text:
Acanthurus

Acanthurus is a genus of marine ray-finned fish belonging to the family Acanthuridae, which includes the surgeonfishes, unicornfishes and tangs, found in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Ocean. They are found in tropical oceans, especially near coral reefs, with most species in the Indo-Pacific but a few are found in the Atlantic Ocean. As other members of the family, they have a pair of spines, one on either side of the base of the tail which are dangerously sharp.

Taxonomy
Acanthurus was first proposed as a subgenus of Chaetodon in 1775 by the Swedish-speaking Finnish explorer, orientalist and naturalist Peter Forsskål, although he recognised that it was probably different from Chaetodon even at the family level. In 1856 Desmarest designated Teuthis hepatus, which had been described from a type now known to have been collected at Ambon Island in the Moluccas (other erroneous type localities were named) in 1758 by Linnaeus, as the type species of the genus. T. hepatus is a synonym of Paracanthurus hepatus and this would make Paracanthurus synonymous with Acanthurus. An alternative would be to use the name Harpurus proposed as a monospecific genus in 1788 by Johann Reinhold Forster when he described Harpurus fasciatus, a synonym of Acanthurus triostegus. It has been proposed that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should be petitioned to stabilise the genera Acanthurus and Paracanthurus. In 2014 it was proposed that the type species of Acanthurus should be Chaetodon sohal, which had also been described by Forsskål in 1775 as a member of the subgenus alongside C. bifasciatus, C. nigrofuscus and C. unicornis, and had been designated as the type species by Jordan and Evermann in 1917.

It has been proposed that the genus Ctenochaetus should be merged with Acanthurus as otherwise Acanthurus is paraphyletic. The 5th edition of Fishes of the World recognises these two genera as valid and classifies them as the two genera in the tribe Acanthurini of the subfamily Acanthurinae within the family Acanthuridae.

Species
There are currently 41 recognized species in this genus:
 * Acanthurus achilles G. Shaw, 1803 (Achilles surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus albimento K. E. Carpenter, J. T. Williams & M. D. Santos, 2017 (White-chin surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus albipectoralis G. R. Allen & Ayling, 1987 (White-fin surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus auranticavus J. E. Randall, 1956 (Orange-socket surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus bahianus Castelnau, 1855 (Barber surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus bariene Lesson, 1831 (Black-spot surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus blochii Valenciennes, 1835 (Ring-tail surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus chirurgus (Bloch, 1787) (Doctorfish tang)
 * Acanthurus chronixis J. E. Randall, 1960 (Chronixis surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus coeruleus Bloch & J. G. Schneider, 1801 (Atlantic blue tang)
 * Acanthurus dussumieri Valenciennes, 1835 (Eye-stripe surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus fowleri de Beaufort, 1951 (Fowler's surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus gahhm (Forsskål, 1775) (Black surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus grammoptilus J. Richardson, 1843 (Fine-lined surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus guttatus J. R. Forster, 1801 (White-spotted surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus japonicus (P. J. Schmidt, 1931) (Japan surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus leucocheilus Herre, 1927 (Pale-lipped surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus leucopareius (O. P. Jenkins, 1903) (White-bar surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus leucosternon E. T. Bennett, 1833 (Powder-blue surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Lined surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus maculiceps (C. G. E. Ahl, 1923) (White-freckled surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus mata (G. Cuvier, 1829) (Elongate surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus monroviae Steindachner, 1876 (Monrovia surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus nigricans (Linnaeus, 1758) (White-cheek surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus nigricauda Duncker & Mohr (de), 1929 (Epaulette surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus nigrofuscus (Forsskål, 1775) (Brown surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus nigroris Valenciennes, 1835 (Blue-lined surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus nigros Günther, 1861 (Grey-head surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus nubilus (Fowler & B. A. Bean, 1929) (Pin-striped surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus olivaceus Bloch & J. G. Schneider, 1801 (Orange-spot surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus polyzona (Bleeker, 1868) (Black-barred surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus pyroferus Kittlitz, 1834 (Chocolate surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus randalli J. C. Briggs & D. K. Caldwell, 1957
 * Acanthurus reversus J. E. Randall & Earle, 1999
 * Acanthurus sohal (Forsskål, 1775) (Sohal surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus tennentii Günther, 1861 (Double-band surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus thompsoni (Fowler, 1923) (Thompson's surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus tractus F. Poey, 1860 (Ocean surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus triostegus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Convict surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus tristis J. E. Randall, 1993 (Indian Ocean mimic surgeonfish)
 * Acanthurus xanthopterus Valenciennes, 1835 (Yellow-fin surgeonfish)

Etymology
Acanthurus is a combination of acanthus meaning "spine" and urus meaning "tail", a reference to the scalpel like bony plates on the caudal peduncle, these also give rise to the vernacular English names surgeonfish and doctorfish.

Characteristics
Acanthurus surgeonfishes have disc shaped, highly laterally compressed bodies with a steep dorsal profile to the head. They have a small mouth positioned low on the head and the fish can protrude the jaws. The 8 to 28 teeth in the jaws are fixed and have flattened, serrated tips. There are typically 11 spines in the dorsal fin. There is a single spine on each side of the caudal peduncle and these can be pressed down into a groove. The Indo-Pacific yellowfin surgeonfish (A. xanthopterus) is the largest species with a maximum published total length of 70 cm while the smallest is the black-barred surgeonfish (A. polyzona) with a maximum published total length of 11 cm.

