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.

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 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!

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

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.

"Tim Shoppa"
"Phil Allison"

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

** Only indicates your lack of comprehension.


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

** You are irrationally obsessed with style over content.

Mostly likely because you cannot comprehend the content.


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 little narcissist 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 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 :-).


** Wot a nauseating computer geek puke.



....... Phil

On Apr 21, 8:49*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
** *Only indicates your lack of comprehension.
** You are irrationally obsessed with style over content.
** What a revolting, pompous little narcissist you are *- *Tim.
** *I was much too kind earlier ....
** *Mere narcissism has just turned into full blown ego-mania.
** *Wot a nauseating computer geek puke.

There's a thin line between ignorance and arrogance, Phil. I have
erased that line.

Tim.

"Tim Shoppa the ****head Troll "


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

** Only indicates your lack of comprehension.


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

** You are irrationally obsessed with style over content.

Mostly likely because you cannot comprehend the content.


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 little narcissist 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 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 :-).


** Wot a nauseating computer geek puke.



....... Phil