Tim Shoppa
A terminology question I suppose about the derivation of the term
"Superheterodyne" more than anything else:
I think that the way to answer a question like this is to try to find
written material which originated as close as possible in time to the
introduction of the term in question. Wikki entries should give
references to original material, but of course those are not always
easy for everyone to find, and to study.
** All one had to do was follow up on the "external links" at the end of
the superhet Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver
the very first one of which is:
http://antiqueradios.com/superhet/
Then go to footnote #11:
-----------------------------------------------------
" Armstrong, "A New System of Short Wave Amplification," Proc. I.R.E. 9
(Feb. 1921), pp. 3-27. QST 3 (Feb. 1920), pp.5-9, 13.
This paper uses the term superaudible heterodyne, from which superheterodyne
is derived. The British tended to use supersonic. Incidentally, the first
use of the word superheterodyne that I have seen, is in QST for March 1921
(p.41) but evidently from the context it was in common use by then. "
------------------------------------------------------
Note the reference to " superaudible heterodyne " is from 1921 and Armstrong
himself !!
Also it explains how the Poms ( Armstrong was an American) liked to use
"supersonic" in relation to those frequencies above the audible range.
The best that I can do in the way of original references with the
books on my shelves is to quote from the 'Admiralty Handbook of
Wireless Telegraphy 1931', HMSO, London, 1932. On page 721 is written
- '... This use of amplification at a frequency intermediate between
that of the incoming signal and an audible frequency gives this
circuit its name of super-heterodyne, or supersonic heterodyne
receiver'.
** Fine, but that book is ten years later and has no direct connection to
Armstrong's invention.
The discussion goes on to describe an Admiralty receiver having an IF
frequency of 30kHz, which is just what you would expect a supersonic
frequency to be. To my mind this settles the question.
** The Q was settled by the first couple of replies Shoppa got here -
but he simply had no interest in having one of his mad, pet theories proved
wrong so easily.
Shoppa was trolling as usual and no simple facts were not gonna spoil his
puerile mischief.
...... Phil