Distribution
Acanthrus surgeonfishes are distributed around the world in tropical waters.

title: Acanthurus


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordonism

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 20:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gordonism
Someone's made up religion. Not notable, haven't seen any verifiable sources on it. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 18:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment - I'd vote for it to stay, but the presence of a personal email account address on the page leads me to believe that it's just for the purposes of proselytisation. Needs verification and a POV re-do. 216.158.31.195 18:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unverifiable. Writings consist of "a book not published anywhere". The article notes that there are few adherents and, "[t]he church was officially founded in 1990, but since then, has barely left outside the family." Not notable. --Tabor 19:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) (amend comments to include "original research" as another reason.) --Tabor 19:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could find no Gordon Aarness on Google.  Even if this is true, the personally held beliefs of a few people do not just an entry in an encylcopedia.  19:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and unverifiable, ergo opens the door for Tomism, Dickism, and Harryism. -- BD2412 talk 20:22, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Hu, Egypt

Hu, Huw or Hiw (هُو, ϩⲱ, ϩⲟⲩ) is the modern name of an Egyptian town on the Nile, which in more ancient times was the capital of the 7th Nome of Upper Egypt.

The nome was referred to as Sesheshet (Sistrum). The main city was referred to as Hu(t)-sekhem (Ḥw.t-Sḫm), which became abbreviated as Hu. This led to the Arabic name Huw.

In Ptolemaic times the city was called Diospolis Mikra (Διὸς πόλις Μικρά) in comparison with Thebes, Egypt, known as Diospolis Megale, "greater city of Zeus". It also was called Diospolis Superior (Upper Zeus-City), in comparison with Diospolis Inferior (Lower Zeus-City) in the Nile Delta.

Ancient history
Huw was the centre of the cult surrounding Bat, a goddess in Egyptian mythology. The sistrum, a sacred instrument associated with her, often shaped to resemble her, and for which the 7th nome was named, remained sacred throughout the history of Ancient Egypt and is seen in its art and hieroglyphs.

The goddess Bat remained the main deity worshiped there until at least the time of the twelfth dynasty as she is mentioned on a shrine belonging to Senusret I. By the time of the New Kingdom during the eighteenth dynasty, the characteristics of Bat were subsumed into those of a similar goddess, Hathor, who then became the main deity worshiped at Huw. Previously they may have been the same deity.

Modern history
In 1326, Ibn Battuta passed through Huw, where he visited a sharif named Abu Muhammad Abdallah al-Hasani. When he learned of Ibn Battuta's intention to go on the hajj to Mecca by way of Aydhab, the sharif predicted that he would not succeed and would only reach Mecca by way of the road through Syria; he told Ibn Battuta to return to Cairo instead. Ibn Battuta went on to Aydhab anyway, but upon arriving, he found that local Beja tribespeople, in revolt against the Mamluk governor, had driven out the town's garrison and sunk ships in the harbor, preventing anyone from setting sail to Hejaz. Ibn Battuta was left with no choice but to return to Cairo.

The 1885 Census of Egypt recorded Huw as a nahiyah under the district of Dishna in Qena Governorate; at that time, the population of the town was 3,958 (2,011 men and 1,947 women).

title: Hu, Egypt


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

List of airports
Dudtz-Keep
 * delete: List of Airports duplicates the coverage of Category:Airports, which is much more complete (and automatically updated) -- there are tens of thousands of airports in the world, and it is impractical to try to list them all by hand. Also, the distinction between "commercial" and "non-commercial" airports is confused, since nearly all public airports are commercial (even a crop duster flying off a grass strip is a commercial operation).  Note also that nearly all links to the page are due to an old version of the air infobox.  David 18:15, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * Keep: discussion on the vfd for List of Airports in Canada clearly shows that people want to maintain the lists manually, and it doesn't make sense to have national lists without an international list, so I withdraw my nomination for deletion. I would like to include a pointer to Category:Airports at the top of the page (i.e. not as a see-also at the bottom). David 16:42, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though I initially wanted to keep the page at first glance, I do have to admit the Category does a better job of handling things.  While I also understand that "commercial airport" is a euphemism for "industrial and/or commercial use (only) airport", I do agree with David that the term is misleading.  Don't know about the infobox, but admittedly, this page has served its purpose and is ready for retirement.--Mitsukai 14:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: normally, in a situation like this we'd want to redirect rather than delete; unfortunately, redirecting from a regular page to a category does not seem to work properly. Another solution might be to blank the page and then include some text pointing the user to the category.  David 13:29, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * There are very few "commercial use only" airports. Even the busiest airports usually allow general aviation operations (although often requiring heavy fees). Indeed the only airports that usually don't allow G.A. operations are, AFAIK, military fields. The commercial/noncommercial distinction is definitely flawed and should be removed even if this page stays. The closest you could get is "airports with air carrier operations" vs. not, but even that can be a gray area, and besides, it changes all the time. Danorris 30 June 2005 14:58 (UTC)
 * Keep, if only because it provides a list by IATA codes. This is someting I have never found elswhere on the internet (thoguh there are searchable databases), and as such is extremely useful. Tompw 22:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What about []? It's alphabetical by city name instead of by code letters, but... Danorris 30 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)
 * Exactly - that site is by city name, not IATA code. Tompw 10:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, just because I believe "List of Airports" does better job than the Categories. Categories normally provides references for various things related to a certain thing, however in this case airports in the world are all airports; theoretically "Lists" should exist rather than "Categories" handling this type of the lists. --Buckstars 07:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree as far as short, thematic lists go, but in this case we're talking about creating manual lists containing tens or hundreds of thousands of entries, and then trying to keep them current. David 16:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the part about "trying to keep them current". Once an airport is on the list with its IATA code, then nothing more ever needs to be done to the list as far as that airport is concerned. You add an aiport, and that's it. It's not like it includes any information on an airport which could change. Tompw 17:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this seems very useful and has its advantages over categories. --Allstar86 03:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was creating an article for the Zhob airport in Pakistan, and this is the first place I went looking for the IATA and ICAO codes.  This article only needs expanding.  -- Un focused 04:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concur with Unfocused's comment, except the airport I was looking for is King Khalid in Riyadh. -- Eagleamn 18:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Strongly keep. Airports are a sometimes unseen but VERY VITAL part in each country or cities' economical survival. Whoever put this on delete must also think banks and hospitals are not important either! Antonio Dont Worry, Ill explain my personality later Martin 20:00 Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually, no, let's merge it into list of places because what Wikipedia needs is more giantly bloated masses of information, can't be written about in any meaningful way.  We're writing an encyclopedia, not The Infinite Rehashing Of Trivial Representations Of Information Better Kept In Other Forms.  The Literate Engineer 06:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We're writing a great reference guide to the world. I'm sorry for you if you can't see the value of that.
 * Keep. --*drew 10:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Categories do not replace lists. CalJW 13:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes - categories do not replace lists -- they only show completed articles, not potential redlinks. --mervyn 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Kula Shaker

