This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Regenerative circuit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article starts "The regenerative circuit .... or "autodyne"... Unfortunately these are fundamentally different concepts. For clarity they should not be lumped together. I have edited and simplified the entry.
Likewise the Super-Regen, it's a very different concept. Should have its own page.
The line "Regenerative receiver circuits are still used in low-cost electronic equipment such as garage door openers" is utter nonsense. I think the author meant Super-Regens. These are frequently used in simple commercial products, but rarely are Regens.
Also it is a big pity that the article has such a USA bias. The "Regen" was developed and patented in a number of countries around the same time, particularly France and England who were well ahead of the USA at this time. Gutta Percha ( talk) 12:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The regenerative circuit is an electronic design for a radio receiver. The Tesla coil is a different class of device. See the article category at the bottom of the page. It belongs in a different article. Perhaps you might want to create one such as High voltage generator. -- Blainster 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of evidence for the claim: "There is some evidence to suggest that the regenerative circuit was discovered by Robert Goddard before Armstrong or De Forest. Goddard declined to apply for a patent,not wanting to endure litigation. He turned to liquid fuel rocket development." I removed it. If someone can find a reliable citation, please cite the source. Salsb 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I am the unlucky author of the second'history' part, i try to edit them together but some anti-vandal bot undoes my edits. May you join the history parts and make new article for Superregenerator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.140.16.243 ( talk • contribs) 04:16, April 6, 2007 (UTC)
A super-Regen is a completely different beast. It definitely should have it's own section. This combining different concepts has made the article ridiculous. Gutta Percha ( talk) 12:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Regenerative circuits ... must be carefully on the verge of oscillation, and in that condition, the circuit behaves chaotically. - This is not quite correct. There is a self-stabilizing effect because of the characteristics of the valve which decreases the factor with higher level of HF. -- 84.189.249.128 ( talk) 14:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a short book available about regenerative radio receivers that might help with this article: http://www.webstore.com/91359,owner_id,other_items It explains a lot of the technical details about how exactly regenerative radio receivers work and clears away a lot of quackery concerning their design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.190.236.212 ( talk) 15:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with this sentence at all. It begins with a premise that is true enough - regens use fewer components, and ends in a valid observation - regens have additional controls. What I don't agree with is the logic that connects the two together - why does fewer components automatically lead to the need for additional user controls? Using this logic a crystal set would have dozens of knobs on it. CrispMuncher ( talk) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ham is not an acronym, and shouldn't be in all caps. I didn't edit it, because the phrase "ham and professional operator" seems a little odd. How about just "radio operator"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thbusch ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"At the time the regenerative receiver was introduced, vacuum tubes were expensive and consumed lots of power, with the added expense and encumbrance of heavy batteries or AC transformer and rectifier"
I don't think this is realistic. When reaction was introduced, valves were direct heated, thus required very clean dc for heating, otherwise overwhelming interference would have occurred. This simply could not be obtained from ac mains by any practical means. Hence radios were operated from lead acid batteries, or less often dry cells.
