FPGA Central

I was reading the book by Carlson on communication.

He says that until the paper by Carson came in 1922, engineers
believed that bandwidth of FM is equal to its frequency deviation,
because they did not understand the difference between
instantaneous frequency and spectral content. !!!!

shankar

kbc wrote:
>
> I was reading the book by Carlson on communication.
>
> He says that until the paper by Carson came in 1922, engineers
> believed that bandwidth of FM is equal to its frequency deviation,
> because they did not understand the difference between
> instantaneous frequency and spectral content. !!!!
>
> shankar

Sheesh, those ancients were stupid! Read a biography of Edwin Armstrong.
He invented the regenerative, superheterodyne, and superregenerative
receivers, and FM. The error was his, and the ensuing embarrassment may
have been partly responsible for his suicide in 1954.

http://users.erols.com/oldradio/

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Shankar,

Are you asking a question or making a statement?
It seems to me you are criticising pioneers of the system.

Please explain !!!!

Is this the correct spelling of your name?

Dave

"kbc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
> I was reading the book by Carlson on communication.
>
> He says that until the paper by Carson came in 1922, engineers
> believed that bandwidth of FM is equal to its frequency deviation,
> because they did not understand the difference between
> instantaneous frequency and spectral content. !!!!
>
> shankar

In article [email protected], kbc at
[email protected] wrote on 07/09/2003 09:36:

> I was reading the book by Carlson on communication.
>
> He says that until the paper by Carson came in 1922, engineers
> believed that bandwidth of FM is equal to its frequency deviation,
> because they did not understand the difference between
> instantaneous frequency and spectral content. !!!!

yeah, and in jr. high school i was picking my nose and didn't know which end
of the soldering iron to hold.

r b-j

"Replace_latter8717_with_manorsway" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<behuqk$bat$[email protected]>...
> Shankar,
>
> Are you asking a question or making a statement?
> It seems to me you are criticising pioneers of the system.
>
> Please explain !!!!
>
> Is this the correct spelling of your name?
>
> Dave

Hi,
I am not criticizing anyone. Those engineers were the best in the
world at that point of history. If they are alive now, they would be
be the best now, i think.

I find it interesting to understand how much engineers knew at a
particular point in the evolution of technology.


The average level of mathematical complexity in literature in general
by the year 1922 is very high, i feel. ( theory of relativity got
stated in 1905 or so, right ? Just giving a specific example. )

Any celebrated work written in 17th century and later ( boole's laws of
thought, maxwell's theory of heat, newtons principia mathematica,
fouriers treatise etc. come to mind ) would be tough read
even for a technically sophisticated person now, i think.

The idea i stated maybe only reflective of the general lack of
communication among commu. engineers. ( but why cant somebody just
take a fourier transform and verify ? i would like to know. )

I have heard kuhn's work ( structure of scientific revolutions ) is
very insightful.

( yes , the spelling of name is correct. )

shankar

Jerry Avins wrote:

> kbc wrote:
> >
> > I was reading the book by Carlson on communication.
> >
> > He says that until the paper by Carson came in 1922, engineers
> > believed that bandwidth of FM is equal to its frequency deviation,
> > because they did not understand the difference between
> > instantaneous frequency and spectral content. !!!!
> >
> > shankar
>
> Sheesh, those ancients were stupid! Read a biography of Edwin Armstrong.
> He invented the regenerative, superheterodyne, and superregenerative
> receivers, and FM. The error was his, and the ensuing embarrassment may
> have been partly responsible for his suicide in 1954.
>
> http://users.erols.com/oldradio/
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

His suicide I was led to believe was something to do with a conmpany using
his work without paying the patent loyalties. He jumped out of a window to
his death.
Yes - but what a contribution he made.


Tom

[email protected] (kbc) wrote in message
>
> Hi,
> I am not criticizing anyone. Those engineers were the best in the
> world at that point of history. If they are alive now, they would be
> be the best now, i think.
>
> I find it interesting to understand how much engineers knew at a
> particular point in the evolution of technology.
>
>
> The average level of mathematical complexity in literature in general
> by the year 1922 is very high, i feel. ( theory of relativity got
> stated in 1905 or so, right ? Just giving a specific example. )
>
> Any celebrated work written in 17th century and later ( boole's laws of
> thought, maxwell's theory of heat, newtons principia mathematica,
> fouriers treatise etc. come to mind ) would be tough read
> even for a technically sophisticated person now, i think.
>
> The idea i stated maybe only reflective of the general lack of
> communication among commu. engineers. ( but why cant somebody just
> take a fourier transform and verify ? i would like to know. )
>
> I have heard kuhn's work ( structure of scientific revolutions ) is
> very insightful.
>
> ( yes , the spelling of name is correct. )
>
> shankar


Did i talk about apples when asked about oranges ?
Anyway, I feel bit dumb having quoted books i have not even read.

I am assuming that experts in one science field are as intelligent
as those in another. But is this correct ? Surely, guys who know
quantum mechanics are smarter than those who know DSP.

can we say the more mathematical a field is, more difficult it is ?

shankar