Tim Shoppa the Shithead Troll
 

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:54:07 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"Tim Shoppa the ****head Troll "



NO, PHIL... You dumb****!

YOU are the ****HEAD and YOU are the STUPID ****ing TROLL!

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:27:24 -0500 mikea wrote in
Message id: :

[...]

Killfile, Phil. Phil, killfile.

What took you so long?

Tim Shoppa the Autistic Troll
 

On Apr 21, 10:03*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
** Only indicates an autistic lack of comprehension.
** You are autistically obsessed with imaginary flaws in the writing.
*** Mostly likely because you have gone quite insane.
** What a revolting, pompous narcissistic pig you are *- *Tim.
** *I was much too kind earlier ....
** Mere narcissism has just turned into full blown, autistic ego-mania.
** *Shoppa's self delusions have made him a legend in his own mind.
** *When all he really has become is " history ".

You forgot to add, Phil, that my mother was a hamster and my father
smelt of eldeberries.

Tim.

Tim Shoppa= Autistic Troll
 

"Tim Shoppa = Autistic Troll "


The best Wikipedia articles are often filled with good checkable
references, but other times it sounds like they were written in a
foreign language and translated into English

** Only indicates an autistic lack of comprehension.


Just because a Wikipedia entry isn't well-written or sounds awkward

** You are autistically obsessed with imaginary flaws in the writing.

Most likely because you have gone quite insane.


Somewhere there's a bunch of people who spend their time correcting
and improving Wikipedia entries, and I think overall they are doing a
good job, but that doesn't mean the result is always devoted to my
interests.


** What a revolting, pompous narcissistic pig you are - Tim.


Just like anything else in this world, it's got workers and
it's got managers and they aren't always devoting their attention to
the little corners of arcania that I live in.


** I was much too kind earlier ....


It's not that the Encyclopedia Britannica is perfect either. I can
open it up to the very few subjects that I happen to be expert on and
find over-simplifications and a lack of cites to what I consider to be
the best references.

** Mere narcissism has just turned into full blown, autistic ego-mania.


Of course in academia I got real used to opening a journal and instead
of reading the articles, to go straight to the references and see if
they are quoting one of my articles :-).


** Shoppa's self delusions have made him a legend in his own mind.

When all he really has become is " history ".



...... Phil

Tim Shoppa the Autistic Troll
 

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 05:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Tim Shoppa
wrote:

On Apr 21, 10:03*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
** Only indicates an autistic lack of comprehension.
** You are autistically obsessed with imaginary flaws in the writing.
*** Mostly likely because you have gone quite insane.
** What a revolting, pompous narcissistic pig you are *- *Tim.
** *I was much too kind earlier ....
** Mere narcissism has just turned into full blown, autistic ego-mania.
** *Shoppa's self delusions have made him a legend in his own mind.
** *When all he really has become is " history ".

You forgot to add, Phil, that my mother was a hamster and my father
smelt of eldeberries.

Even when he was young?
--
John

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

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 :-).

If it comes to that, old Longwave/Mediumwave superhet receivers
generated an IF for the LW band that was higher than the frequency of
the incoming signal. The IF was usually a frequency between the two bands.

Sylvia.

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:50:05 -0700 (PDT), 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 :-).

Tim N3QE

Supersonic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver


John


Not a bad article, except that he seems to think that cascading multiple
stages at a single IF improves image rejection, and that very high IFs
are much less common than double conversion. (Does *anyone* use double
conversion anymore? Spur city.)

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:27:37 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:50:05 -0700 (PDT), 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 :-).

Tim N3QE

Supersonic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver


John


Not a bad article, except that he seems to think that cascading multiple
stages at a single IF improves image rejection, and that very high IFs
are much less common than double conversion. (Does *anyone* use double
conversion anymore? Spur city.)

I did a double-conversion superhet FSK receiver for Reuters, umm,
maybe 20 years ago. I used state-of-the-art MF10 filter chips. Just
after I did it, they dumped all their wireline FSK newsfeeeds for the
Internet. Pity, it was a neat design.