To clarify, the only contenders for filament power rectification were eletrolytic rectifiers and vibrating rectifiers. The stone jar electrolytic rectifiers were large, heavy, filled with liquid chemical and didnt last. Vibrating rectifiers produced so much hash as to make reception impossible. Practical capacitors at the time were of too small a capacity to act as reservoir caps, or to be able to clean up LT & HT (A & B) power lines to any significant extent. Tabby ( talk) 00:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have never met anyone who has built a super-regen receiver to listen to MW or LW AM radio signals. Is it because the distortion is bad and music and speech is intolerable on it? I have searched and searched, all to no avail. Unless I hear here from some wise enthusiast soon, I will be compelled to make one up and then post my own opinions about it here. 87.115.171.241 ( talk) 20:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The reasons Super-Regens are not used on BC is that they need an ultrasonic quench circuit which would generate spurious signals across the BC band. Plus because of the quench action they are very broad, with very poor Selectivity. For all these reasons they are only used on VHF and UHF. All this is well documented in the literature Gutta Percha ( talk) 13:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
These two images of a beutifull tube radio appear in the lead of the article. Based on the metadata I take it they are modern color images that have been converted to black and white (sepia) to make them appear older. While I appreciate the artistic effect I think it is a bit unencyclopedic and might mislead someone to think these are actually old photographs. It is not entirely clear to me if it is an old radio or a modern replica either. Perhaps someone who knows could clarify in the text and/or use the original "unmodified" images. 85.230.137.182 ( talk) 17:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
These were normally called reaction sets in the UK, yet this term has been removed from the article at some point. It should be there 82.31.66.207 ( talk) 16:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, from practical experience that M is usually around 30 to 40 in a regenerative receive. I observe that in terms of gain and narrowing of bandwidth. However that does not explain the overall selectivity I see. Particularly in terms of rejection of strong signal say 20 or 30 Khz away at say a receive frequency of 10 Mhz. I would say the parallel resonance frequency of the LC circuit is boosted up by M too. From say 20 KOhms to 800 KOhms. Such a high input impedance allows a very weak antenna coupling to nevertheless effectively transfer energy. However just off the resonant frequency the LC circuit has a much lower impedance resulting in very poor transfer of energy. I would suggest this is an additional source of selectivity in regenerative receivers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.178.36.103 ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 7 April 2016
Well when the regenerative radio is oscillating it is working as a direct conversion receiver, when it is just oscillating you still get a Q boost from regeneration as well. That could explain the extra selectivity. A signal 30 KHz away will be frequency shifted out of audible range by direct conversion. What you say about the effective LC impedance being boosted to 800kOhms is also likely true. I suppose you could test that by putting a few hundred kOhm resistor across the LC circuit and seeing what effect that has. Anyway there is this circuit here if you want to try: https://ia601605.us.archive.org/24/items/current-mirror-regen/CurrentMirrorRegen.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.162.199.53 ( talk) 06:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Glrx, what was your problem with the block diagram? How is it "misleading"? -- Chetvorno TALK 01:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
IP added the statement:
I went looking for sources and found
I don't see these references as being clear on the topic. There are claims of negative resistance and RF bias, but also of the coherer transitioning from 1 megohm to 50 ohms. I'm tempted to revert. Glrx ( talk) 21:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The traditional Coherer reduced its Resistance in the presence of RF, and thus rang a bell. But the "Coherer" was also used in other modes. For instance Marconi's first trans-Atlantic tests were done using a Earpiece in series with a Coherer. This mode relies on the Coherer acting as a "dirty contact detector", eg similar to a cat's whisker. There were also frequent reports of a carefully biased Coherer becoming super-sensitive. Today this is understood as entering the Negative resistance mode.
Most dissimilar metal junctions will operate as a Detector when carefully adjusted (pressure and/or bias), and also can be coaxed into negative resistance. The classic Coherer is no different. Gutta Percha ( talk) 23:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
In about 2007 I was part of this exchange in the "talk" on Crystal recievers:
Can somebody familiar with classic sets and recent experimentation comment on the range of frequencies/wavelengths which this type of receiver is effective with? I note elsewhere reference to around 300m and there's an old story (possibly apocryphal) of picking up 2LO [350m] with a coil of wire wrapped around your hand and a bit of coal :-) Noting that Russia has just booted out the BBC there could be a revival of interest in simple receivers as an alternative to Internet-distributed news which is too easy to monitor or block. MarkMLl 10:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC) We here build regenerative radios ;)) There are two circuits for FET and BJT respectively, we call it "three-pointie" ("трёхточка", "trehtochka" in Russian) - almost nothing is needed beyond a throttling pot, transistor, LC and 1,5V cell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.16.75 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Is anybody familiar with the трёхточка/trehtochka as a minimal (possibly clandestine) receiver, and if so would it merit a section in the article? MarkMLl ( talk) 08:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The gain of the sustaining amplifer shoud fall with increasing input level. Since gain is the amount of regeneration, you don't want that to increase with signal level, since increase will lead to further increase and the circuit will "pop" into oscillation, whereas you want a smooth controlled transition into oscillation. Also the phase noise of the sustaining amplifier may be what ultimately limits the gain of a regenerative receiver. 123.16.128.37 ( talk) 05:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)