tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) (09/12/90)
myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: ... >frequency (IF) prior to detection. This improves selectivity, as narrowband >filters (which don't have to be tunable) may be used in the IF stages, and >the amplifiers used in these stages also benefit as they don't have to work >at high frequencies or over wide bandwidths. Another advantage: since a lot of gain is generally required, this system lets you add gain at yet-another-frequency, so that nasty parasitic feedback paths aren't so much trouble.
myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) (09/13/90)
>Sorry, but this is wrong. The 'super' in superheterodyne is actually >a contraction of 'supersonic' referring to the fact that the >heterodyne produced is above the range of audible frequencies (i.e. >an RF heterodyne). An interesting theory, but I suspect that it's incorrect as far as the actual origin of the word is concerned. When Armstrong invented the superheterodyne technique, the most "refined" receiver type available was called the "super-regenerative" (which, I assure you, had nothing to do with regenerating supersonic frequencies - although the "regeneration" *did* take place in the RF stages). I suspect that he simply picked up the "super" prefix from this as a Good Marketing Move. Bob Myers KC0EW HP Graphics Tech. Div.| Opinions expressed here are not Ft. Collins, Colorado | those of my employer or any other myers@fc.hp.com | sentient life-form on this planet.
elliott@optilink.UUCP (Paul Elliott x225) (09/15/90)
In article <17660105@hpfcdj.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: > >Sorry, but this is wrong. The 'super' in superheterodyne is actually > >a contraction of 'supersonic' referring to the fact that the > >heterodyne produced is above the range of audible frequencies (i.e. > >an RF heterodyne). > An interesting theory, but I suspect that it's incorrect as far as the > actual origin of the word is concerned. When Armstrong invented the > superheterodyne technique, the most "refined" receiver type available > was called the "super-regenerative" (which, I assure you, had nothing to > do with regenerating supersonic frequencies - although the "regeneration" > *did* take place in the RF stages). I suspect that he simply picked up the > "super" prefix from this as a Good Marketing Move. From the murky depths, I dredge these definitions, and a bit of radio technology history: (I am semi-ignoring the original spark-gap receiving loop, and other experimental receivers. Was the coherer actually used outside of the laboratory?) Crystal Set: Probably the first common receiver -- used a non-linear detector and a tank circuit (parallel-resonant) for selectivity. No RF amplification, and (I think) no audio amp. TRF: Tuned Radio Frequency -- Placed one or more amplifying stages before the detector. These were all tuned to the receiving frequency, and often had individual tuning controls for each stage. Because of unavoidable feedback, the maximum gain was limited: too much and the thing became a tunable oscillator. This inexorably led to the... Regen: Regenerative receiver -- The gain was adjusted to the threshold of oscillation. All sorts of things happened then; there was a "Q-multiplier" effect for improved selectivity, and the sensitivity was greatly improved. As you might imagine, the concepts of dynamic range and intermodulation were not widely applied, except in the negative sense (What I am trying to say is that the regen was a *weak* receiver -- susceptable to overload from interfering stations.) Fortunately, there wern't a whole lot of signals on the air back then. Super-regen: This took a regenerative design, and allowed it to oscillate, but "quenched" the oscillation at a supersonic rate. This technique provided nearly all the sensitivity of the regen design, but with much improved ease-of-use (no adjustment of the gain / feedback required). The super-regen saw use at frequencies up to at least 50 MHz. The drawbacks were a hissing background noise -- caused by the supersonic quench rate -- that gave rise to the slang term "rushbox" for the super-regen, and the fact that the oscillating front end created a broad, noisy signal that radiated back through the antenna port, often causing interference to neighboring receivers. Superhet: This has been well described in the past few days on the net. I suspect that the "Super" prefix *was* marketing-speak, but it also could have referred to the supersonic frequencies involved in the heterodyning process (I'm guessing here). By the way, I'm not really an Olde Phart; I've never used anything older than a superhet. -Paul, wb6cxc -- Paul M. Elliott Optilink Corporation (707) 795-9444 {uunet, pyramid, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott "an archetypal entity..., superimposed on our culture by a cosmic template."
ISW@cup.portal.com (Isaac S Wingfield) (09/15/90)
Apropos of "superhetrodyne", there were also two other techniques mentioned in old ads: hetrodyne (just a non-trademarked version of "superhetrodyne"?) and "neutrodyne". Does anybody know what topology that one is? Isaac isw@cup.portal.com
hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) (09/20/90)
In article <33896@cup.portal.com> ISW@cup.portal.com (Isaac S Wingfield) writes: >Apropos of "superhetrodyne", there were also two other techniques >mentioned in old ads: hetrodyne (just a non-trademarked version of >"superhetrodyne"?) and "neutrodyne". Does anybody know what topology >that one is? I am not an Olde Pharte (tm) either - but I play one at the office :-) "neutrodyne" is an other term for "direct conversion" - you run the local oscillator at the carrier frequency, needing no detector. It's not as good as superhetrodyne, for two major reasons: - oscillator drift can kill the reception - only one neutrodyne receiver per 200 metre radius, becuase they swamp the broadcast signal otherwise. I built a regenerative receiver once... -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | No humor available today uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 | try again tomorrow.
bmp@cow.ecs.oz (Bruce Paterson) (09/24/90)
Someone wrote: > >Sorry, but this is wrong. The 'super' in superheterodyne is actually > >a contraction of 'supersonic' referring to the fact that the > >heterodyne produced is above the range of audible frequencies (i.e. > >an RF heterodyne). In article <17660105@hpfcdj.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: > An interesting theory, but I suspect that it's incorrect as far as the > actual origin of the word is concerned. When Armstrong invented the > superheterodyne technique, the most "refined" receiver type available > was called the "super-regenerative" (which, I assure you, had nothing to > do with regenerating supersonic frequencies - although the "regeneration" *did* > take place in the RF stages). I suspect that he simply picked up the "super" > prefix from this as a Good Marketing Move. Actually a super-regenerative receiver does have a bit to do with super-sonics. A straight regenerative receiver uses +ve feedback to increase the gain of the RF detector. A super-regenerative receiver (usually at VHF or higher), takes the detector in and out of regeneration at a super-sonic frequency. The idea is to get more regeneration than the straight regenerative receiver, but in way that you can't hear the "feedback". Super-regenerative detectors are followed by a low pass filter to remove the super-sonic mess. (I know...I've built one in an attempt to get more out of a "sniffer"). Whether this all has anything to do with the name "super" I have no idea !