light, but which is obliterated when exposed to, say, red light 84 333 942, 24th May 1929, Spotlight scanning. Additional p.e. cell to give highlight effect 85 336 655, 17th July 1929, 14th September 1929, 20th November 1929, Synchronisation without the need for special pulses. Use of inherent picture frequency. Toothed-armature synchroniser 86 346 834, 18th January 1930, Use of two valves—one for the neon lamp and one for the synchronising apparatus—to give a balanced load on the power supply. Synchronisation separator. 87 347 254, 21st January 1930, 15th February 1930, 4th June 1930, Bank of lamps, or electromagnetically operated shutters. Arrangements for preenergising and post-energising the lamps. Use of capacitors 88 347 741, 29th January 1930, 14th February 1930, Zone television 89 348 211, 14th February 1930, Honeycomb of lamps—different cell sizes. Zone television 90 348 638, 7th February 1930, An extension of patent 303 771 91 359 054, 13th September 1930, Glow discharge lamp: concentration of glow discharge

J L Baird’s patents

401

92 359 981, 30th July 1930, Colour television. Receiver multi-lamp screen with filters 93 360 942, 6th August 1930, 8th December 1930, Mirror drum; zone scanning 94 365 241, 12th November 1930, 25th August 1931, Two-way television system in which the received image is viewed in line with the scanning beam 95 371 520, 18th February 1931, Lens system, with variable focal length, for use with scanners 96 373 196, 18th February 1931, Stereoscopic television 97 374 114, 4th March 1931, 8th May 1931, Two-way television. Synchronisation method 98 374 564, 9th April 1931, Scanner. Static ring of mirrors and a single rotating mirror 99 381 898, 30th May 1932, Apparatuses to give (1) intercalated successive zone traversal scanning, (2) reversed adjacent zone traversal scanning, (3) reversed intercalated zone traversal scanning, and (4) orthodox sequential zone traversal scanning 100 391 924, 2nd February 1932, Scanning disc to give, cyclically, fine and coarse scanning 101 392 730, 29th April 1932, Modification of patent 322 481 102 399 552, 7th April 1932, Scanner—endless belt of canted mirrors 103 408 332, 12th October 1932, 10th November 1932, 21st Novmeber 1932, Synchronisation. Receiver scanner driven by a synchronous motor fed from the mains. Stator rotable by another motor so that if the synchronous pulse frequency and the mains frequency do not have the required relationship synchronism is achieved 104 408 596, 6th October 1932, Plurality of light sources used in scanning 105 412 941, 3rd January 1933, Enhancement of patent 336 655 106 415 036, 14th February 1933, Zone television 107 415 744, 27th February 1933, 31st May 1933, Mirror drum. Two light spots 108 418 527, 25th May 1933, Colour television. Mirror drum and moving aperture (fixed aperture and rotating slot(s)) fitted with filters 109 418 759, 2nd June 1933, Use of two mirror drums to give higher definition 110 423 101, 21st July 1933, 17th August 1933, Intercalated scanning 111 423 854, 1st June 1933, 2nd June 1933, similar to patent 418 759 112 424 632, 21st July 1933, Screen of C.R.T. (coated with platinum black) rendered incandescent by electron beam—to form image 113 424 633, 21st July 1933, Variation of the intermediate film method in which the film is replaced by a rigid coated carrier 114 430 569, 18th November 1933, Lens system for a mirror drum scanner to give good optical efficiency 115 430 570, 18th November 1933, Lens system to cover two lenses of a lensed scanner disc 116 430 900, 25th September 1933, recording of television signals on film. Use of two or more frames of film for one television picture to eliminate flicker 117 431 339, 3rd January 1934, Intercalated scanning for a receiver C.R.T.

