TheM wrote:
"Robert Baer" wrote in message net...
Joerg wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:36:12 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Tim Shoppa wrote:

A terminology question I suppose about the derivation of the term
"Superheterodyne" more than anything else:

Does the "Super" actually mean anything? Is there a Subheterodyne?

Traditionally superhets mix a higher radio frequency down to a lower
IF frequency, but certainly in the past few decades radios with IF's
above the RF frequency have become very common in broadband
applications, and those are still called superhets, not subhets :-).

Google turns up a couple hits on subheterodyne but other than one that
might mean "IF higher in frequency than RF" I don't recognize what
they mean..

I suspect that "Super" was more a marketing term than anything
else :-).

If you want to file a new patent for old stuff you could try subheterodyne and it just might sail through :-)

Oh wait, call it hyperheterodyne, has more glitz. Just like the supermercados in Spain.

I meant hypermercados :-)


I think we're going to be doing a superhet receiver soon. Maybe we'll
do it in an FPGA!

How'd you do the preamp in there?

Bit shift?

Yes, but 2x zero is still zero...

M

.... +/-3dB.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.