"aligations of racism"
I removed this comment " The band are still dogged by aligations of racism to this day." from the article for several reasons. First of all I firmly believe it is untrue. They are not dogged with allegations of racism. They may be looked upon as something of a figure of fun and occasionally as a stupid band, but they are not commonly regarded as racists. The prevailing view of Crispian's actions in 1997 is VERY MUCH that he was stupid and misguided, but NOT racist. Even if one quality contemporary source was found alleging they were racists (actually I don't believe such a source could be found) it wouldn't be representative of what is written about the band (which is that Crispian was at most, a bumbling fool over the swastika issue - not a racist). As a side issue, as this article is about living people, to throw allegations of racism around is not acceptable without a source in any case so the comment should not be added even with a 'citation needed' tag. Such a comment would have to be sourced before inclusion. As for the swastika issue itself, it's dealt with very well in this article and that section is actually well sourced and balanced. It doesn't seem there's anything to add to that.
 * I'm happy with that (I added the Fact tag, whilst liking the band I haven't the depth of knowledge you have on the band, and yet I nearly removed it for the same reasons you gave,but settled for the tag, but your edits get my vote. --C Hawke (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of actual comments from the controversy section
User Jossi removed the quoted comments from the controvesy section. The comments (which are well sourced in the article) are what caused the controvesy, the controvesy which remains to this day for better or worse, one of the things most closely associated with this multi-platinum act. To just say 'he made some comments' which was all that was effectively all that was left after Jossi's edit of the section, just raises the question of what those comments were and explains absolutely nothing. Also, given that this is a biography of a living person, it's only fair to give an accurate indication of the comments, with sources, rather than to gesture at them ambiguously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.3.99 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the actual comments for a very good reason. There are websites which use wikipedia articles as a feed on their websites, the problem with that is that reference links are lost. For example virgin radio's website on the biography of kula shaker is a feed of this wikipedia article, yet all reference links, including the ones to the controversial statements, are lost. By putting the actual conversation in the text then that solves that problem. Otherwise the way the section is worded makes the statement by Crispian sound ominous and supportive of hitler, which the actual comments by him shows that not to be the case. Shiva das 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's wikipedia's policy to tailor its articles in response to the fact that copy-sites lose the references, so I'm not sure that in itself is a justifiable reason for editing an article. That said, personally I have no objection to the fuller comments from the interview being reproduced in this article, but I can see the point that perhaps reproducing so large a section of the actual interview might be disproportionate to this wikipedia article's length, especially given that links are provided in the article so that wiki users can read the full interview sections themselves if they so wish. So in summary - I have no objection to the interview section being kept in this wiki article, but if other wiki editors feel that it's overlong, then BY FAR the best alternative is to have the quoted comments with links, rather than to just change the article to say 'he made some comments' (which it did at one point say, this was what prompted my adding of this section to the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.226.51 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Controvesy section
I have now fully sourced this section. The full text of the Independent article of 20 April 1997 is available online. So is the entire fax Mills sent to the Independent. Links are in the references section of the article. In addition the relevant sections from the NME which include the most notorious swastika and Hitler comments, are available scanned for viewing online (again, see the references section). I should add that this section is certainly extremely relevant to the band's career and therefore encyclopaedic - for example, almost every review of the recent third album in the UK press makes reference to the 'nazi incident' or 'swastika incident' or things along these lines. It is perhaps to this day what the band are most associated with in the United Kingdom and so deserves a mention, sourced and in context, on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

UK press coverage
According to the BBC :

 * However, the band's reputation was damaged by savage attacks in the UK music press following comments Mills made about Nazism.