402 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

John Logie Baird, television pioneer 431 458, 3rd January 1934, Divided out of patent 431 339 432 635, 22rd January 1934, Kinematograph apparatus 433 552, 16th February 1934, Line and frame synchronising pulses 433 720, 20th Febrauary 1934, Moving aperture for mirror drum scanner 433 853, 21st November 1933, Use of C.R.T. in film image production 433 935, 22nd June 1934, Cine film recording 434 527, 28th November 1933, Intercalated consecutive zone scanning 435 103, 15th December 1933, Cine film scanning in which the direction of scanning is parallel to the direction of motion of the film 437 339, 15th May 1935, Divided out of patent 431 339 437 340, 26th June 1935, Electro-optical siren for use in governing a scanner 438 903, 14th June 1934, 8th August 1934, 15th August 1934, 2nd October 1934, Means for reducing distortion with mirror drum scanning 438 989, 8th September 1934, Control of angle of view 439 434, 8th August 1934, Optical systems for spotlight scanning devices 439 771, 25th September 1934, Intermediate film recording of television signals 440 386, 13th October 1934, C.R.T. screen coated with incandescent and fluorescent materials 440 917, 19th December 1934, Scanning aperture size varies during traversal 442 963, 19th December 1934, C.R.T. screen coated with incandescent material—screen heated by filament and electron beam 452 378, 20th February 1935, Use of two lenses separated by a variable distance apart 454 588, 4th April 1935, Scanning spot moves in a series of parallel lines 454 589, 4th April 1935, Use of matrix of electro-optical birefringent light valves scanned by electrons 459 177, 4th July 1935, Two C.R.T. time bases are periodically reversed 460 197, 22nd July 1935, Helix scanner. Intercalation 461 242, 9th July 1935, Arc lamp 467 195, 12th December 1935, Large-screen projection 469 673, 30th January 1936, Method to overcome trapezium distortion of mirror scanners 470 347, 13th February 1936, Screen, of C.R.T., in which the translucency to polarised light can be varied 470 480, 13th February 1936, C.R.T. with plurality of screens 473 150, 10th April 1936, Reflectors 473 303, 9th April 1936, Two-colour television. Use of two birefringent cells. Reception only 473 323, 9th April 1936, Colour television. Use of C.R.T. and rotating colour filters 473 980, 23rd April 1936, C.R.T. with a mosaic screen, the elements of which possess capacitance 487 157, 15th December 1936, Projection screen 489 964, 8th February 1937, Electro-optical cells

J L Baird’s patents 403 151 507 165, 10th December 1937, Kinematograph apparatus 152 508 039, 24th December 1937, Colour television. Use of C.R.T. and rotating filters (2 or 3) with interlaced scanning 153 509 392, 10th December 1937, Projector with two-image gate, two lens systems used alternatively 154 509 758, 16th November 1937, Optical compensator 155 512 855, 22nd March 1938, Colour television. Use of infra-red filter 156 544 413, 7th September 1940, C.R.T. for television receivers. Means for replacing worn-out screens 157 545 078, 7th September 1940, Colour television, compatible with 405-line system 158 545 462, 23rd October 1940, Colour television. Use of a Kerr cell and several polarisers, one for each colour 159 545 491, 23rd October 1940, Colour television. Three Kerr cells connected to three p.e. cells 160 545 603, 23rd October 1940, Colour television. C.R.T. and rotating drum of filters 161 546 470, 13th January 1941, Colour television. Storage type camera tube and rotating filters—separate from tube 162 547 441, 27th February 1941, Means to prevent the high voltage breakdown of C.R.T.s 163 552 582, 11th July 1941, 6th October 1941, Stereoscopic colour television 164 555 167, 13th May 1942, Colour television. The three images of the C.R.T. screen are combined by a lens system 165 557 837, 4th March 1942, Optical projection apparatus 166 557 992, 11th July 1942, Colour television. Use of storage tube—images side by side 167 559 549, 18th August 1942, Film processing tanks 168 562 168, 25th July 1942, Colour television. Telechrome tube 169 562 334, 10th October 1942, Colour television 170 562 433, 23rd July 1943, Arrangement which permits a C.R.T. screen to be viewed on both sides 171 573 008, 26th August 1943, 27th September 1943, 7th October 1943, 11th October 1943, 26th November 1943, 9th February 1944, Apparatus for the production in three dimensions of phantom visual replicas of objects or scenes. (Not stereoscopic television) 172 578 108, 25th April 1944, Screens for television tubes 173 579 482, 28th April 1944, Screens for television tubes 174 602 341, 10th April 1945, Projection television (C.R.T. similar to patent 579 482) 175 631 965, 11th December 1946, Television receiver (with E G O Anderson and G G Bernard) 176 632 186, 11th December 1946, Television receiver (with E G O Anderson) 177 634 123, 23th May 1947, Indicating apparatus (with RHC Jolly and H R Holland)

