Talk:Reflex receiver

Image?

Where's the image gone? Any ideas? --Romanski 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image still missing... anyone knows where did it came from? Pablo Dotro - The Mage of the Many Shadows 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image from Commons added. Peter-five (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The image is a "reflectional receiver" together with an audion. Both receiver ideas are mixed. Another image would be better. AndreAdrian (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"The image is a "reflectional receiver" together with an audion." This is a meaningless statement. An Audion is merely an early Valve (Tube) detector. In fact the circuit shown uses a Crystal detector, therefore it is not an Audion. Perhaps you mean "Reflex" combined with "Regeneration"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutta Percha (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

The article refers to:

One example on the web gives drives a speaker with enough volume level for comfortable listening with ONE transistor. The experimenter does well to try such a circuit, which is very under represented in modern experimental electronics literature

I think we should link that example... if we can find it. And also add some technical references to back the contents of the article. Electronics is not my field,however... so my resources are few. Pablo Dotro - The Mage of the Many Shadows 17:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been many such articles. One is at http://oldradiobuilder.com/One%20Transistor%20Radio.html. Another is at http://www.techlib.com/electronics/reflex.htm. Similar designs were very common in recent Electronics magazines. Gutta Percha (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Clumsy Article

To an experienced electronics person, this is an embarrassing piece. Firstly the term "Reflectional" is never used. The device is simply known as a "Reflex Receiver".

Secondly, much fuss is made of the difficulty in building a Reflex, but this is misleading. Certainly the circuit must be correctly designed and constructed, but this is true with any circuit. A well designed Reflex will be well behaved, and is no more difficult to get working than any other complex set (a Superhet for instance).

The article would be much improved without the author's pretentious waffle regarding his difficulties in getting his set working.

Further, of the two reference schematics (FADA model 160, and GE model F40) radio, neither are Reflex sets, so why are they included?

Gutta Percha (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of these criticisms. I think the article should be moved to Reflex receiver as this is the WP:COMMONNAME and as Gutta Percha says, "reflectional receiver" is never used. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Change article name to Reflex receiver?

I propose the article be moved to Reflex receiver, with Reflectional receiver as a redirect. "Reflex receiver" is the WP:COMMONNAME, here are some examples of usage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)