Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 15
Message-ID: JAild.83554$E93.76920@clgrps12
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:20:09 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.59.63.227
X-Trace: clgrps12 1100330409 142.59.63.227 (Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:20:09 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:20:09 MST
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.radio.shortwave:404858


Is the Superheterodyne set over rated? It seems to me there were
certain advantages to the OLD ways. Ease of control perhaps not being
one of them.

What was the WORST feature of the Regenerative sets? The BEST feature?

Would it be worthwhile to build a kit?






mike

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:20:09 GMT, m II
wrote:


Is the Superheterodyne set over rated? It seems to me there were
certain advantages to the OLD ways. Ease of control perhaps not being
one of them.

Actually, superheterodyne is a pretty "OLD" way. It's just that it has
not been surpassed - till now, with the SDR - Software-Defined Radio
(of which superheterodyne is the front end anyway).

What was the WORST feature of the Regenerative sets?

Selectivity, dynamic range, tricky adjustment.

The BEST feature?

Simplicity, cost.

Would it be worthwhile to build a kit?

It is *always* worthwhile to tinker with radios... ;-)

Mike

Another best feature is that there is no bandwidth filter. If you get
a strong signal in the clear with good audio and run the rig thru an
amplifier you will be very surprised how good it can sound.
I recall doing that on a Radio Espania signal and being blown away
by the full frequency audio.
Bob


(Mike Cross) wrote in message news:4195dc10.33085750@news-server...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:20:09 GMT, m II
wrote:


Is the Superheterodyne set over rated? It seems to me there were
certain advantages to the OLD ways. Ease of control perhaps not being
one of them.

Actually, superheterodyne is a pretty "OLD" way. It's just that it has
not been surpassed - till now, with the SDR - Software-Defined Radio
(of which superheterodyne is the front end anyway).

What was the WORST feature of the Regenerative sets?

Selectivity, dynamic range, tricky adjustment.

The BEST feature?

Simplicity, cost.

Would it be worthwhile to build a kit?

It is *always* worthwhile to tinker with radios... ;-)

Mike

"m II" wrote in message
news:JAild.83554$E93.76920@clgrps12...

Is the Superheterodyne set over rated? It seems to me there were
certain advantages to the OLD ways. Ease of control perhaps not being
one of them.

What was the WORST feature of the Regenerative sets? The BEST feature?

Would it be worthwhile to build a kit?

mike

I built a single compactron tube ( 3 tubes in 1 envelope) regen several
years back:
http://parelectronics.com/pics/regen2.jpg

Lots of fun to listen to casually, but one quickly tires of the poor
selectivity and fiddling.

Dale W4OP

m II ) writes:


Is the Superheterodyne set over rated? It seems to me there were
certain advantages to the OLD ways. Ease of control perhaps not being
one of them.

What was the WORST feature of the Regenerative sets? The BEST feature?

Would it be worthwhile to build a kit?

You have to remember that Howard Armstrong, who "invented" the regen
(he was issued the patent, but it's something you really just trip over
rather than invent). then went on to invent the superheterodyne, which
does seem to have come from deliberate effort. He was disatisfied with the
regen, which led him to experiment and explore until he came up with the
superhet.

The regen is simple, and that's a big advantage. It provided good gain
for a single stage, and it provides better selectivity than a single tuned
circuit without regeneration.

Beyond that, it's limited. It won't provide great selectivity, it is
finicky, and can receiver limited types of modulation.

No, it can't be a serious contender for the superhet.

On the other hand, there is certainly an appeal to building something, and
a regen does make it easier. One can even argue that if someone is going to
build a simple receiver, a regen makes more sense; not only simpler, but
suffering from none of the superhet's disadvantages when done simply.

Some of the disadvantages, apart from the lack of good selectivbity, can
be overcome at the cost of more complexity. Add an an amplifier stage
before the detector, to isolate it from the effects of the antenna (which
can cause the regen to go in and out of regen when you don't want it), add
some voltage regulation, add an audio filter. Make sure theregen control is
smooth.

Charles Kitchin has done a fair amount of work on regens in recent years.
Some of the circuits are floating around the web, and he's had quite a few
articles in QST. I'm too lazy to dig up the biography once again.

There have been a few other "improve the regen" articles in QST in the
past decade, though I can't remember dates or author. The first used an
optoisolator to add some isolation, and there was another using a bridge
for isolation.

Michael

Edwin, not Howard.

On 13 Nov 2004 17:48:14 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:


m II ) writes:


Is the Superheterodyne set over rated? It seems to me there were
certain advantages to the OLD ways. Ease of control perhaps not being
one of them.

What was the WORST feature of the Regenerative sets? The BEST feature?

Would it be worthwhile to build a kit?

You have to remember that Howard Armstrong, who "invented" the regen
(he was issued the patent, but it's something you really just trip over
rather than invent). then went on to invent the superheterodyne, which
does seem to have come from deliberate effort. He was disatisfied with the
regen, which led him to experiment and explore until he came up with the
superhet.

The regen is simple, and that's a big advantage. It provided good gain
for a single stage, and it provides better selectivity than a single tuned
circuit without regeneration.

Beyond that, it's limited. It won't provide great selectivity, it is
finicky, and can receiver limited types of modulation.

No, it can't be a serious contender for the superhet.

On the other hand, there is certainly an appeal to building something, and
a regen does make it easier. One can even argue that if someone is going to
build a simple receiver, a regen makes more sense; not only simpler, but
suffering from none of the superhet's disadvantages when done simply.