Appendix 2

Television Committee. Memorandum by Mr J L Baird

Baird’s 1944 memorandum to the Television Committee (sometimes known as the Hankey Committee after its Chairman The Right Hon. The Lord Hankey) has not previously been published and is reproduced here verbatim. The document, which responds to several questions posed by the Television Committee, is of some historical significance since it records the last known views of the television pioneer on the post-war development of television. 1 War research and television development This question relates, I assume, to research on possible war applications of television and also to the justification of research during wartime on branches of television with no war application. The applications of television to warfare, of which I have direct experience, are limited to two devices. Firstly the use of infra red rays to render directly visible objects in darkness and fog. This was demonstrated by me in 1926, and considerable development had taken place by 1939 on apparatus operating on this principle; the Baird Company and other concerns both here and abroad being actively engaged in research on devices of this kind. The second application was the installing of television transmitters in aeroplanes to send images to a receiving station on the ground. Apparatus of this type being supplied by Baird Television Ltd. to the French government. I can, however, say very little about television research for war purposes as, since the Baird company went into liquidation, I have had no means of keeping in touch with these developments, and have been devoting my time chiefly to the development of colour and stereoscopic television. This work has no application to war. In my view, however, it is of importance to the National effort. The results have been demonstrated and given considerable publicity both in this country and abroad. These demonstrations include colour television (the only colour television demonstrations publicly given in this country, and in advance of anything shown in the United States of America, where the only colour television demonstrated has been a revolving disc system first shown by myself in 1939 and now superseded by a nonmechanical system). I have also given several demonstrations of stereoscopic television. These are the only demonstrations of stereoscopic television to be given at any time, either here or abroad.

Television committee. Memorandum

405

In my view the demonstration and publication of these results and the methods by which they were obtained has had a stimulating and beneficial effect upon research, by opening up fresh fields of investigation. I have reason to believe that several British companies have taken up research on colour television since the publication of my work and demonstrations. In the United States of America the Columbia Broadcasting Company and the General Electric Company have during the war given demonstrations of colour television on the disc system first shown by myself. My colour and stereoscopic demonstrations have attracted considerable attention abroad, and I have had inquiries and visits from the United States of America, Russia, Australia, India, South Africa, Canada, Brazil and the Argentine. In my view this stimulation of interest in British television is a further justification of wartime television research, and will directly or indirectly assist in opening foreign markets. (See under 6). Television will be a large post war industry, and anything done now to help it forward will assist in providing post-war employment. 2 Re-opening of television service on the 1939 standard of definition My view is that the broadcasting of television should start again as early as possible on a system capable of being received on pre-war receivers, and with a guarantee of at least three years service. I would, at the same time, make a thorough investigation and a test of all improved systems and when satisfied that a system with a very definite and substantial improvement over the old system is available, I would commence transmitting with it, in addition to the old system, sending out the programme by both systems simultaneously. I would, upon making this decision, notifiy the trade and public that the transmission on the old system would cease after a reasonable time, say three years, so that owners of the old type receivers would get three years use of their sets before they became obsolete. (The question of new systems is dealt with under 4). In answering this question I have assumed that the British Broadcasting Corporation retains its monopoly. But in my view this monopoly should cease. Broadcasting should be on the system used in Australia, where there is both an Australian Broadcasting Company similar to the British Broadcasting Corporation, and also separate independent broadcasting companies run by private enterprise, and obtaining their revenue from sponsored programmes. In 1938 I visited Australia as the guest of the Australian Radio Convention and had an opportunity of inspecting the system in operation. It appeared to give complete satisfaction and in my view is much to be preferred to a monopoly. Under the Australian plan television systems could be developed side by side (with proper safeguards to the public) with far greater elasticity than is possible under a monopoly. I may add that a monopoly of broadcasting of any sort appears to me most undesirable. This question is, perhaps, outside the scope of the present inquiry, but should you desire it I will be happy to give my views at length. 3 Television research This question, I take it, seeks my views upon the lines along which television research should proceed. There are, in my view, two main branches of research. The first relates to wireless (or cable) transmission. This has at present limitations which restrict the range over which the image can be broadcast. The transmission also limits the detail in the received picture. Research to find a means to overcome these limitations is of first importance. A partial solution of the range problem is already available by using relay stations and the

