Talk:Neutrodyne

Radio Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance 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:

Re: the 'How-to Complaint' on this Article about neutralization. Does this "contain instructions, advice, or how-to content" or does it "present the fact" that it is a lot of trouble to set up these receivers so they are easy for the layperson to tune.

At least a (lengthy) one sentence explanation should remain giving the gist of the procedure (without details) to establish the facts of how it differs from other Receivers in this respect.

Some people are more interested in this history than others, just because some find it dull does not speak for all. Still, the Article is unclear about why other early Receivers were hard to tune.

70.71.107.184 (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with whether it is dull or interesting, we deliberately do not consider these things when deciding what to include for the very reason you state: it is a subjective matter for the individual reader. Without doubt the (now deleted) passage was written in a "how-to" style and is thus in breach of WP:NOT, one of our core content policies. It also addressed the reader directly in the second person, a breach of MOS:YOU. Most importantly, it did not carry a citation, so fails WP:V, another core content policy. Without a source to work from, no one is going to provide an acceptable summary as you request, or at least no one should do it. Instead of coming here to complain about the how-to template, you would have been better off fixing the problem so that it didn't get deleted in the first place. SpinningSpark 18:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the History section it says: "A major defect of the TRF receiver was that, due to the high interelectrode capacitance of early triode vacuum tubes, feedback within the RF amplifier stages gave them a tendency to oscillate"

But isn't this more a "major defect" of the triode valves used, later overcome by using tetrode/pentode valves, than the TRF receiver design itself? Notwithstanding that the TRF receiver design has problems of its own!

Would it help to change this to read: "A major defect of the TRF receiver at the time was that, due to the high interelectrode capacitance of early triode vacuum tubes, feedback within the RF amplifier stages gave them a tendency to oscillate" 31.125.76.2 (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neutrodyne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]