Talk:Regenerative circuit

Communications circuit

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)

Unsourced claim

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)

Join the "history" parts, please, and take out Superregenerator

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)

I combined the history sections. A separate article for super-regen receivers doesn't seem necessary at this point. --Blainster 19:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Description

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)

• That whole paragraph is inaccurate, misleading and supported only by original research papers. In AM mode a regenerator applies less positive feedback than it would be needed to win over the negative feedback so nothing spectacular, chaotic or otherwise fancy happens. -- Femmina (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2011 (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)

Leap of logic

Regenerative circuits use fewer components than more complex designs and because of this the regeneration level must be carefully adjusted by the user.

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)

Well I've gone ahead and resolved the issue. It didn't need much adjustment in the end anyway. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ham" is not an acronym

"...by Russian HAM and professional operator Ernst Krenkel"

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)

I agree, not just regarding the capitalisation, "ham and professional" is a contradiction. However personally I'd be in favour of snipping the entire paragraph. It is totally unsourced, has no reference to which expedition is referred to (the article on Byrd and the List of Antarctic Expeditions do not help) and lacks even a date, which given that the record no longer holds (which now must surely go to Pioneer 10) is a major shortcoming. If no one comes forward with any comments I'll snip it in the next couple of days. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mains radios?

"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)

Super-regenerative receivers

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)

WP is not a place to publish original research. I would not expect people to build super-regen receivers now because other, better, receivers are simple to build and not very expensive. Glrx (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Images might mislead some people

• 
• 

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)