Telephone and Multiple Telegraph
The telegraph and telephone are both wire-based electrical systems, and Alexander Graham Bell's success with the telephone came as a direct result of his attempts to improve the telegraph.
When Bell began experimenting with electrical signals, the telegraph had been an established means of communication for some 30 years. Although a highly successful system, the telegraph, with its dot-and-dash Morse code, was basically limited to receiving and sending one message at a time. Bell's extensive knowledge of the nature of sound and his understanding of music enabled him to conjecture the possibility of transmitting multiple messages over the same wire at the same time. Although the idea of a multiple telegraph had been in existence for some time, Bell offered his own musical or harmonic approach as a possible practical solution. His "harmonic telegraph" was based on the principle that several notes could be sent simultaneously along the same wire if the notes or signals differed in pitch.
By October 1874, Bell's research had progressed to the extent that he could inform his future father-in-law, Boston attorney Gardiner Greene Hubbard, about the possibility of a multiple telegraph. Hubbard, who resented the absolute control then exerted by the Western Union Telegraph Company, instantly saw the potential for breaking such a monopoly and gave Bell the financial backing he needed. Bell proceeded with his work on the multiple telegraph, but he did not tell Hubbard that he and Thomas Watson, a young electrician whose services he had enlisted, were also exploring an idea that had occurred to him that summer - that of developing a device that would transmit speech electrically. Original drawing of the telephone
While Bell and Watson worked on the harmonic telegraph at the insistent urging of Hubbard and other backers, Bell nonetheless met in March 1875 with Joseph Henry, the respected director of the Smithsonian Institution, who listened to Bell's ideas for a telephone and offered encouraging words. Spurred on by Henry's positive opinion, Bell and Watson continued their work. By June 1875 the goal of creating a device that would transmit speech electrically was about to be realized. They had proven that different tones would vary the strength of an electric current in a wire. To achieve success they therefore needed only to build a working transmitter with a membrane capable of varying electronic currents and a receiver that would reproduce these variations in audible frequencies.
Bell's great success, achieved on March 10, 1876, marked not only the birth of the telephone but the death of the multiple telegraph as well. The communications potential contained in his demonstration of being able to "talk with electricity" far outweighed anything that simply increasing the capability of a dot-and-dash system could imply.
Most of the problems with this essay are not related to the grammatical use of English. That is fine.
It's not uncommon for people to revert to babytalk and infantile ideas when they are aware that their vocabulary is limited.
Resist that tendency.
This essay was not worth reading, and only partly because the assigned topic makes it hard to come up with anything worthwhile to say. It makes it hard -- but not impossible. You should have done more work to express these banal ideas in a more appealing way -- varied sentence structure, maybe, and a spicier vocabulary.
Almost everybody has a mobile phone. But is it a great invention? I think there are both advantages and disadvantages.
> This is a poor intro. It has no life, no "snap." It doesn't draw the reader in. It is plodding, obvious, and dull.
> For a tiny piece like this one, the opening sentence should be what is called a "hook." A hook grabs the reader's attention and makes him want to read the following passage.
> Until you do the mental work to come up with an intro that is a "hook," don't bother to write one at all. A bad intro is worse than none.
> Delete these sentences
Today, mobile phones have become popular to everybody since they are convenient.
> It's not easy to come up with something interesting to say when the material is self-evident.
> But don't make it worse by using the most stodgy and boring sentence structure available.
Because of the great convenience of mobile phones, they are now a modern-day must-have -- the 21st century equivalent of a businessman's fountain pen.
The most advantage of having a mobile phone is you can communicate to your family, your friends, and your business no matter what where you are.
> If you must say the self-evident, at least try to make the expression fresh or lively.
Jetting to Europe or stalled in traffic, with your mobile phone you're always in touch with your family, your friends, and your business.
We also use special applications for listening music, playing games, surfing the net, and texting messages.
> The problem with writing down something that everyone already knows is that it makes it sound like you are writing a story for people who are six years old.
> It is crucial that you remove that problem by saying these infantile things in a spicy or interesting way.
Special apps for texting, listening to music, playing games, and surfing the web keep ourphones plugged into our heads around the clock.
> "Besides that" means "in addition to that"
> You use "besides that" when you are going to add more of the same
> But in this case, you are not adding more of the same
> You are turning the direction of your remarks around
> For that use, the correct conjunction is "but"
there are lots of disadvantages.
> This ends rather abruptly
> for a better transition, add something more
be careful. There are also some disadvantages to using our beloved cellies.
Using mobile phones can harm our brains, especially for those who are under the age of sixteen.
> Unless "we" are all under the age of 16, it is better to refer to it as "the brain," rather than "our brains."
> Since this is far from a known fact, it is better to place the data in the opinions of SOME people
Some researchers have claimed that mobile phones are harmful to the brain, especially for children.
Excessive use of mobile phones has been accused of causing dizziness, and "radiations emmitted from the phone are dead harmful for the eardrum" , say many scientists.
> "Many" scientists do not say this, and it is no doubt scientifically false
> ONE scientist said this
> He even used a slang expression in his quote: "dead harmful" is not standard English; it is a personal idiosyncrasy of speech.
> The remark is in quotation marks, which means that it is a direct quote directly from the mouth of a specific person
> "Many scientists" did not stand up all at once and chant this line, so you can't attribute a specific utterance to a group.
> If you don't know his name, you can write "according to a publicity-seeking quack quoted in a tabloid journal of bad repute" or something like that
> "emitted" is spelled wrong
Excessive use of mobile phones has been accused of causing dizziness, and "radiations emitted from the phone are dead harmful for the eardrum," according to one researcher in the field.
In addition, when we use mobile phones while we are driving, we will get in an accident.
> This is logically false, and the ridiculous and simplistic nature of statements like this contribute to making this piece infantile
> Using cell phones probably increases the risk of accidents
> It is now considered un-PC to call them "accidents" on the grounds that they are caused by avoidable driver misconduct
> traffic accidents are now called "car crashes"
In addition, using a mobile phone while driving hikes the risk of getting into a car crash.
In summary, mobiles are a great invention but they still have many issues. You have to protect yourself from the bad effects of mobiles if you choose to have one.
> Just delete this on the grounds that it is not adding a single thing that would repay the reader the trouble of seeing it.
> It is not interesting, amusing, entertaining, informative, new, or any of the millions of other reasons why we might read something.
> Do some mental work to think of "What would be good to say in conclusion? What can I say to wrap this up that would be good to read?"
> A teeny piece like this, with almost no ideas in it, does not need a "summary."
> You might give it a "conclusion" just so it doesn't end so abruptly
> But a conclusion is not just a dull repeat of the self-evident and dull stuff that we JUST HEARD 15 SECONDS AGO!!!
> Not unless you are writing for people who are 6.
> You can't say "they have issues." It's ridiculous.
> Think of some interesting way to CLOSE the passage, not "summarize" it.