 * He told NME he wanted to have "great big burning swastikas onstage" and that "Hitler knew a lot more than he made out. You can see why Hitler got support. It was probably the uniforms that swung it".

According to the Guardian :

 * Months of adoring press coverage evaporated when frontman Crispian Mills told the NME: "I love the swastika! It symbolises peace and the sun and illumination." It also transpired that his previous band, the Objects of Desire, used the slogan: "England will rise again." Silly rather than racist, Mills never shook off the controversy, and Kula Shaker's second was a flop.

-- The Anome 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Membership
I think this article needs a statement of who the members are, and how they got together, right upfront, rather than just mentioning them down near the bottom, when talking about what other projects they've been in. It might also be nice to have some early history, like how they got together and how they got signed, etc. At the very least, there should me a "Members" section, at the bottom, just above discography. And speaking of discography, why not a subsection on singles? Just trying to offer some suggestions. -Freekee 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
"and went on to suggest that the swastika was "a brilliant image" which symbolised "peace and the sun and illumination." In the interview's most notorious quote, he expressed a desire to have a "great big flaming swastika on stage". It should be noted however that the swastika is indeed an ancient mystic symbol, and it did originally have the meaning Mills gave it. Thus, he was correct in his comments about the swastika "

This was added in the last edit. However it is not necessarily correct; it expresses a point of view it says Mills' comments were 'correct' and yet Mills said "the swastika was "a brilliant image" which symbolised "peace and the sun and illumination."" - now the whole point at issue is that the swastika does not, in the West, symbolise those things anymore (Mills even admitted this in his later apology) thus his comments were arguably not 'correct'. I'm going to revert the the change, please comment here if you wish to dispute it. -- 2-J

You are not quite correct. Since there are millions of hindus and buddhists and native americans living in the west who revere the swastika as a sacred religious symbol your claim about people in the "west" is not correct. Regardless, the quote you object to makes clear that the original meaning of the swastika is what Mills refered to. In Asia the swastika is used widely and can be seen everywhere in India used for both religious and secular purposes as a good luck symbol, it is also in Buddhist temples and other places throughout Asia. Regardless of what many people in the "west" think about the swastika in point of fact most people in the world live in Asia where the swastika is seen as Mills describes it. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia devoted to eurocentric or western views of the world.Shiva das 20:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What were the "ill-advised remarks" about swastikas? Any links?
 * From what I remember from the time, basically talking about the other historic symbolism and spirituality of the symbol (which is mentioned elsewhere in wikipedia). All true, but given the press es mentality here in the UK "ill-advised" is a pretty good description. DarkCryst 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In the controversy section reference is made to William Cooper and there are two links to articles about him. Unfortunately they link to two different articles. One about William Milton Cooper and one to a disambiguation page for William Cooper. Is William Milton Cooper the correct one or not? --Wikipediatastic 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

- William Milton Cooper is the correct William Cooper in this instance. I've made the links consistent.

I changed the part where it said that Cooper was an antisemite after doing some research on him. His theories were originally about aliens who had crashed landed in the 1940's and were working with "the new world order" in order to control the destiny of humanity, he was also into the UFO subculture. Later he recanted and claimed that he no longer believed in UFOs or aliens, he claimed that the UFO movement was created and sustained by the "Illuminati" for various nefarious reasons. Although he printed the "protocols of zion" in one of his books he introduced it as being not of jewish origin and wrote that the references to jews in it were inserted into it by non jews. This is a commonplace conspiracy theory today. The idea is that the freemasons, or the illuminati, or even the jesuits, originally wrote the protocols of zion outlining their master plan, but that later references to jews as the authors were added in order to demonize jews. Depending on the conspiracy theory the addition of jews was added either by the russian secret police to rile up anitsemitism in russia (which is mainstream thinking today), the jesuits to rile up anitsemitism everywhere, or the masons or the illuminati in order to rile up antisemitism. After searching through his writings I could find nothing where he demonizes jews and several places where he claims that the "Illuminati" are people from many religious backgrounds who were behind the holocaust and whose purpose it is to destroy the jews along with other religions. Shiva das 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What Does 'Kula Shaker' Mean?
If it has a meaning, it should be mentioned...if it's meaningless, then that should be mentioned, too. I'd do it myself except I don't know and the official website doesn't give any clues ;) 63.230.177.22 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

- well the page explains that Kula Shaker is in reference to Kulasekhara, and also explains the origins of the Kulasekhara name. As I understand it the reasoning for the change from "Kulasekhera" to "Kula Shaker" was simply make it sound a bit snappier for use as a group name, and doesn't have any deeper logic to it than that. But I can't really find a concise way to work that into the article.

-Kulashekhara or properly: Kulaśekhara, is prounounced Kula-shake-are or arah. Crispian told the story that a friend of his named Kulaśekhara Das] knew George Harrison of the Beatles and he used to tell Crispian stories of his time with George and the Beatles, and that's where Crispian got the inspiration for the name Kula Shaker. Kulaśekhara Das was named by his guru when he was initiated into a Hindu sect after the King Kulashekhara who wrote the famous Mukunda Mala Stotras King Kulashekara was one of the Alvars. Kula Shaker's music company is called Alvar Music.Shiva das 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

koola in gujarati community means bum, must be some african influence - kula shaker makes it funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkks (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Complete list of recordings
Apologies to the person who supplied this, but I don't think it's appropriate for the band's main page. As far as I'm concerned the first page should just list the band's albums - to list every album track, B-side and obscure live track (some of which may have only been played a handful of times) is a useful reference, but only for people seeking further detail. Plus, it was cluttering up the front page due to the fact that each letter from A to Z appeared as a separate entry in the contents at the top of the main page, forcing people to scroll down just to start reading about the band themselves.

