Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 20th 09, 05:50 PM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 263
Default 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
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 20th 09, 06:01 PM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 196
Default If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?

In

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?


My recollection is that Armstrong used the term "supersonic heterodyne"
to note the fact that the beat frequency between the signal and LO
was "supersonic."

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN
  #3   Report Post  
Old April 20th 09, 06:09 PM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
Default 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.
  #4   Report Post  
Old April 22nd 09, 12:14 AM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 182
Default 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.
  #5   Report Post  
Old April 24th 09, 12:04 AM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 13
Default If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?



Bert Hyman 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?


My recollection is that Armstrong used the term "supersonic heterodyne"
to note the fact that the beat frequency between the signal and LO
was "supersonic."


Ultrasonic of course, so it's been the wrong name all along.

Graham



  #6   Report Post  
Old April 24th 09, 01:16 AM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2008
Posts: 18
Default If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?


"Eeysore the ****wit "
Tim Shoppa the ASD ****ed ****head "

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

Does the "Super" actually mean anything?


My recollection is that Armstrong used the term "supersonic heterodyne"
to note the fact that the beat frequency between the signal and LO
was "supersonic."


Ultrasonic of course,



** There is no "of course" about it".

so it's been the wrong name all along.



** Pedantic, insane ********.



...... Phil


  #7   Report Post  
Old April 20th 09, 06:10 PM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Default 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

  #8   Report Post  
Old April 20th 09, 08:23 PM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 263
Default 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.
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 20th 09, 08:44 PM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Default 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



  #10   Report Post  
Old April 20th 09, 09:57 PM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 263
Default 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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
superheterodyne in the future ? Thierry Equipment 14 March 13th 04 08:33 AM
superheterodyne in the future ? Thierry Equipment 0 March 11th 04 10:01 PM
Superheterodyne LO question Liam Ness Homebrew 4 July 22nd 03 05:18 AM
Superheterodyne LO question Liam Ness Homebrew 0 July 21st 03 11:12 PM
Superheterodyne AM to SW conversion info Liam Ness Homebrew 4 July 13th 03 06:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017