406

John Logie Baird, television pioneer

possibility of extending the broadcasting service to the Continent and ultimately to the United States of America should be investigated. (See 6). The second branch relates to improving the quality of the image. The present standard is incapable of giving an image equal to the cinema. A standard of the order of 1 000 lines should be aimed at. The television image should have colour and stereoscopic depth. (See 4). 4 New television service of radically improved type The ideal television service should show a picture in colour and stereoscopic relief and should operate on an International Standard of the order of definition represented by 1 000 lines in conjunction with an International worldwide Television Broadcasting service. Before this position can be arrived at considerable time must lapse and, in my view, one or more intermediate steps are inevitable. The first step and the one in which I am most immediately interested is the introduction of colour and stereoscopic relief and I would like to make clear the position in regard to these branches of television. Colour and stereoscopic television were shown for the first time when I gave a demonstration at the annual meeting of the British Association in 1928. In 1939 I showed colour television using a cathode ray tube in front of which revolved a disc fitted with colour filters. This system was developed by me during the war, and was also taken up by the Columbia Broadcasting Company and the General Electric Company in the United States of America. The disadvantage of having to use a revolving disc led me to evolve a system with no moving parts. The first system used was to superimpose optically coloured images produced side by side on the face of the cathode ray tube. This had the disadvantage that the picture on the fluorescent screen could not be received directly. This disadvantage was overcome in a second system, which gives a very bright picture directly upon the fluorescent screen without any optical projection. Stereoscope television I have developed several forms of stereoscopic television. The first has the advantage of simplicity and can be used with a two colour system with no alteration to the receiver. The audience must, however, [wear] coloured glasses. In the second system no glasses are required, the picture being viewed directly. It is restricted to a few persons sitting in a fixed position. In the third system this restriction is overcome and the picture can be viewed from any position, no glasses being required. The best results have been given by a three colour system showing stereoscopic relief without the aid of glasses. A three colour system such as this gives better colour rendering than a two colour, and stereoscopy without glasses is much to be preferred to the use of glasses. A two colour system gives however, so many practical advantages, and so greatly simplifies the apparatus both for colour and stereoscopy that, in my view the most practical apparatus which I have developed—for present transmitting conditions—is a two colour 600 line stereoscopic system. This has the following advantages: 1 Colour pictures sent out can be received on pre-war television sets without alteration as monochrome pictures.

Television committee. Memorandum

407

2 No change is required in present wireless transmitters and only small change in studio equipment. 3 Pictures in stereoscopic relief can be received on colour receiving sets without any alteration to these sets. 4 No revolving discs or moving parts necessary. 5 Definition can be increased to 600 line or the present 405 lines used. If the British Broadcasting Corporation decided to add colour and stereoscopy on this system attachments could be fitted to their existing apparatus so that items in colour or in stereoscopic relief could be introduced into the programmes, possibly in the first place as experimental interludes. 5. Home market The first desirable step is to extend the market to the provinces by giving them a service. This has already been much discussed and I understand plans have been made to extend the service immediately after the war. The second point is a cheap receiver. This will be provided by mass production. The third point is the provision of improved programmes. The abolition of the present British Broadcasting Corporation monopoly and the establishment of free competition would be advantageous in this respect. 6. Foreign market The largest potential foreign market for British television appears to me to be Russia. I have had several visits from members of the Russian embassy, including Mr Sobielioff, the Russian Minister, and his technical advisers. They informed me that television in Russia was far behind what I was able to show them, and expressed the greatest interest. They also informed me that they hoped after the war to introduce television into Russia on a very large scale as they had a high opinion of its educative value. I should add that they were particularly interested in the stereoscopic pictures shown. They have apparently been conducting a good deal of research on stereoscopic cinematography, but have, so far, not attempted to apply it to television. In pre-war days the European market was to a considerable extent dominated by Germany. The Fernseh Company (which was founded by the Baird Television Limited) and with which Baird Television Limited had an arrangement for exchange of technical information and patents, had a powerful hold on the industry and produced apparatus of a high technical standard. After the war, however, the market may be open in France and the rest of the Continent. To encourage export it appears to me highly important that an International Standard of Transmission should be adopted, also that every effort should be made to establish an International System of Broadcasting whereby the programmes radiated from London could be received throughout the continent of Europe (and ultimately the World) and in the same way foreign programmes received in London from stations abroad.

Appendix 3

Awards and commemorations

Awards presented to John Logie Baird 1 Elected an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 2 Elected the sole Honorary Fellow of the Television Society 3 Presented with a medal, specially struck for the occasion, when Baird gave the first public lecture on television in January 1930 in Scotland 4 Presented with the first medal of the Institution of the Faculty of Sciences 5 Inductee, Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame, 7th January 2000

Memorial plaques 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

8 Queens Arcade, Hastings—unveiled 7th November 1929 Kingsbury Manor, Wembley, London Swiss Cottage, Box Hill, Surrey (National Trust) 1 Station Road, Bexhill, Sussex 22 Frith Street, Soho, London—unveiled 24th October 1951 133 Long Acre, London 21 Linton Crescent, Hastings,—unveiled 12th March 1997 3 Crescent Wood Road, Sydenham, London Royal Technical College, Glasgow 26 Guildhall Street, Folkstone—unveiled in 1961 by Mrs M Baird Central Hotel, Glasgow—unveiled on 12th August 1988 by Mr B Clapp

Buildings named after John Logie Baird 1 John Logie Baird primary school, Helensburgh—formally opened on 25th April 1968 2 The John Baird public house, Alexandra Park

