| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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 |
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.. A superheterodyne can be Supradyne or Infradyne, depending of the IF against the RF. I suspect that "Super" was more a marketing term than anything else :-). I don't superthink so. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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 |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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. (*) OK, I know about lowfers and there is submarine RF communication below 20kHz. If I listen in to that with a superhet is it then really a subhet? Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Bart and Homer are arguing about something, and Bart parrots what Wikipedia says on the subject. Homer says in a deep resentful voice "We'll fix THAT when we get home!" Tim. |
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 :-). 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. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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. John |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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 think we're going to be doing a superhet receiver soon. Maybe we'll do it in an FPGA! 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 :-). 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.. ====================== Many of not most modern HF receivers have a first IF in the 45-75 MHz range. ================================================== I suspect that "Super" was more a marketing term than anything else :-). Tim N3QE frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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 :-) I think we're going to be doing a superhet receiver soon. Maybe we'll do it in an FPGA! How'd you do the preamp in there? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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"? |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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 |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
"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 |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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 |
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? 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? |
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? 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 |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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) |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
"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 |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
What specifically are your complaints with this Wiki ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver Superheterodyne receiver From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008) A 5-tubes superhet receiver made in Japan about 1955.In electronics, the superheterodyne receiver (also known as the supersonic heterodyne receiver, or by the abbreviated form superhet) is a receiver which uses the principle of frequency mixing or heterodyning to convert the received signal to a lower (sometimes higher) "intermediate" frequency, which can be more conveniently processed than the original carrier frequency. Virtually all modern radio and TV receivers use the Superheterodyne principle. Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Overview 3 Design and its evolution 4 Drawbacks 4.1 High-side and low-side injection 4.2 Image Frequency (fimage) 4.3 Local oscillator radiation 4.4 Local oscillator sideband noise 5 See also 6 References 7 Footnotes 8 External links [edit] History Two section variable capacitor, used in superhet receiverThe word heterodyne is derived from the Greek roots hetero- "different", and - dyne "power". The original heterodyne technique was pioneered by Canadian inventor-engineer Reginald Fessenden but was not pursued far because local oscillators were not very stable at the time.[1] Later, the superheterodyne (superhet) principle was conceived in 1918 by Edwin Armstrong during World War I, as a means of overcoming the deficiencies of early vacuum triodes used as high-frequency amplifiers in radio direction finding (RDF) equipment. Unlike simple radio communication, which only needs to make transmitted signals audible, RDF requires actual measurements of received signal strength, which necessitates linear amplification of the actual carrier wave. In a triode RF amplifier, if both the plate and grid are connected to resonant circuits tuned to the same frequency, stray capacitive coupling between the grid and the plate will cause the amplifier to go into oscillation if the stage gain is much more than unity. In early designs, dozens (in some cases over 100) low-gain triode stages had to be connected in cascade to make workable equipment, which drew enormous amounts of power in operation and required a team of maintenance engineers. The strategic value was so high, however, that the British Admiralty felt the high cost was justified. Armstrong had realized that if RDF could be operated at a higher frequency, it would allow detection of enemy shipping much more effectively, but at the time, no practical "short wave" amplifier existed, (defined then as any frequency above 500 kHz) due to the limitations of triodes of the day. A "heterodyne" refers a beat or "difference" frequency produced when two or more radio frequency carrier waves are fed to a detector. The term was