Talk:Envelope detector: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:15, 19 April 2008

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Radio Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Why do these things work?

It would be helpful if someone could explain why these things work the way they do. Mathematically it is clear, but what makes the diode do the right thing? - 72.58.19.66 08:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of others: LC circuit seems to answer my question. - 72.58.19.66 08:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rating

The article was rated as start-Class because it has several useful sections and a good image, but lacks content in those sections. Steven Hepting 07:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segregate envelope from the detector

The envelope shouldn't be a subsection of the detector article, it should be a separate one. Although there is little information on the subject currently, it should be split from the detector page, so it can be expanded alone. Indomaster (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a long lost radio amateur and computer programmer (now moved on to legal briefs), I must disagree with Indomaster. Thirty years ago, I understood these things, but that was a long time ago. I am checking in to refresh (and hopefully update) my knowledge.

As far as separating the discussion, it would be difficult to explain to a duffer like myself what an "envelope detector" is, without explaining what an "envelope" is! If Indomaster is concerned that the envelope discussion is too mathematical for some readers, I say: let those readers skim past sections they can't understand. But don't dumb down the article. Personally, I found the explanation fully satisfactory and mercifully terse. What else would one want to add in a separate article about an envelope?

Further to "as detailed as necessary, as brief as possible" school, I believe it is good style, when throwing around greek letters and assorted gibberish, always to define one's variables.

\omega

and

x(t)

could stand a definition, even if as simple as "Any AM or FM signal

x(t)

can be defined as ...

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :As a long lost radio amateur and computer programmer (now moved on to legal briefs), I must disagree with Indomaster.  Thirty years ago, I understood these things, but that was a long time ago.  I am checking in to refresh (and hopefully update) my knowledge.
-:As far as separating the discussion, I can't understand how one could explain what an "envelope detector" is, without explaining what an "envelope" is!  If Indomaster is concerned that the envelope discussion is too mathematical for some readers, I say: let those readers skim past sections they can't understand.  But don't dumb down the article.
+:As far as separating the discussion, it would be difficult to explain to a duffer like myself what an "envelope detector" is, without explaining what an "envelope" is!  If Indomaster is concerned that the envelope discussion is too mathematical for some readers, I say: let those readers skim past sections they can't understand.  But don't dumb down the article.  Personally, I found the explanation fully satisfactory and mercifully terse.  What else would one want to add in a separate article about an envelope?
-:Further to this point, however, i would
+:Further to "as detailed as necessary, as brief as possible" school, I believe it is good style, when throwing around greek letters and assorted gibberish, always to define one's variables.  <math>\omega</math> and <math>x(t)</math> could stand a definition, even if as simple as "Any AM or FM signal <math>x(t)</math> can be defined as ...