Some of the disadvantages, apart from the lack of good selectivbity, can
be overcome at the cost of more complexity. Add an an amplifier stage
before the detector, to isolate it from the effects of the antenna (which
can cause the regen to go in and out of regen when you don't want it), add
some voltage regulation, add an audio filter. Make sure theregen control is
smooth.

Charles Kitchin has done a fair amount of work on regens in recent years.
Some of the circuits are floating around the web, and he's had quite a few
articles in QST. I'm too lazy to dig up the biography once again.

There have been a few other "improve the regen" articles in QST in the
past decade, though I can't remember dates or author. The first used an
optoisolator to add some isolation, and there was another using a bridge
for isolation.

Michael

David ) writes:
Edwin, not Howard.

No, that's not an error, it's Edwin Howard Armstrong, and I've come across
instances to suggest that he prefered to be called Howard.

Michael

On 13 Nov 2004 17:48:14 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:


m II ) writes:


Is the Superheterodyne set over rated? It seems to me there were
certain advantages to the OLD ways. Ease of control perhaps not being
one of them.

What was the WORST feature of the Regenerative sets? The BEST feature?

Would it be worthwhile to build a kit?

You have to remember that Howard Armstrong, who "invented" the regen
(he was issued the patent, but it's something you really just trip over
rather than invent). then went on to invent the superheterodyne, which
does seem to have come from deliberate effort. He was disatisfied with the
regen, which led him to experiment and explore until he came up with the
superhet.

The regen is simple, and that's a big advantage. It provided good gain
for a single stage, and it provides better selectivity than a single tuned
circuit without regeneration.

Beyond that, it's limited. It won't provide great selectivity, it is
finicky, and can receiver limited types of modulation.

No, it can't be a serious contender for the superhet.

On the other hand, there is certainly an appeal to building something, and
a regen does make it easier. One can even argue that if someone is going to
build a simple receiver, a regen makes more sense; not only simpler, but
suffering from none of the superhet's disadvantages when done simply.

Some of the disadvantages, apart from the lack of good selectivbity, can
be overcome at the cost of more complexity. Add an an amplifier stage
before the detector, to isolate it from the effects of the antenna (which
can cause the regen to go in and out of regen when you don't want it), add
some voltage regulation, add an audio filter. Make sure theregen control is
smooth.

Charles Kitchin has done a fair amount of work on regens in recent years.
Some of the circuits are floating around the web, and he's had quite a few
articles in QST. I'm too lazy to dig up the biography once again.

There have been a few other "improve the regen" articles in QST in the
past decade, though I can't remember dates or author. The first used an
optoisolator to add some isolation, and there was another using a bridge
for isolation.

Michael

Michael Black wrote:

David ) writes:
Edwin, not Howard.

No, that's not an error, it's Edwin Howard Armstrong, and I've come across
instances to suggest that he prefered to be called Howard.

That certainly makes sense as author Tom Lewis in the book "Empire of the Air, The
Men Who made Radio" generally refers to him as 'Howard Armstrong'.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...

m II ) writes:


Is the Superheterodyne set over rated? It seems to me there were
certain advantages to the OLD ways. Ease of control perhaps not being
one of them.

What was the WORST feature of the Regenerative sets? The BEST feature?

Would it be worthwhile to build a kit?

You have to remember that Howard Armstrong, who "invented" the regen
(he was issued the patent, but it's something you really just trip over
rather than invent). then went on to invent the superheterodyne, which
does seem to have come from deliberate effort. He was disatisfied with
the
regen, which led him to experiment and explore until he came up with the
superhet.

The regen is simple, and that's a big advantage. It provided good gain
for a single stage, and it provides better selectivity than a single tuned
circuit without regeneration.

Beyond that, it's limited. It won't provide great selectivity, it is
finicky, and can receiver limited types of modulation.

No, it can't be a serious contender for the superhet.

On the other hand, there is certainly an appeal to building something, and
a regen does make it easier. One can even argue that if someone is going
to
build a simple receiver, a regen makes more sense; not only simpler, but
suffering from none of the superhet's disadvantages when done simply.

Some of the disadvantages, apart from the lack of good selectivbity, can
be overcome at the cost of more complexity. Add an an amplifier stage
before the detector, to isolate it from the effects of the antenna (which
can cause the regen to go in and out of regen when you don't want it), add
some voltage regulation, add an audio filter. Make sure theregen control
is
smooth.

Charles Kitchin has done a fair amount of work on regens in recent years.
Some of the circuits are floating around the web, and he's had quite a few
articles in QST. I'm too lazy to dig up the biography once again.

There have been a few other "improve the regen" articles in QST in the
past decade, though I can't remember dates or author. The first used an
optoisolator to add some isolation, and there was another using a bridge
for isolation.

Michael

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...


You have to remember that Howard Armstrong, who "invented" the regen
(he was issued the patent, but it's something you really just trip over
rather than invent). then went on to invent the superheterodyne, which
does seem to have come from deliberate effort. He was disatisfied with
the
regen, which led him to experiment and explore until he came up with the
superhet.


[snip]

The local oscillator operates on the regenerative principle, so Armstrong
was obviously in a good position to develop the superhet. Fessenden had
discovered heterodyning years before, but he was using Poulsen arc
generators as oscillators.

Frank Dresser