Awards and commemorations

409

3 The John Logie Baird Institute for Vision Technology—formally opened on 10th November 1999 4 Baird House, Thorn Rentals, Reading—unveiled on 5th August 1992 by Mrs M Baird

Portraits and commemorative events and activities 1 Sculpture of Baird by D Gilbert in the National Portrait Gallery, with a copy in the Hermitage Park, Helensburgh 2 Portrait of Baird by J Kerr-Lawson in the University of Glasgow 3 Pencil portrait by J Kerr-Lawson in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery 4 The play A Voice in Vision by G M Scanlon and B S Harper (televised in 1957) 5 Stained glass window in the church at Helensburgh 6 Television programme, ‘This is your life’ 7 Australian television awards known as ‘Logies’ 8 The Baird Amateur Radio Society, who hold the historic call sign G2TV 9 The ‘Welcome to Helensburgh, Birthplace of John Logie Baird, Inventor of Television’ signpost 10 British–Caledonian Airbus named ‘John Logie Baird, the Scottish television pioneer’ by Mrs M Baird on 11th June 1984 11 Baird Crescent, near Kingsbury Manor, Wembley 12 The ‘Hastings–Birthplace of Television’ road sign in Hastings 13 The ‘This I believe—John Logie Baird’ sound broadcast from Radio Luxembourg in 1956

Index

Admiralty, the 93-4, 95, 98 advert, broadcasting service 162 cathode-ray tube 238-9 visibility at sea research 113-16 agnosticism 10 Air Ministry 94-5, 97-101 aircraft, television in 93-100, 330, 404 Albe, Dr Fournier d 81-3 Albu, Margaret 275, 278 marries Baird 279 Alexandra Palace 122 installs television 318 opening ceremony 318-20 reopens 381-2 single transmission standard 337 television station 300 transmissions stop 360, 362 Amalgamated Wireless 198 Amateur Wireless 58 Anderson, Col. I. 129 Andrade, Prof. E. N. da C. 101 Angwin, Col. 159, 229 BTL demonstration 304 report on BTL s progress 301 antenna, first 104 AT&T 101, 102, 131, 132, 224 TV demonstration 122, 164 Atlantic, television transmission 138-45 audion 37 Australia 198, 343-4 autobiography 59 awards presented to Baird 408-9 Baird, John Logie invited to Australia 343-4 moves to Bexhill 385 born 1 leaves BTL 295 in Bude 372-3

college 11 daughter born 281 death 388 family evacuated 363 financial situation 367 first job 12 heart attack 364 humour 282 insured 132, 394 letters to/from Day 52-4, 79-80 love affair 274 marries 279 money 285 how he operated 286 schooling 6 sculpture of 373 as a snob 284 snubbed 320 suffers stroke 388 moves to Sydenham 333 goes to USA 250-2, 253 Baird International Television see BIT formed Baird, Rev John 1-2, 4, 7 Baird Television Corp, USA 245 Baird Television Development Co see BTDC Baird Television Ltd see BTL Baird Televisor 162 Baird Undersocks 18-20 bandwidths 248 Banks, G. B. 117 Barton-Chapple, H. J. 172 BBC 103 attitude to Baird 351 experimental broadcast 165-6, 177 Broadcasting House 294 first broadcasts 177-80, 195, 271-2 on cinema television 345-6, 350, 354-6 collaboration with 268-72

412

Index

concessions to BTL 263-72 conference with GPO 293 demonstration to 160, 163, 164 EMI television 289-94 and high-definition 289-90, 291-4 monopoly 383, 405 negative towards Baird 154 rights over its programmes 354-5 stereoscopic television 371-2 ultra-short wave demonstration 292 Beatty, Dr R. T. 93-8, 99, 107 cathode-ray tube 238-9 Belgium, links with 200 Bell, Alexander Graham 35 Bell Telephone Laboratories 221 television development stopped 237-8 television system 224 transmission of picture 229 Bennett. P. A. 41 Berlin, cinema television 213 BIT formed 146 amalgamation 200 Brash and Russell 14 Bridgwater, T. 56, 148, 182, 197-8 on Baird 395 brilliance, adjusting 216 Broadcasting House transmitter 270 Brookmans Park 183 Brown, Willy 5 BTDC 130 capital 197 subsidiary formed 137-8 BTL face bankruptcy 360 first BBC transmission 271-2 last BBC transmission 329 at Broadcasting House 294 capital 200 for cinema television 356 cathode-ray tube receiver 304 concessions from BBC 263-72 Crystal Palace, leases 297 EMI, meeting with 305 and EMI s system 290 finances 249, 255 government orders sought 360-1 prospers 300 receivers, sale of 357 in receivership 361 staff reductions 250 structure and resources 310-11 Television Committee 315-16 Buchanan, Jack 9 buildings named after Baird 408-9