We may do it again soon, for a scientific instrument, more digital
this time.

John

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

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 :-).

The IF frequency is above the signal frequency, hence the "super"
prefix.

There are also "homodyne" receivers, where the local oscillator is
at the same frequency as the received carrier. These convert the input signal
all the way down to the output signal in one step. This was an
early idea, but until phase locked loops were figured out, hard to make work.
It's used today in some microwave and optical systems.

John Nagle

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

Subheterodyne?? BFO???

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

On Apr 20, 9:50*am, 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 :-).

Tim N3QE

I thought it was a contraction of "supersonic heterodyne".

At that time receivers were TRF and in many cases used reaction (i.e.
controlled positive feedback) to improve selectivity and gain. This
could be exploited to receive CW signals by advancing to the point of
feedback resulting in an audible heterodyne (whistle) at the output
whwn tuned close to a signal.

The supersonic heterodyne performed in a similar way but was
intentionally above audible range (i.e. supersonic) for amplification
at the intermediate frequency.

kevin

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

Bert Hyman 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?

My recollection is that Armstrong used the term "supersonic heterodyne"
to note the fact that the beat frequency between the signal and LO
was "supersonic."

Ultrasonic of course, so it's been the wrong name all along.

Graham

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

Tim Shoppa wrote:

John Larkin 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 :-).

Tim N3QE

Supersonic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver

I saw that in Wikipedia too. I didn't believe it, it doesn't make
sense. Why not just call all radio frequencies and IF frequencies
above 20kHz "supersonic"? Then all radios (*) are supersonic, and
we're back to super meaning nothing at all.

Supersonic today means travelling faster than the speed of sound. The correct
word now would be ultrasonic.

So maybe they should be recalled ultraheterodyne receivers.

Graham

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

"Eeysore the ****wit "
Tim Shoppa the ASD ****ed ****head "

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

Does the "Super" actually mean anything?

My recollection is that Armstrong used the term "supersonic heterodyne"
to note the fact that the beat frequency between the signal and LO
was "supersonic."

Ultrasonic of course,


** There is no "of course" about it".

so it's been the wrong name all along.


** Pedantic, insane ********.



...... Phil

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

"Eeysore the ****ing LIAR "

Supersonic today means travelling faster than the speed of sound.


** Not when the context is frequency - you ****ing MORON.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supersonic



....... Phil

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

"John Nagle the Flatulent Fool"


The IF frequency is above the signal frequency, hence the "super"
prefix.


** Nagle just did another smelly fart.

Peeeeeeuuueeee



..... Phil

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

On Apr 20, 5:50*pm, 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 :-).

Tim N3QE

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.

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'.

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. Andy G4OEP

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

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

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

mikea wrote:
[Philthy snipped]

Killfile, Phil. Phil, killfile.

Hi Mike, nice to see you here!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

Phil Allison wrote:
"Eeysore the ****ing LIAR "

Supersonic today means travelling faster than the speed of sound.


** Not when the context is frequency - you ****ing MORON.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supersonic



....... Phil


=============================================
Phil ,It will be a relief to all (civilised) users of this NG ,if you
would discharge your life's frustrations onto another more appropriate
NG. It is clear ,to me at least ,that you need help.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

"Highland Ham"

** Whoopeee !!!!

Another totally anencephalic, radio ham wack-job opens his dumb gob.



"Eeysore the ****ing LIAR "

Supersonic today means travelling faster than the speed of sound.


** Not when the context is frequency - you ****ing MORON.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supersonic



=============================================
Phil ,


** Never address me personally via any NG

- you pig ignorant ****.



It will be a relief to all (civilised) users of this NG


** Leaves all self appointed, net cop ****s like you out

- don't it ???



Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH


** **** the hell off - Frank.

IMO, radio hams are the scum of the earth.

Go stick your stupid, smug opinions straight up your FAT ARSE.