originally coined by Canadian Engineer Reginald Fessenden describing his proposed method of making Morse Code transmissions from an Alexanderson alternator type transmitter audible. With the Spark gap transmitters then in wide use, the Morse Code signal consisted of short bursts of a heavily modulated carrier wave which could be clearly heard as a series of short chirps or buzzes in the receiver's headphones. The signal from an Alexanderson Alternator on the other hand, did not have any such inherent modulation and Morse Code from one of those would only be heard as a series of clicks or thumps. Fessenden's idea was to run two Alexanderson Alternators, one producing a carrier frequency 3kHz higher than the other. In the receiver's detector the two carriers would beat together to produce a 3kHz tone and so in the headphones the morse signals would then be heard as a series of 3kHz beeps. For this he coined the term "heterodyne" meaning "Generated by a Difference" (in frequency). Later, when vacuum triodes became available, the same result could be achieved more conveniently by incorporating a "local oscillator" in the receiver, which became known as a "Beat Frequency Oscillator" or BFO. As the BFO frequency was varied, the pitch of the heterodyne could be heard to vary with it. If the frequences were too far apart the heterodyne became supersonic and hence no longert audible. It had been noticed some time before that if a regenerative receiver was allowed to go into oscillation, other receivers nearby would suddenly start picking up stations on frequencies different from those that the stations were actually transmitted on. Armstrong (and others) eventually deduced that this was caused by a "supersonic heterodyne" between the station's carrier frequency and the oscillator frequency. Thus, for example, if a station was transmitting on 300 kHz and the oscillating receiver was set to 400 kHz, the station would be heard not only at the original 300 kHz, but also at 100 kHz and 700 kHz. Armstrong realized that this was a potential solution to the "short wave" amplification problem, since the beat frequency still retained its original moduation, but on a lower carrier frequency. To monitor a frequency of 1500 kHz for example, he could set up an oscillator to say, 1560 kHz, which would produce a heterodyne of 60kHz, a frequency that could then be much more conveniently amplified by the triodes of the day. He termed this the "Intermediate Frequency" often abbreviated to "IF" Early Superheterodyne receivers actually used IFs as low as 20 kHz, often based around the self-resonance of iron-cored transformers. This made them extremely susceptible to image frequency interference, but at the time, the main objective was sensitivity rather than selectivity. Using this technique, a small number triodes could be made to do work that formerly required dozens or even hundreds. 1920s commercial IF transformers actually look very similar to 1920s audio interstage coupling transformers, and were wired up in an almost identical manner. By the mid-1930s superhets were using much higher intermediate frequencies, (typically around 440-470kHz), using tuned coils very similar in construction to the aerial and oscillator coils. However the term "Intermediate Frequency Transformer" or "IFT" still persists to this day. Modern receivers typically use a mixture of Ceramic Filters and/or Saw Resonators as well as traditional tuned-inductor IF transformers Armstrong was able to put his ideas into practice quite quickly, and the technique was rapidly adopted by the military. However, it was less popular when commercial radio broadcasting began in the 1920s. There were many factors involved,but the main issues were the need for an extra tube for the oscillator, the generally higher cost of the receiver, and the level of technical skill required to operate it. For early domestic radios, Tuned RFs ("TRF"), also called the Neutrodyne, were much more popular because they were cheaper, easier for a non- technical owner to use, and less costly to operate. Armstrong eventually sold his superheterodyne patent to Westinghouse, who then sold it to RCA, the latter monopolizing the market for superheterodyne receivers until 1930.[2] By the 1930s, improvements in vacuum tube technology rapidly eroded the TRF receiver's cost advantages, and the explosion in the number of broadcasting stations created a demand for cheaper, higher-performance receivers. First, the development of practical indirectly-heated-cathode tubes allowed the mixer and oscillator functions to be combined in a single Pentode tube, in the so-called Autodyne mixer. This was rapidly followed by the introduction of low-cost multi-element tubes specifically designed for superheterodyne operation. These allowed the use of much higher Intermediate Frequencies (typically around 440-470kHz) which eliminated the problem of image frequency interference. By the mid-30s, for commercial receiver production the TRF technique was obsolete. The superheterodyne principle was eventually taken up for virtually all commercial radio and TV designs. [edit] Overview The superhet receiver consists of three principle parts, the local oscillator, a mixer that mixes the local oscillator's signal with the received signal, and a tuned amplifier. Reception starts with an antenna signal, optionally amplified, including the frequency the user wishes to tune, fd. The local oscillator is tuned to produce a frequency close to fd, fLO. The received signal is mixed with the local oscillator's, producing four frequencies in the output; the original signal, the original fLO, and the two new frequencies fd+fLO and fd-fLO. The output signal also