| Revision as of 18:53, 16 July 2008 editMaury Markowitz (talk | contribs)Administrators76,103 edits →Huh?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:17, 16 July 2008 edit undoWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,137 edits →Huh?: Huh, indeedNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| I came across the indecipherable text in the ] article and did my best to post a single clear explanation of how it works. You reverted it all back to the indecipherable version, with a single comment that appears to be about grammar? Please explain. ] (]) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | I came across the indecipherable text in the ] article and did my best to post a single clear explanation of how it works. You reverted it all back to the indecipherable version, with a single comment that appears to be about grammar? Please explain. ] (]) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| : "Highly tuned amplifier" I thought was even more indecipherable. The explanation left out the mixer, which is the essence of a superheterodyne receiver. The overview should explain why the extra trouble and expense of a superheterodyne circuit is justified. --] (]) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:17, 16 July 2008
Binary Prefixes
- One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --Wtshymanski 17
- 47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh?
I came across the indecipherable text in the superheterodyne article and did my best to post a single clear explanation of how it works. You reverted it all back to the indecipherable version, with a single comment that appears to be about grammar? Please explain. Maury (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Highly tuned amplifier" I thought was even more indecipherable. The explanation left out the mixer, which is the essence of a superheterodyne receiver. The overview should explain why the extra trouble and expense of a superheterodyne circuit is justified. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)