|WikiProject Telecommunications||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Technology||(Rated Start-class)|
- 1 Rewrite?
- 2 Why would a TRANSMITTER have an intermediate frequency???
- 3 Liquid-cooled transmitters not nearly as common as suggested
- 4 Reorganization suggestion
- 5 Misunderstanding with Skin Effect and Waveguides
- 6 Disambiguation required: Rename to Something Like 'Radio Frequency Transmitter'
- 7 RFID?
- 8 Transmitter/Receiver Duality
- 9 Spam
- 10 Radio: Is it possible?
This page clearly needs a rewrite. It is written in bad English. Since I am not a native speaker of English, I do not feel to be the right person to do this. Can anybody take the time, please? --MauriceKA 09:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'll have a shot at it in the next few days...agree that it needs work, and I think I can make it better. --Wtshymanski 14:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks like it has been translated from German, but has good perspectives. 15 June 05
- I have rewritten two sections, but there's lots more to do. Some of the text reminds me of a similar rewrite I did on the radio article - there might be some overlap between the two articles. By the way, do you think this article would be better under the title radio transmitter, with transmitter just a disambig page? --Heron 20:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Renaming the article might get you into a quandary about "radio transmitter" versus "television transmitter" versus "broadcast transmitter", etc. Right now, I don't see too many conflicting terms that would really need to be disambiguated, and if there were some, we should probably handle those at a hypothetical "Transmitter (disambiguation)" and leave this article where it is. Also, a ton of articles link here, and you'd need to clean up all of those Wikilinks. The argument is similar to a discussion recently conducted at Talk:Transformer.
- (By the way, if those aliases I mentioned above don't already exist, I'll go create them now.)
- Atlant 11:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- (Many plausible aliases created.)
- Atlant 11:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OK. I'm happy to leave things as they are. --Heron 19:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Copyedits/rewrites needed for most "Transmitter Someplace" articles
The anonymous user who has added large sections of poorly translated German-to-English to the present article would appear to be the equally anonymous originator – the IP addresses, all from the same block, point to his being in Stuttgart or nearby – of all those "Transmitter Someplace" articles.
The very form of the titles – imitating the word order of the German "Sender Irgendwo" instead of "Someplace Transmitter", the normal English-language formulation – is an indication that, whether actually by a machine or not, the material has been mechanically translated. See the example of Transmitter Heusweiler (a t-antenna, which was up-hung on two 35 and 31 meters tall wooden towers, a wire net was strained over the federal motorway, etc. etc.).
The anonymous user's contributions contain valuable material but it is marred, sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility, by the poor standard of English used. While piecemeal linguistic repairs have been made to many of these articles by various editors over time, I wonder if it might not be possible to set up some sort of project to give them a thorough "wash and brush up" from the language point of view. -- Picapica 08:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of material regarding modern solid state broadcast transmitters being added? The examples of circuits given seem somewhat dated now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why would a TRANSMITTER have an intermediate frequency???
I studied electronics years ago and had a Second Class Commercial Radiotelephone License issued by the Federal Communications Commission, which expired about 20 years ago. Radio receivers routinely use intermediate frequency stages, but I have never heard of them in a transmitter. This may be talking about the frequency multiplier stages that give frequency-modulated or phase-modulated transmitters their full bandwidth. Does anyone know of transmitters that use intermediate frequency stages, or should that be deleted?
RickReinckens 05:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- This article is skewed towards radio broadcast transmitters, and the reference here to an "intermediate frequency" does appear to be in the context of a frequency multiplier. However, there are many other types of transmitters: radar (my personal specialty), satellite uplinks and transponders, wireless telephone sites, etc. In some of these applications, modulation is performed at an intermediate frequency and the resulting signal is then upconverted to the transmit frequency; this is essentially the inverse of IF downconversion in a receiver. Engineer Bob 06:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Liquid-cooled transmitters not nearly as common as suggested
Perhaps the situation is different in Europe, where broadcasters frequently operate at ridiculously-high TPO, but I've seen hundreds of transmitters in the U.S. and Canada and have yet to see an operating liquid-cooled MW, HF, or VHF transmitter—they've all been forced-air. Even among tube transmitters, popular high-power finals like the 4CX35000 series power tetrode are designed to be air-cooled, and all the solid-state transmitters are as well. I suppose the big klystron- and IOT-based transmitters used for UHF TV might still be liquid-cooled, but I think I would have heard more complaints about them if it were so. 121a0012 03:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Although it's hard to tell from this article, broadcast stations are not the only place where RF transmitters are used. Radar transmitters are a notable example -- and the microwave power tubes used in them (klystrons, TWTs, CFAs, etc.) frequently utilize liquid cooling. Engineer Bob 06:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- In the sixties/seventies, a lot of the broadcast transmitters manufactured by Gates used "phase change" cooling; that is, they boiled water.