Anyway, rather than lose it completely, I've saved the list to my webspace and added it as a link here instead. If anyone wants the list updating then just let me know via the discussion page and I'll get it done.

Would make more sense in my view to have it as a separate page in wiki. Nige 08:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that makes sense - I didn't do it myself because I don't know about creating new pages or about the rules / etiquette for doing so. If someone else wants to do it then that's great. Drykid 20:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How can I get tickets?....
I´m a great Kula Shaker fan and I need some help.I´m from Serbia and here is very difficult to hear a word about them,there are are almost no fans and informations.I wanted to know how can I buy a ticket for their concert(I´ve heard that they are always sold out long before the concert)and if they are playing somewhere else,except in England.Please let me know...it would make my life wish come true!And if there´s at least one Kula Shaker fan who would like to help me getting tickets and maybe being my company on the concert,please contact me.My e-mail adress is ds.Liliana@yahoo.com.Thanks!LilianaDS 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Liliana

TRIVIA
The trivia section is without any references. Also it includes several defamatory statements without reference, rhyme or reason. So I am removing it. If the person who posted the trivia wants to keep it there he or she must provide references, also various peoples personal opinions about the band is not what a wikipedia article is for. e.g the opinion of Mary Lutyens, etc. Shiva das 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of the trivia had citations and references. Are you an idiot?

I may be an idiot but you do not understand what a citation or reference is for trivia. There were no references or citations in the triva section for the trivia mentioned. All the links were to wikipedia articles on the people and companies mentioned but not to the trivia being mentioned. For example from this part:

At the peak of their Britpop fame Mills was said to have been considering a Britpop mega-band with members of Northern Uproar, Menswe@r and These Animal Men

The links were not to a reference of the trivia mentioned, they were links to wikipedia articles on those groups. How do we know that the claim is true? You need reference, a citation of that trivia from a reputable source. All of the links in the triva section were like that, not a single reference to the trivia being mentioned was in the triva section. Shiva das 01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If something is mentioned in an old newsspaper or whatever and you remember it how can you be expected to source it? Except from from mind? Lots of wikipedia articles are this way. Furthermore, the Kula Shaker cocktail did exist and SHOULD be mentioned.

The problem is that anyone can say anything and how can we know it is true without a reference? This is wikipedia's policy on trivia:

"Keep in mind, however, that "trivia" content is not exempt from our rules and style guidelines. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel — continue to follow Neutral point of view, No original research, Cite your sources, and Biographies of living people. If you have doubts about whether your fact is suitable for inclusion, place it on the talk page instead where other interested contributors can help consider its inclusion and locate suitable references."

Especially read the article on citing sources.

Also from the policy on citing sources:

"Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must cite a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article." Shiva das 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:KulaShaker K.jpg
The image Image:KulaShaker K.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hush
In the Abbey Road remaster of Deep Purple - Shades of Deep Purple libretto, the editor writes: "Hush" even reared in psychedelia-tinged head again in the late '90s when Kula Shaker unashamedly reproduced Deep Purple's cover of a Joe South original almost note for note, (etc...) Anyone can get some more info on this? └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 13:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Complete re-write
This article is a mass of text with only three citations to support (one of which is a fan site, and the other two do not at all appear to fully support what they're being used for). I searched for citations to support some of the unreferenced material, but my lack of success illuminated the fact that we simply have an obvious OR-, weasel word- and NPOV vio-riddled article, written in an over-zealous fanzine tone. A complete re-write would seem the only option. Otherwise, the article should be reduced to a supported stub. Jplarkin (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Best reduced to stub. Cite one (from BPI) is bogus and does not support the band's sales, as claimed. Cite three is a fansite, leaving only one reliable cite (which simply covers a controversial statement by Mills - nothing about the band or its history) to support this oversized, OR-laden article. It's just not enough. Superfluous images also removed. If expanding, please ensure that the article is fully cited. Jplarkin (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx and search 'Kula Shaker' and you will see their debut album went double (i.e. multi) platinum. ~ Mr.K
 * Integrate it into the stub if you want. Not in the opening sentence, however, as this is no longer policy. Jplarkin (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I have reverted much of the removal of text and "section blanking" undertaken by Jplarkin and IP user 86.15.169.200, who I suspect are the same person. I agree that this article needs more inline citations, is not written in a wholly encyclopedic way, and may contain original research. However, to abitrailly delete vast sections of the article without consensus—including information which is factually accurate for the most part—is not desirable as laid out by the guide lines found at Editing_policy and could even be misconstrude as vandalism, although I don't believe that's the case here.  In addition, it also seems like a lazy deletionist alternative to rewriting the article or actually getting online and finding some reliable refs for this article.