Buxton Hydro 25-6 Cable and Wireless 367 colour television 383 employ Baird 367 terminate Baird s employment 384 Caledonian Club 135-6 Campbell, D. R. 181-2 camera, television 258, 309-10, 317-18 Capital and Provincial News Theatres 386, 393 cathode-ray tube receiver 95-6, 253, 254 the Admiralty 238-9 cinema television 351-2, 353-4 demonstration 304 improved type 301 scanning tube cameras 317 Chambers Journal 43 cinema television 395 Baird s modified system 353 BBC s concerns over 345, 350, 354-6 committee discussion on 382-3 companies involved with 209 demonstration 211-13 the Derby 334-5 G-BPC deputation to TAC 349-50 interest wanes 383 licence applied for 337-8 first paying audience 351 first performance 210 demonstrated 336, 337-8, 339-41 work begins 335 Cinema Television formed 342-3, 361 Cinematograph Exhibitions Association 348 cinematography 42 Clapp, B. joins Baird Co. 138, 189 goes to Australia 197 transmitter 152 Clarke, Alfred. 246 Clyde Valley Electrical Power 15-18 Cock, Gerald 320-5, 327-8, 366 Coliseum Theatre 212, 221 colloidal cell 71, 106 colour television 147, 168, 173-4, 364 Cable and Wireless 383 CBS 366 H. E. Ives 232-3 Nipkow disc 233 problems 190 stereoscopic 367-72, 405, 406 studio in London 383 Columbia Broadcasting System 366 Condliffe, G. E. 246 Conrad television system 245

Index continental broadcasting 171-2 Courtneidge, Cicely 183 Croft, Annie 183 Crystal Palace, the 297-9 fire 325-6, 330 Daily Express 72-3, 91 television in aircraft 94 Daily Herald 334-5 Daily Mail 216 Daily News 45 Daily Telegraph 76 Dane, W. Surrey 47-8 Day, Will 42 bought out by Hutchinson 86, 88 letters to/from Baird 52-4, 79-80 and Television Ltd 81 daylight television 147, 230-2 definition 103 30-lines 263, 293, 297 60-lines, USA 249 120-lines 297, 335 180-lines 301 240 lines 317 405 lines 316, 317 600 lines, colour 364, 365 and BBC 289-90, 291-4 problems 236 standard 248-9 demonstrations 132-3, 170-1 daylight 147 Derby, the, televised 217-20, 334-5, 346-7 diamonds, manufacture of 17-18 direct arc modulation 216 disc, recording 124-5 Discovery magazine 75 Dunber, John 47-8 Dutch government 171-2 Ekstrom 122 electric lighting 8 electrical engineering Baird studies 11 Baird works in 15 Electrician, The 55 electron camera 258, 309-10, 322, 393 Electronics 380 EMI 259 better than BTL 293, 305 meeting with BTL 305 expands 303 merges with Marconi 303-4 rival system at BBC 288-94 tests at BBC postponed 292

emitron camera 37, 317-18 Encyclopaedia Britannica 101-2 Engstrom, Dr E. W. 254 ERP patent 121-2 Evans, Jim 37 Evening Standard 91 Eversley, P. P. 34-5, 154, 163-4, 179 exhibition, Olympia 160 Farnsworth, P. 237, 393 father see Baird, Rev John facsimile 383, 384 Federal Radio Commission 248 Fernseh AG 196 Fields, Gracie 184 film 8 Fleming, Sir A. 118, 151, 177, 249 tribute to Marconi 391 flying machine 9-10 Folkestone, Baird in 42 Fox, William 49-50, 73 France 200 television in aircraft 330 Frith Street, London 70 Frowde, Claude 37 Fuller, Col. A. C. 101 Fultograph process 179 Gaumont-British Picture Corp see G-BPC G-BPC 294, 336, 337 on cinema television 346 deputation to TAC 349-50 further investment in BTL 356-7 take over BTL 361 GEC 164, 221 gift to Baird 84 attempted merger 260 General Electric see GEC General Post Office see GPO 155-6 German Broadcasting Corp 195 Germany invades Austria 344 Baird system 172 transmitter installed 195 television company formed 196 glider see flying machine GPO 155-6 conference with BBC 293 demonstration to 159 give licence to broadcast 103-4 licence for new frequencies 299 meeting BTL and EMI 305 Gramophone Company see HMV