- Atlant 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that this article is trying to talk about too many things at once, and as a result it is disconcertingly incoherent. I counted:
- Broadcast transmitters
- Broadcast transmitter sites and transmission towers
- Broadcasting regulation
- Non-broadcast transmitters (both RF and mechanical)
- RF design techniques
I think this should be replaced by a disambiguation page; each of those subjects should be its own article (and only (1) and (4) should be under the heading "Transmitter"). 121a0012 03:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- If a rewrite/reorganization is in the works, we need to include radar transmitters as well. Engineer Bob 06:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Misunderstanding with Skin Effect and Waveguides
The implication that waveguides are hollow because of the skin effect is wrong and this needs correcting. But skin effect is a good reason for using tubular conductors of appropriate dimensions relative to the frequency, conductivity, permeability and power transmission. ChrisAngove|ChrisAngove]] 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation required: Rename to Something Like 'Radio Frequency Transmitter'
I am sure there are transmitters in other branches of science like possibly medicine (?neural transmitters) so perhaps the title should be more specific.ChrisAngove 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that "broadcast transmitter" would be more specific to the subject. That would limit submissions significantly; then we wouldn't have a lot of spurious entries about all types of transmitters, some of which would probably be less than worthless. Erzahler 22:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd also vote for moving most of the current article to "Broadcast transmitter," and leaving a small generic overview here listing other types of transmitters. It wouldn't be a disambiguation page in the normal sense, since the other articles don't exist; but that list could eventually point to separate articles if anyone cared to write them. - Engineer Bob 07:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Broadcast transmitter. Atlant 13:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Broadcast transmitter. Picapica 07:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Technologically, a radio transmitter used for broadcasting isn't much different from one with a similar frequency and output power used for any other purpose. And there are lots of other uses for radio transmitters besides broadcasting: they are in cell phones, cordless telephones, walkie-talkies, police radios, CB radios, ham radios, microwave links, radar sets, RFID tag readers, aircraft, spacecraft, emergency locator beacons, communication satellites, wireless LANs, Bluetooth devices, cordless microphones, military communication, military electronic countermeasures (jammers), radar altimeters, bomb fuzes, wildlife tracking devices, navigational beacons, and even noncommunication uses such as MRI machines, microwave ovens, particle accelerators, metal detectors, diathermy machines, and RF induction heating equipment. --ChetvornoTALK 05:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the initial heading of this section, that this article should be renamed Radio transmitter. The other vestigial uses for the term "transmitter" don't belong here. Broadcast transmitter could be split off into another article. --ChetvornoTALK 06:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Since there is (and has been for a year) wide support for moving the broadcast-specific content to Broadcast transmitter, I'll make those changes shortly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, you're just going to move the content specific to radio and television broadcasting, right? Not the non-broadcasting uses of radio transmitters I listed above? --ChetvornoTALK 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone added a link to an RFID website. Is this really appropriate to the subject at hand? What do you all think? Erzahler 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've often seen it stated, or have seen it portrayed in popular media that "any" radio receiver can be turned into a transmitter, and vice versa. I'm not an expert, but I believe the underlying idea here is resonance, and that it's usually impractical, owing to the differences in power levels. But as a concept, I thought it would be discussed or referenced in this article.
While it may not be appropriate for this article, what I was really trying to find out (for future reference) was, is there a fundamental asymmetry between these kinds of devices when you move beyond amplitude and frequency modulation, such as polarization effects and/or twisting? DudeFromWork (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a link to the external site http://www.transmitter.be/new.html because it appears to me that when following links to get detailed information, one is invited to "Mark the entries of your interest in the info column, complete the details below and push the "continue" button to request a quotation." This appears to be a site that sells radio equipment. The single-purpose account User:Broadcasttransmitter behaves like one would expect an owner or paid publicity agent to behave. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Radio: Is it possible?
I've read some of the Transmitters page and had a couple of thoughts!!!
1) Could lightening act like a Hertzian Oscillator? 2) Would the clouds transmit, or conspire with, ET messages?
Of course, there could be other commercial benefits with over a 100 strikes a second to use, for FREE!
PS: Is this also my own copyright?