....... Phil

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

Highland Ham wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
"Eeysore the ****ing LIAR "

Supersonic today means travelling faster than the speed of sound.


** Not when the context is frequency - you ****ing MORON.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supersonic



....... Phil


=============================================
Phil ,It will be a relief to all (civilised) users of this NG ,if you
would discharge your life's frustrations onto another more appropriate
NG. It is clear ,to me at least ,that you need help.


Killfile him, for your own sanity.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Tim Shoppa
wrote:

On Apr 21, 1:05*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"AF6AY"

Everyone ought to realize that "Wikipedia" data can be written by
ANYONE

** As are NG posts.

The difference being that Wikis are full of checkable references and are
subject to on-going correction.

The best Wikipedia articles are often filled with good checkable
references, but other times it sounds like they were written in a
foreign language and translated into English and have few (if any)
good references.

Just because a Wikipedia entry isn't well-written or sounds awkward
doesn't mean it's wrong, but I will often reject what I don't like in
the poorly written ones.

Somewhere there's a bunch of people who spend their time correcting
and improving Wikipedia entries, and I think overall they are doing a
good job, but that doesn't mean the result is always devoted to my
interests. Just like anything else in this world, it's got workers and
it's got managers and they aren't always devoting their attention to
the little corners of arcania that I live in.

It's not that the Encyclopedia Britannica is perfect either. I can
open it up to the very few subjects that I happen to be expert on and
find over-simplifications and a lack of cites to what I consider to be
the best references. That doesn't mean it's out-and-out wrong, just
that it's an Encyclopedia, and by definition they can't do anything
but touch on the surface of all the interesting stuff in the world.

Of course in academia I got real used to opening a journal and instead
of reading the articles, to go straight to the references and see if
they are quoting one of my articles :-). Breadth vs specialization,
can't pick them both.

Tim.

Just the same, i try. perhaps my approach can be better described as
having adequate coverage at adequate depth. Or sort of turning thinge
sideways and trying to get best area with a very complex shape with
many largish estensions in some areas and virtually none in other
places. Knowledge is kind of fractal any way.

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:27:37 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:50:05 -0700 (PDT), 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 :-).

Tim N3QE

Supersonic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver


John


Not a bad article, except that he seems to think that cascading multiple
stages at a single IF improves image rejection, and that very high IFs
are much less common than double conversion. (Does *anyone* use double
conversion anymore? Spur city.)

Double conversion may be thought to be passe an awful lot of sattelite
TV receivers are double conversion or triple conversion. Think LNB.

If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
 

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Tim Shoppa
wrote:

On Apr 20, 3:44 pm, John Larkin
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:23:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim Shoppa

wrote:
On Apr 20, 1:10 pm, John Larkin
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver

I saw that in Wikipedia too. I didn't believe it, it doesn't make
sense. Why not just call all radio frequencies and IF frequencies
above 20kHz "supersonic"? Then all radios (*) are supersonic, and
we're back to super meaning nothing at all.

Possibly because heterodyne receivers mixed to sonic frequencies.

I didn't really trust Wikipedia on this (it uses unusual language to
talk about perfectly conventional subjects) but I did find my December
1922 QST, and it says (page 11):

In December, 1919, Major E. H. Armstrong gave
publicity to an indirect method of obtaining
short-wave amplification, called the Super-
Heterodyne. The idea is to reduce the incoming
frequency which may be, say 1,500,000 cycles
(200 meters), to some suitable super-audible
frequency which can be amplified efficiently, then
passing this current through a radio frequency
amplifier and finally rectifying and carrying on
to one or two stages of audio frequency
amplification.

To me that sounds a little less awkward and more natural than the
derivation that Wikipedia tries to draw.

Tim N3QE

I did like the wiki bit about people using hundred-tube TRF receivers.


And the claim that a TRF receiver was simpler to use than a
super–heterodyne. It makes you wonder if the author even knows how a
TRF receiver works. Most had a separate knob per tuned circuit, since
the attempts at gear driven tuners didn't track very well.




--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!