generally contains a number of undesirable mixtures as well. (These are 3rd- and higher-order intermodulation products. If the mixing were performed as a pure, ideal multiplication, the original fd and fLO would also not appear; in practice they do appear because mixing is done by a nonlinear process that only approximates true ideal multiplication.) The amplifier portion of the system is tuned to be highly selective at a single frequency, fIF. By changing fLO, the resulting fd-fLO (or fd +fLO) signal can be tuned to the amplifier's fIF. In typical amplitude modulation ("AM radio" in the U.S., or MW) receivers, that frequency is 455 kHz; for FM receivers, it is usually 10.7 MHz; for television, 45 MHz. Other signals from the mixed output of the heterodyne are filtered out by the amplifier. [edit] Design and its evolution The diagram below shows the basic elements of a single conversion superhet receiver. The essential elements of a local oscillator and a mixer followed by a fixed-tuned filter and IF amplifier are common to all superhet circuits. Cost-optimized designs may use one active device for both local oscillator and mixer--this is sometimes called a "converter" stage. One such example is the pentagrid converter. The advantage to this method is that most of the radio's signal path has to be sensitive to only a narrow range of frequencies. Only the front end (the part before the frequency converter stage) needs to be sensitive to a wide frequency range. For example, the front end might need to be sensitive to 1-30 MHz, while the rest of the radio might need to be sensitive only to 455 kHz, a typical IF. Only one or two tuned stages need to be adjusted to track over the tuning range of the receiver; all the intermediate-frequency stages operate at a fixed frequency which need not be adjusted. To overcome obstacles such as image response, multiple IF stages are used, and in some case multiple stages with two IFs of different values. For example, the front end might be sensitive to 1-30 MHz, the first half of the radio to 5 MHz, and the last half to 50 kHz. Two frequency converters would be used, and the radio would be a "Double Conversion Super Heterodyne"--a common example is a television receiver where the audio information is obtained from a second stage of intermediate frequency conversion. Occasionally special-purpose receivers will use an intermediate frequency much higher than the signal, in order to obtain very high image rejection. Superheterodyne receivers have superior characteristics to simpler receiver types in frequency stability and selectivity. They offer much better stability than Tuned radio frequency receivers (TRF) because a tuneable oscillator is more easily stabilized than a tuneable amplifier, especially with modern frequency synthesizer technology. IF filters can give much narrower passbands at the same Q factor than an equivalent RF filter. A fixed IF also allows the use of a crystal filter when exceptionally high selectivity is necessary. Regenerative and super-regenerative receivers offer better sensitivity than a TRF receiver, but suffer from stability and selectivity problems. In the case of modern television receivers, no other technique was able to produce the precise bandpass characteristic needed for vestigial sideband reception, first used with the original NTSC system introduced in 1941. This originally involved a complex collection of tuneable inductors which needed careful adjustment, but since the early 1980s these have been replaced with precision electromechanical surface acoustic wave (SAW) filters. Fabricated by precision laser milling techniques, SAW filters are much cheaper to produce, can be made to extremely close tolerances, and are extremely stable in operation. Microprocessor technology allows replacing the superheterodyne receiver design by a software defined radio architecture, where the IF processing after the initial IF filter is implemented in software. This technique is already in use in certain designs, such as very low cost FM radios incorporated into mobile phones where the necessary microprocessor is already present in the system. Radio transmitters may also use a mixer stage to produce an output frequency, working more or less as the reverse of a superheterodyne receiver. [edit] Drawbacks Drawbacks to the superheterodyne receiver include interference from signal frequencies close to the intermediate frequency. To prevent this, IF frequencies are generally controlled by regulatory authorities, and this is the reason most receivers use common IFs. Examples are 455 kHz for AM radio, 10.7 MHz for FM, and 38.9 MHz (Europe) 45 MHz (US) for television. (For AM radio, a variety of IFs have been used, but most of the Western World settled on 455kHz, in large part because of the almost universal transition to Japanese-made ceramic resonators which used the US standard of 455kHz. In more recent digitally tuned receivers, this was changed to 450kHz as this figure simplifies the design of the synthesizer circuitry). Additionally, in urban environments with many strong signals, the signals from multiple transmitters may combine in the mixer stage to interfere with the desired signal. [edit] High-side and low-side injection The amount that a signal is down-shifted by the local oscillator depends on whether its frequency f is higher or lower than fLO. That is because its new frequency is |f - fLO| in either case. Therefore, there are potentially two signals that could both shift to the same fIF one at f = fLO + fIF and another at f = fLO - fIF. One or the other of those signals, called the image frequency, has to be filtered out prior to the mixer to avoid aliasing. When