 * Unreferenced text, especially unreferenced text which isn't harmful, should not be automatically deleted, as specified at WP:NOCITE (otherwise 90% of Wikipedia would end up being deleted!). Yes, ideally almost every sentence should be supported by an inline reference but that's what we have tags & banners like Template:Unreferenced and  for, and these should be used first to encourage editors to add refs, as per WP:NOCITE and WP:V. Deleting large portions of text in an article without editor consensus is frowned upon on wikipedia, as per WP:EDIT. Consensus has in NO WAY been reached here—this talk page section basically consists of Jplarkin talking to himself, and that's NOT a consensus!

 * Some of the section blanking, like removing the TV appearances section for example, is fair enough because it wasn't encyclopedic and was woefully incomplete. Likewise, I agree that the sales info would be better placed in the Kula Shaker discography article but it would've been good if this info had actually been relocated to the discography article—rather than just deleted. In closing, I understand the rational behind this wholesale removal of text but I disagree that its appropriate or beneficial to the article.

 * Having reverted much of the section blanking, I will attempt to go through the article over the coming weeks, copy editing, re-writing in a more NPOV style and adding inline refs. Oh, and as an aside, saying that the band are a multi-platinum selling band is not in contravention of NPOV - it's an indication of their commercial success and as such, should be disclosed in the lead. It's no different to saying the Amazon River is the biggest in the world, that's not peacockery or non-NPOV—it's an important fact that readers should be made aware of. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I have reverted the last edit by Jplarkin for the reasons I have already outlined above and as supported by WP:EDIT. To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of Sockpuppetry, I merely surmised that Jplarkin had edited under the IP address 86.15.169.200 before creating an account...perhaps I'm wrong on that score though. Regardless, large deletions of content shouldn't be undertaken without editor consensus as per Editing_policy. The "discussion" that has taken place on this talk page is not consensus—it consists of two posts by Jplarkin alone, four days apart...and that's not an adequate amount of time to wait before blanking whole sections of an article. As I have already stated, despite its unencyclopedic tone, this article contains much factually accurate information and is still of use to readers for that very reason. I aim to go through the entire article myself with a fine tooth comb over the coming weeks, rewriting and adding inline references to improve it. Please do not revert this page again, an edit war over this is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs. Instead, please let’s discuss this matter here on the talk page. At the end of the day, we both want to improve this article; I just think that this can be achieved without deleting a large proportion of it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Date of taking name 'Kula Shaker'
I realise the official biography on the band's website says that they took the name in November 1995, but that is false. For example, winning that competition which resulted in the record deal (September 1995) they were already called Kula Shaker on the bill and signed under that name. Here is the compilation CD for that 1995 competition:- http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=112063 also there is a Japanese fansite with Kula Shaker tour dates in the discography from around Spring 1995... May 1995 is correct, November 1995 demonstrably false. It could be the site meant to list November 1994 as when that conversation between Crispian and the Indian mystic guy took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.169.200 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK...I was the editor who changed the date from May 1995 to November 1995 as a result of seeing it on the KS website but I must admit, I thought that November sounded late. My understanding had always been that it was around spring time 1995. The current ref to the official KS site following that particular sentence can remain because it supports the origin of the band's name but I'll have to try and have a scout around for an alternate third party source to corroberate a May 1995 date. Thanks for the input! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Members timeline
Is a member's timeline really necessary? The band has only ever had a single lineup change for one member in its history, it just seems like an unnecessary presentation of a simple fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechark (talk • contribs) 13:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hyperbole
This whole article has the feel of being created by an over-enthusiastic groupie, or perhaps even someone associated with the band itself. It is dangerously close to being a piece of active promotion/advertising. It overstates and inflates things at every opportunity and (I'm sorry if this offends any Kula Shaker fans) but it gives the impression that they are a much bigger and more important band than they actually are. Indeed there are many artists of greater significance with smaller Wikipedia articles than this. While most of the page is referenced, a Wikipedia article should not read like a feature from some 1996 edition of NME magazine.

Please keep hyperbole to a minimum and remember that a casual Encyclopedia article should not refer to everything including the colour of a band's tour bus just because it happens to be true. --Tomsega (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of the drummer's name
The name of the drummer is rendered as either Paul Winter-Hart or Paul Winterheart at various places in the article. On the band's official website, he's called Paul Winterhart. I will make edits to reflect that version throughout the article, but am noting it here in case there's some objection or question about whether it's appropriate. VAMark (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kula Shaker. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924015932/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kula Shaker. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130410171445/http://archive.classicrockmagazine.com/view/march-2000/80/kula-shaker to http://archive.classicrockmagazine.com/view/march-2000/80/kula-shaker

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Makeover
I would greatly recommend that this article gets a major makeover, such as removing unnecessary images and sources and making the top of the article more organized and neater like other good-to-decent quality articles on music artists. Dean12065 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kula Shaker


text:
Tristan of Clermont

Bartholomew "Tristan" de Clermont-Lodève (1380 – c. 1432), Count of Copertino, was a French-born knight who married Catherine Orsini del Balzo, youngest daughter of Mary of Enghien and Raimondo Orsini del Balzo, Prince of Taranto. He was the father of Isabella of Clermont, Princess of Taranto, the first consort of King Ferdinand I of Naples.

Documents and sources about Tristan, whose proper first name was Bartholomew, are scarce. Tristan de Clermont (Tristano di Chiaromonte) became Count of Cupertino by his wife's dowry.

