On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, gareth wrote:

"John Davis" wrote in message
...
On 3/6/2015 1:12 PM, gareth wrote:
"John Davis" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2015 5:37 PM, gareth wrote:

Here is your big chance to prove your superiority of knowledge about
the super-regrenerative method, but you've gone strangely silent, which
is a bit bizarre when you consider how many times you have oft
repeated your childish sneer?

Perhaps you will listen to the voice of expierence.

My first receiver was a Knight Kit Star Roamer.. now this is a superhet,
true, but as it turns out it had a REGEN control in one stage, that
stage
could be made super regenerative,, You used this to receive CW or SSB,,
i
used that radio for many years.

I fear that you will be incorrect and confusing regeneration and
super-regeneration.


No... I'm not.... I do know the difference. Had a Super Regen for VHF as
well.

So, if the Knight Kit could also go into super-regeneration, how was the
quenching achieved?

By the same means it happened by accident when Armstrong was playing with
regen receivers.

Most discussion of superregens has the same tube doing the receiving and
quenching. That tends to confuse the operation of the scheme, and like I
said, eventually the ARRL Handbook description of the superregen devolved
to explaining how the tube could quench.

The right components and that regen receiver can be a superregen receiver.
And like I said, it can be both, just picking components so the regen
control can get some regeration (for improved selectivity), turn into an
oscillator (for beating against incoming signals) and then a bit more and
it goes into superregeneration.

Like I said, superregeneration is just an addition to regeneration, a
useful feature since it makes operation much less fussy (no need to
constantly ride the regen control), but nevertheless just an extension of
the basic concept of regeneration.

Michael