413

414

Index

Gray, Andrew 72 Greenhead, B. (EMI) 327 Greer, Harry 294

Kingsbury Manor 172 Kirke, H. L. 103 Korn, A 33-4

Halley s Industrial Motors 12-14 Hankey Committee see Television Committee Hart Accumulators, gift to Baird 84 Hastings commemorative plaque 65 Baird goes to 31 Baird leaves 65 Hastings and St Leonards Observer 55, 59, 209 high definition see definition Hirst, Comdr. Lloyd 137 HMV 246-7 Hobson, P. 117 Hoffman, S. O. 113 honeycomb structure 107-8 Horsley, Capt. E. C. 97, 99 Hutchinson, O. G. 14, 86, 88, 142 estrangement from Baird 145 goes to USA 245-7 report of USA operation 206-7

Langer, N. 32 large-screen television see cinema television Law, Bonar 4 Le Queux, Norman 37, 48, 50-1 Lee, Col A. G. 340-1 Lefroy, Lt. Col. H. P. 97, 98 Leighton 48 licence fee 249, 255-8 light chopper 54, 61 interrupter 113 and shade achieved 85-6 valves 95 light sensitive cell 32, 71 secrecy 93, 104-7 see also photoelectric cell; selenium cell lighting 189-90 lines for transmission see definition Lodge, Oliver 392-3 Loxdale, Norman 37

iconoscope 37, 303 ill-health, Baird suffers 25, 385 image dissector tube 310 India, television rights in 343 infra-red radiation 100 defence uses 113-17 fog penetration 116 spotlight method 119-22 in warfare 113 Institute of Radio Engineers 239 Institution of Electrical Engineers 155 Ives, Dr H. E. colour photography 232 demonstration, television 225 on future of television 238 high definition 236 multi-channel system 236-7 television apparatus 225 research team 224 system 226-7 two-way 233-4 jam manufacture 21-2 Jenkins, C. F. 37 John Logie Baird Ltd 386 Kern 121 kinescope 239, 245

magnetic recording 122-5 Manning, H. T. 26 Manville, Sir E. 130-1, 137-8, 196 on Baird companies merger 201-2 Marconi-EMI 303-4 deemed superior to BTL 321 system recommended 328 Television Committee 315-16 Marconi, Guglielmo 1, 4, 5, 34, 35. 103, 158-9 Baird s opinion of 211 similarities with Baird 197, 391-6 tribute to 391 Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co see MWTC McDonald, Ramsey 113 television installed 184 McLean, D. F. 125 merger 201-2 BTL/Marconi 259-60, 295 Mihaly, D. von 37, 164 Mills, Victor 37, 39-40 mirror drum scanner 188-9, 216-17 cinema television 335-6 money owed to Day 79-80 Morning Post, The 169 Moseley, S. A. 31, 40, 146, 156-7, 250 Baird s admiration for 283 BBC concessions to BTL 265-7

Index BTL shares 202 joins Cinema Television 343 on merger with Marconi 259-60 resigns 294-5 first television broadcast 177 motion picture film 231-2 Motograph House, transmission 104 MWTC 72, 258 development policies 151 merger with EMI 303-4 possible merger with BTL 259-60, 295 and international ventures 203-4 as opposition 138, 164 two-colour television 377-80 multi-channel system 236-7 Murray, G., BBC 263-6 National Physical Laboratory 116 Nature magazine 76-7, 101, 112, 169 d Albe 83 demonstrations by Baird 133-4 direct arc modulation 216 neon lamp 77 New York Times 102, 143, 253 News Chronicle 380 newspaper reports 45 night vision see noctovision Nipkow disc scanner 34, 36, 40, 42-3 used by Dr Beatty 97 colour television 233 H. E. Ives 225 superiority 83 superseded 188 noctovision 111-12 applications 119 as a navigational aid 117-18 Oldhams, 42, 46-7 Opera Grant, the 256 patent 43 d Albe 81-3 colour television 374 large screen 131 noctovision 113 phonovisor 122 spotlight scanner 121 spotter in aircraft 99 synchronisation 54-5, 56 of sound and vision 186 first television 33 patents 166-7, 168, 169, 246, list of 397-403 Marconi-EMI rights to 304