In 1429 Tristan divided the inheritance between his children. They were:
 * Raymond de Clermont (Raimondello di Chiaromonte), died on 2 March 1443, leaving his inheritance to his sister Sancia;
 * Sancia, who married Francesco del Balzo, Duke of Andria
 * Margherita, who married Antonio Ventimiglia, Marquess of Geraci, Grand Admiral;
 * Antonia, alleged somewhere to have married Thomas Palaeologus, titular Despot of Morea, as brother of Emperor Constantine and heir presumptive to the throne of the Byzantine Empire;
 * Isabella, who married Ferdinand of Aragon, later King of Naples

title: Tristan of Clermont


text:
Talk:Heterodyne

Brain behavior
Could someone include a reference for the stuff (ahem) on brain behavior? At best it isn't well written (not clear which wave phenomenon in the brain is being referred to, e.g. the electrical pulses? If so, what is with the comment on low frequency as it relates to the ear?)  At worst, it seems like unsupported pseudoscience. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al Biglan (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

One ref is "Auditory beats in the Brain", Gerald Oster, Scientific American Oct 1973. See also http://gnaural.sourceforge.net which discusses a program for experimenting with brain beats; the page notes that "snake oil salesmen" have made claims about brain beats. It is not an area of any important research and is basically a curiosity; it should not be at the beginning of the talk section on "Heterodyne" except as a coincidence. 76.105.16.80 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 * In addition to what you said, I must say that even the introduction is pretty mushy: what happens when two instruments are playing out of tune is that their sounds get linearly mixed, and thus the sum of two sines at close frequencies is equal to the product of a "beating" sine at a low frequency and an "average" sine at the average frequency. Given that it is a product and not a sum, this does not mean that any new frequencies have been created: for example, if you high-pass it at a frequency higher than the "beating" frequency, the signal will be kept unchanged and the beating will be preserved... Which makes me wonder about the general correctness of Gary D and Foobar's contributions, and their extrapolation to "brain waves". --Ma Baker 18:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * While I agree the intro is mushy, the article is close to correct in its interpretation of the mixed frequencies:
 * if you mix a frequency: f1=(a+h)
 * and a frequency: f2=(a-h)
 * you get a new sound which can be expressed as the product of the
 * mixed frequency: a
 * and the
 * beat frequency: f1-f2
 * The difference refered in the article is no doubt refering to the difference in the beat frequency formula. --Anuran 00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm very skeptical about this audio brain stuff - the brain does not receive sine waves but rather what is roughly a narrow-window time-average of the discrete audio power spectrum (at sampling frequencies defined by the lengths of various hairs). Because this destroys things such as phase information, etc, there is no way for two audio signals beyond the hearing range of the human ear to get information into the brain (I doubt the human brain can perceive being shook at audio frequencies).  Is there a *REAL* reference on this floating around somewhere, because this is pretty ridiculous stuff.

 * From what little I know about the auditory beat effect, this interpretation seems to be right. The ear is basically a frequency domain sampler, so any beat frequency would have to be produced outside of the brain. If someone could varify this, I'd bet that parts of ear basically behave nonlinearly, so you get a difference frequency out. This would mean that some ear component has a non-constant acoustic impedance, which is not hard to imagine. The eardrum, for instance, could very well be the source, as it is a circular membrane, which I believe has a non-linear stress-strain relationship. In any case, I think there's enough ambiguity to not mention the human auditory system at all. --Jschultz 03:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, this article does seem to be confusing two concepts. Searching for "binaural beats" on Google, I found that almost all of the references were pseudoscientific, but right at the bottom of page 5 I found a reference from a credible institution, the Life Sciences Department of Sussex University (England). A bit later on I found another one  from Rutgers University, if you prefer the other side of the pond. These suggest that binaural beats are real, but belief in a connection between these and "brainwaves" takes us into quack territory. The only serious investigation that I can find into a link between binaural beats and EEG output is a report from Penn University on an experiment that produced a negative result (no link). --Heron 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Heyyy!!
This article has to de: links, that legal? Thanx 69.142.2.68 00:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
My fellow wikipedians - I've added sections to this article (as it is in quite a mess!) however I still think it could use some more reorganization. An image or two wouldn't hurt either. Maybe also more uses for electronic heterodynes?

formula contradicts other sources
This article says that the beat frequency is equal to the difference of the the frequencies divided by 2. Nearly every other source says it is merely the difference (f1 - f2). Does someone want to set this straight?

 * There's a difference between the beat frequency and the difference frequency. If you create sin(100Hz)*cos(2Hz), you will hear four beats of 100Hz per second, and not 2. The reason is that cos flips between +1 and negative 1, but the amplitude of the signal you are hearing is really the absolute value of it, thus the beating of amplitude is really |cos(2Hz)|, which has a wavelength of 4Hz (but is not shaped like a cosine). - Rainwarrior 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Brain wave stuff $$\ne$$ good
As someone who works on how the brain processes sound, I found this section pretty unbelievable, and hence added a "Disputed" tag. For example, you would not hear a mix of 100 Hz and 102 Hz as "101 Hz", because your brain effectively performs a Fourier transform on the sound you hear. Now, it is true that you could not properly distinguish the tones; they would probably just sound slightly out-of-tune.

While the article gets it right that epilepsy can be temporarily induced by a periodic stimulus (which is one of the things my research group works on), virtually the entire rest of the article is based on pseudoscience or misunderstandings.

I vote that the whole section be axed.

