On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:49:51 -0700, 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 :-)

So a convenience store would be a "hypomercado"?

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:49:51 -0700, 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 :-)

So a convenience store would be a "hypomercado"?


:-)

Those actually called themselves supermercado a lot, probably the reason
why the real ones of the size of a Safeway had to notch it up one category.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

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:
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

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

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:
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
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):


Wow! I didn't know you were this old.

[...]

--
SCNR, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

"Tim Shoppa"

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

Does the "Super" actually mean anything?


** Refers to the term " supersonic frequency " - the general name for any
frequency between the upper limit of the audible range ( 20kHz ) and the
lower limit of common radio transmission frequencies or "long waves" at
about 150kHz.

Is there a Subheterodyne?

** No.

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 name now refers to any receiver that involves a frequency changer
stage prior to detection.

If you want to know the meaning of any term, you have to study how PEOPLE
used it - both in the past and the present.

Only complete fools and radio hams study the words themselves in isolation
and try to de-construct them.


...... Phil

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:
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

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.

John

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?

Supersonic.

So, if a basketball player from a certain team in Seattle were flying
on the Concorde, and listening to a particular brand of antique radio,
it'd be a supersonic SuperSonic's Superdyne supersonic heterodyne?

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?

The heterodyning of two signals was barely known around 1902 to
1904 when very early entrepreneur-experimenter Reginald Fessenden
was fooling around in his lab trying to improve the sensitivity of
early coherer-type detectors. Fessenden tried mixing the output
of a very low-power spark transmitter with his simple receiver and
reported getting a clearer tone from a distant station. Fessenden
was keen on making himself known so he wrote that up and it was
published.

However, by 1906 the first audion tube was made and in a few years
later, some production units were available for experimenters,
namely a very young Armstrong...who went on to start gaining fame
with his regenerative tube receiver. By 1918, Amstrong was now a
Major in the US Army and stationed in Paris with WW One having
stopped. Armstrong remembered the Fessenden experiment and
remembered the 'heterodyning' process of mixing low-level RF signals
with higher-level RF (the 'Local Oscillator' as it became known),
getting two extra mixing products out of a 'mixer' stage (sum and
difference of the two main input frequencies). By now academics
had gone into the heterodyning process in more detail with at
least 14 years between Fessenden's experiment and Armstrong's tube
version.

Armstrong's patent application promised an equal-selectivity at
any antenna-input frequency, something not possible with TRF
receivers, narrower at lower frequencies, wider at higher ones.

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

Might have been had there been ANY real "market" for radios back
then. Of course, anything RF done with vacuum tubes beat the pants
off any crystal detector and spark transmitter, so it was definitely
a 'super' thing. :-)

Actually, Ed Armstrong had a battle with various nations on the
patent for his superheterodyne, at least a year or two later with
someone in England and another in France. Patent suits would
continue to dog Armstrong until the end of his life, probably
causing the depression that, in turn, caused him to suicide.
Just the same, Armstrong had the chutzpah to promote his ideas
and he is truly the father of FM broadcasting allowing high-
fidelity music to any FM receiver. He was no slouch in getting
organized and promoting himself.

There's a whole lot of material on Edwin Howard Armstrong at
several websites, reachable through members of the Radio Club of
America, the oldest association (since 1909) and still going.
---------------
The three basic forms of modulation of a carrier (amplitude,
frequency, phase) were worked out by John Carson of AT&T in 1915,
before Armstrong got going on his 'superhet' idea. Whether or not
Ed saw those is unknown, but Carson had them worked out already.
Those very early 'radio' experimenters, from academics to amateurs,
were very very busy in the first two decades of 'radio' existance,
going from essentially nothing to several somethings. 'Radio'
stayed a fertile field for scientific-engineering innovation for
three more decades, spurred into a couple quantum jumps during the
World War II years.

Reginald Fessenden sort of faded into the woodwork after his
famous "Christmas Eve" sound broadcast of 1906...using a spark
transmitter whose antenna wire was modulated by a special carbon
microphone! I doubt that any AM broadcast station ever tried to
use that system since so it was an early curiosity in radio history.
Armstrong's name spread and so did his inventions...not just the
regen or superhet, but also the super-regenerative for high HF and
into VHF (note the 'super' addition by the extra oscillation) and,
of course, to FM broadcasting.

73, Len AF6AY

On Apr 20, 1:57�pm, Tim Shoppa wrote:
On Apr 20, 3:44�pm, John Larkin

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.

Everyone ought to realize that "Wikipedia" data can be written by
ANYONE
and that the ARRL (who has always published QST) is NOT a technical-
expertise source. Ed Armstrong's original patent on the
superheterodyne
can be found on the 'web in digitized image form. Takes some
searching.

The word prefix 'super' generally refers to something 'better' than
the word
without that prefix. Armstrong got a patent for the regenerative
detector, He
also got a patent for a SUPER-Regenerative detector.

Think also SUPERman. 'Mercado' has already been mentioned, but folks
have neglected the MARKET...which expanded into SUPERmarket, generally
a chain of them under one label or another.

73, Len AF6AY
ex-ARRL member (for good reason)

"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 word prefix 'super' generally refers to something 'better' than
the word without that prefix.


** So this radio ham clot has no idea what the origin of the term is really
is ( although it has been posted) and is making the classic ****wit
BLUNDER of trying to de-cipher the meaning from the word alone.



Think also SUPERman.

** And supercilious.


73, Len AF6AY
ex-ARRL member (for good reason)


** Lunatics like Len are not welcome as members ?



...... Phil