415

Percy, J. D. 72, 148 phonovisor 122-7 photoelectric cell 55, 95, 111 Bell Laboratories 230 problems 236 photoelectricity 37 photography 9 photophone 215 play cinema television 210 first televised 186 Popular Wireless £1000 challenge 156 portraits of Baird 409 Postmaster General licence fee 255 supports television 165 Television Committee report 315 advice on wavelengths 166 Pound, Harold 23 poverty, Baird and 4 Preece, W., GPO 103 Press Photonachrichtendienst 91 prime minister, television installed 184 public address television system 230 publicity 78-9 Punch 126-7 radar 119 Radio Corporation, USA see RCA Radio Exhibition, Olympia 160, 318 Radio News, USA 102 Radio Times 52 Radio Trust of America 290 radiotelephotography 137 RCA 164, 204, 393 against Baird Television 252-3 on bandwidths 248 talks with Hutchinson 245-6 rights to patents 166-7 television field tests 253-5 receivers first commercial 161, 162, 184-6 Rayners Lane 387 sales halted 360 reconnaissance by aircraft 97-101 recording device, television signals 122-7 red sensitivity 190 Reith, Sir John 180 Baird approaches for finance 249-50 discussions with EMI 289 licence fee 256 memorandum from Murray 269 Robinson, F. H. 51-2 Royal Aircraft Establishment 94, 116

416

Index

research on detection 115 Royal Corps of Signals 101 Royal Institution 73, 112 demonstration to 90 Russell, Dr. Alexander 101, 169 scanners 37, 42, 56, 188-9, 322-3 Dr Beatty 96-7 problems 236 spotlight 121, 233 see also Nipkow disc scanner scanning methods 310 Scophony Ltd 337, 345 cinema television demonstrated 348 transmission 352 selenium cell 35, 36, 54-6, 105-7 Selfridges 75, 76 demonstration 161, 290-1 Sergeant, Reg 37 short-wave see ultra-short waves Sieveking, Lance 48 signal-to-noise ratio 111 singing arc the 267 soap business 26 socks 18 speaking arc 214 Smith, F. E. 94-5 sound and vision 186 South Africa 199 spotlight scanner 121, 233, 322 standard picture definition 248-9 transmission 327 stereoscopic television 169, 367-72, 404, 406 Stewart, E. G. 92 report by 93 Swinton, Campbell 155, 237 Swiss Cottage, Box Hill 205 synchronisation 36-7, 46 Taynton, W., first on TV 85-6 T.C. Gilbert and Co. 41 telechrome tubes 377-80 telecine scanner 322-3 telecinema 221 telectroscopes 35 telegraphy 101, 367, 383, 394 telelogoscopophy 191 telephone invention of 35 Baird s interest in 8 Telephony 233

teletalkies 193 television advancement problems 235 in aircraft 93-100, 330, 404 d Albe 81-3 companies interested in 168 daylight 147, 230-2 definition problems 236 first thoughts 9 large-screen see cinema television licence 103-4, 249, 255-8, 355 lines see definition motion picture film 231-2 multi-channel 216, 236-7 news 190-2 overseas market 407 first patent 33 first public demonstration 90 research 405-6 sales dept, first 161-2 early transmissions 50, 104 transmissions from Broadcasting House 271-2 work begins 23 see also receivers Television Advisory Committee (TAC) 316, 327-8 cinema television 337, 345 deputation from G-BPC 349-50 Television Committee, the 306, 314, 381 BTL 315-16 cinema television 382-3 memorandum by Baird to 404-9 Television Ltd 81, 130 reorganised 88 Television magazine 144, 147 Television Society, the 134 cinema television demonstrated 341 report on transatlantic broadcast 141 telewriter 191 thallium sulphide cells 105, 107 thalofide cell 95, 97 theatres and cinema television 355-6 Thomascolour ' 373-6 Tierney, Dr. 134-5 Times 90-1, 186-7 on commercial television 241 Today’s Cinema 348-9 tones in picture achieved 85-6 transmission standards 327 transmissions, first 104 two-colour television 377-80 two-way television 233-4, 241

Index ultra-short waves 290 ultra-violet rays 111 USA Baird in 250-2, 253 Baird parent company 200 business deal attempt 250-5 demonstration, New York 245 Hutchinson s report 206-7 picture definition standard 248-9 television in 247-8 first transmission to 142 Victory Parade televised 386 vision waveform generation 317 war 344 television development 404-5 transmissions stop 362 wavelengths another allocated 183 shorter advised 166 Weiller mirror drum scanner see mirror drum scanner

West, Captain A. 46-7, 295 Television Committee 315 West Indies 20-3 Westinghouse 122 Whiston, E. W. 215 Willshaw, Sir Edward 367, 385 Wimperis, H. E., Air Ministry 94-5, 100 wireless licence 355 telegraphy 394 Wireless Committee, USA 252 Wireless Telegraph and Signal Co. 197 Wireless Telegraphy Act 355 Wireless World 55, 71 colour television 366 stereoscopic television 369, 371 on first television receiver 184 Wood Kingsley see Postmaster General World War Two see war zoning technique 220 Zworykin, V. K. 237, 239, 393 paper on iconoscope 303

417