the upper one is filtered out, it is called high-side injection, because fLO is above the frequency of the received signal. The other case is called low- side injection. High-side injection also reverses the order of a signal's frequency components. Whether or not that actually changes the signal depends on whether it has spectral symmetry or not. The reversal can be undone later in the receiver, if necessary. [edit] Image Frequency (fimage) One major disadvantage to the superheterodyne receiver is the problem of image frequency. In heterodyne receivers, an image frequency is an undesired input frequency equal to the station frequency plus twice the intermediate frequency. The image frequency results in two stations being received at the same time, thus producing interference. Image frequencies can be eliminated by sufficient attenuation on the incoming signal by the RF amplifier filter of the superheterodyne receiver. Early Autodyne receivers typically used IFs of only 150kHz or so, as it was difficult to maintain reliable oscillation if higher frequencies were used. As a consequence, most Autodyne receivers needed quite elaborate antenna tuning networks, often involving double- tuned coils, to avoid image interference. Later superhets used tubes especialy designed for oscillator/mixer use, which were able work reliably with much higher IFs, reducing th eproblem of image interference and so allowing simpler and cheaper aerial tuning circuitry. [edit] Local oscillator radiation It is difficult to keep stray radiation from the local oscillator below the level that a nearby receiver can detect. This means that there can be mutual interference in the operation of two or more superheterodyne receivers in close proximity. In espionage, oscillator radiation gives a means to detect a covert receiver and its operating frequency. Further information: Electromagnetic compatibility [edit] Local oscillator sideband noise Local oscillators typically generate a single frequency signal that has negligible amplitude modulation but some random phase modulation. Either of these impurities spreads some of the signal's energy into sideband frequencies. That causes a corresponding widening of the receiver's frequency response, which would defeat the aim to make a very narrow bandwidth receiver such as to receive low-rate digital signals. Care needs to be taken to minimize osicllator phase noise, usually by ensuring that the oscillator never enters a non-linear mode. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
"Greegor" What specifically are your complaints with this Wiki ? ** What a ****ing stupid thing to do - post an entire bloody 180KB Wiki !!! Even worse, the post is nor directed to anyone. Greegor = MORON !! ...... Phil |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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 :-) I think we're going to be doing a superhet receiver soon. Maybe we'll do it in an FPGA! How'd you do the preamp in there? Bit shift? |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
"Robert Baer" wrote in message net...
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 :-) I think we're going to be doing a superhet receiver soon. Maybe we'll do it in an FPGA! How'd you do the preamp in there? Bit shift? Yes, but 2x zero is still zero... :) M |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
"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 |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
On Apr 21, 2:02*am, Greegor wrote:
What specifically are your complaints with this Wiki ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver A 180 Kbyte article about a technology developed in the 1910's, yet the oldest reference is to a textbook from 1996 aimed at freshman or sophomore EE students of the 90's. More original references would have gone a long way, especially to the patents and journals of the 1910's and 1920's. Don't get me wrong, it's a kinda nice textbook that they reference, as I realize that by the 90's many EE programs had been so entirely taken over by VLSI and CAD techniques and the particular textbook fills a very important niche in education. It isn't the textbook that I learned about radio from but I see how it fits the modern times well. (I prefer Terman or Clarke&Hess but those guys weren't around in 1918 either.). A smaller point, is that the language sounds a lot like it was written in a language other than English and then translated. In principle this isn't fundamentally bad, it's just that a lot of the terminology used sounds very awkward. I think that's fine if they reference 80 year old patents using the same language, but they don't. Tim. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
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. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
In rec.radio.amateur.homebrew 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 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 ? Killfile, Phil. Phil, killfile. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO Tired old sysadmin |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
On Apr 20, 12:50*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 Remember that his previous receiver invention, the regenerative detector, would produce an audible heterodyne when used in the oscillating-detector mode (for reception of CW, not AM signals). So it would make sense for him to think of his new principle as producing a supersonic heterodyne (IIRC around 50kHz or so). And then there's the super regenerative detector, a regenerative detector which is driven into and out of oscillation at (typically) a supersonic frequency. Mike |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:02:59 -0700, Greegor wrote:
A 5-tubes superhet receiver made in Japan about 1955. Notwithstanding I didn't see this line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver , when I was a kid, we had an "All-American Five" WELL before 1955. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_American_Five Hope This Helps! Rich |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
On Apr 21, 5:34�am, 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. One can write just about anything so that it looks good and authentic. :-) There is plenty of rather authentic information on Edward Howard Armstrong, including scans of Armstrong's patents. As to the words "supersonic" and "subsonic" I doubt that those were coined prior to around 1930, rather long after the superheterodyne came into being as the very model of a modern major receiver structure. Argument over the 'super' prefix/designator would come a cropper on things like the super-regenerative receiver which use a sort of burst oscillation at frequencies quite higher than young adult hearing maximum of 15 KHz, i.e., "supersonic" in terms of frequency. In aerospace, "supersonic" is a term for going faster than the speed of sound. As to "typically converting the signal frequency below the range of tuning," that WAS true but it applies only to most superhets that were designed prior to WWII (at least 60 years ago). Those mixers used only the difference frequency output while the sum frequency output just dissipated internally. That changed with UP-conversion, notably in Collins Radio designs for their lowest selectable bands, then in the first wideband spectrum analyzers covering a full GHz in one sweep. Those early spectrum analyzers would up-convert 0 to 1 GHz to a 2 GHz first IF, then down-convert from there. 2 GHz is so far above 'supersonic' that it would be a misuse of it. 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. There's also a lot more folks who just vent their frustrations on everyone else, such as Phil Allison (who's profile can't be accessed because he violated the Terms of Service on Google). As to the ORIGIN of technical terms, speaking as a lifetime engineer and technician and worker IN engineering, it matters little as to etymology but a great deal more on the SUBJECT the word is referring to. If anyone wants to think "supersonic" applied in 1918 to anything at all, then they are welcome to point out the "supersonic" aircraft of that time...made of pieces of steel, wood, wire, and fabric. :-) It was a long time between 1918 and 1947 when the first aircraft broke the 'sound barrier' (Bell X-1 piloted by Chuck Yeager). 73, Len AF6AY |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
Jean-Christophe wrote:
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.. A superheterodyne can be Supradyne or Infradyne, depending of the IF against the RF. I suspect that "Super" was more a marketing term than anything else :-). I don't superthink so. There was a type of circuit called the 'heterodyne', which is actually just a direct conversion receiver. Adding the IF stage made it a 'super' heterodyne. Also remember the 'super-regenerative' circuit? That was an improvement over the regenerative receiver in that feedback could be increased past the self oscillation point to get even more gain via the use of a supersonic quench oscillator. So maybe the prefex DOES refer to supersonic. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
P
Is there a Subheterodyne? ** No. But if you wind your tickler coil bass-ackwards you end up with a degenerative receiver circuit. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
"AF6AY" = radio ham nutter One can write just about anything so that it looks good and authentic. :-) ** Shame how that leaves this retarded old ham out in the cold. As to the words "supersonic" and "subsonic" I doubt that those were coined prior to around 1930, ** So the clot has no idea what terms were in use back then at all - but it suits him to pretend that he knows. What a hee-hawing bloody ASS. ....... Phil |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
TheM wrote:
"Robert Baer" wrote in message net... 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 :-) I think we're going to be doing a superhet receiver soon. Maybe we'll do it in an FPGA! How'd you do the preamp in there? Bit shift? Yes, but 2x zero is still zero... :) M .... +/-3dB. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |
If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?
"Tim Shoppa the ****** " Greegor the Geek What specifically are your complaints with this Wiki ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver A 180 Kbyte article about a technology developed in the 1910's, ** Irrelevant when it was first developed - cos it is still current tech. The article is not pretending to be being a history lesson. A smaller point, is that the language sounds a lot like it was written in a language other than English and then translated. ** That is an utterly absurd idea. Smacks of paranoid schizophrenia. Shoppa has completely lost it. ...... Phil |
Tim Shoppa the Shithead Troll
"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 |
Tim Shoppa the Shithead Troll
On Apr 21, 5:54*pm, "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 *- ** *I was much too kind earlier .... ** *Mere narcissism has just turned into full blown ego-mania. ** Wot a nauseating computer geek puke. There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance, Phil. I have erased that line! Tim. |
Tim Shoppa the 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. Mostly 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com