And yes, the beat frequency is $$f_1-f_2$$. (This was a question on an exam I was marking last semester!)

 * I very much disagree with: "your brain effectively performs a Fourier transform on the sound you hear". There is much, much more going on than a Fourier decomposition in the brain. If you work with computer sound recognition (you may, you didn't say exactly), you should know just how inadequate Fourier analysis is on its own for that purpose. Now, I don't know what this bit about "brain wave frequencies" is all about, perhaps it should be removed, but binaural beats are a well known and easily demonstratable process. I would agree that the language is inaccurate, though. The heterodyning principle is that the signal produced by mixing 100Hz and 102Hz is equivalent to the amplitude modulation of 101Hz with 1Hz (percieved as a 2Hz beating). It is not so much that the brain will percieve one or the other, but that the perception of it is ambiguous between the two, mostly (but not entirely) resolved by which parts of the signal lie in the audible range. - Rainwarrior 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, binaural beating is generally a quieter effect than the beating of a mixed signal. So, 100 in one hear with 102 in the other ear is going to have a stronger perception as an unmixed signal than as as the 101Hz * 1Hz idea. Quickly doing the experiment on myself, I would say that I hear a tone that is wavering in pitch (up and down) with slight amplitude changes, rather than two distinct pitches. If actually mixed, I definiftely hear is as 101Hz with a 1Hz amplitude modulation. But, if I take two tones that are more distinct, and gradually slide them into 100 and 102Hz, they are felt as more distinct (in the binaural test), but in the mixed test the distinction seems to be lost at some point. - Rainwarrior 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

An Oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer show it all.
My experience with audio and using an oscilloscope leads me to these conclusions on heterodyning. Any one with a waveform generator and oscilloscope can do the experiments and prove it to themselves.

When 2 audio (or r.f.) signals are added together, the higher frequency "rides" on top of the lower frequency. The peak to peak amplitude of the higher frequency does not change, however it's amplitude in reference to 0v. rises and falls at the frequency of the lower signals frequency. A speaker would produce this rising and falling at the frequency of the lower frequency signal. A frequency spectrum analyzer will show only the 2 original signals. There is no mysterious beat frequency...only the rising and falling of the higher frequency at the lower frequency's rate. .........I assume that when 2 independently created audio signal come into the ear, the results are the same. What the brain does with them I do not know.

If signals are mixed nonlinearly 4 signals result: The 2 original and the sum and difference of those originals. The trignometric product of 2 sine waves verifies this...hence nonlinear mixing is often referred to as the "multipling" the 2 original sine wave signals together. To produce this multiplication effect with 2 original sine waves, the higher frequency is usually modulated with the lower frequency. This process, done electronically, involves changing the peak to peak amplitude of the higher frequency at the lower frequency rate. The peak to peak amplitude of the higher frequecy is never higher then the original peak to peak value, but it varies at the rate of the lower frequency. An oscilliscope very clearly shows this waveform, and a spectrum analyzer will show 4 frequencies present in the waveform.

I do not know how this nonlinear mixing takes place in nature, but if it does then 4 distinct signals should result. GregFiore 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Greg Fiore

 * I'm not sure what you're calling nonlinear mixing... but because of the trig identity you've discussed, the amplitude modulation (nonlinear mixing?) of two sine waves is indistinguishable from the addition (linear mixing?) of two corresponding sine waves. If doing amplitude modulation, it doesn't matter which is the "modulator" and which is the "carrier", because the result either way is identical. Whether or not you get 4 frequencies in your analysis usually depends on whether the outer two tones are withing the detectable range (frequently they are not), though the two original "additive" tones usuall come up stronger, and the two heterodyned frequencies may have additional harmonics. - Rainwarrior 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr GregFiore, dunno if you are still reading this 7 years later, but you have gained totally the wrong impression in your first comment. But rather than simply name calling, why don't I give you an example. Consider a twin-engined aircraft, with the engines not quite in sync. You will hear - and no doubt have heard, many times - the resultant beat. It is very easily audible. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Heterodyne Harmonics
I think missing here is the acknowledgment that mixing can occur through any non-linear device/function. So we're not generalizing enough to say that there are x number of frequencies generated, frequency y is here, frequency z is here, etc. The implication in most of these examples, I think, is that a quadratic is used, but this is only a commonly used approximation for some mixers, notably diode mixers. I think it would be more appropriate to indicate that the harmonics that are generated are determined by the function that governs the device's behavior, and that generally at least a difference term is produced. To some degree the method of mixing is also important to the harmonic production. Bolometric mixers, for instance, act like capacitive envelope detectors and inherently filter out higher harmonics. I know it's a fine point because it's only briefly discussed in the first paragraph, but the topic seems to be causing confusion in the discussion.--Jschultz 01:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Many different frequencies can be generated, but in the usual case it is the difference frequency, much lower than the inputs that is important. Everything else is filtered out. Worst case could be twice the difference frequency, which would be slightly difficult to filter. But not that much harder. Gah4 (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many different frequencies can be generated, but in the usual case it is the difference frequency, much lower than the inputs that is important. Everything else is filtered out. Worst case could be twice the difference frequency, which would be slightly difficult to filter. But not that much harder. Gah4 (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Modifying Example in Header
I'm making a tweak in the example in the header that cites a 3000 Hz and a 3001 Hz frequency to produce an "audible beat frequency of 1 hertz" (emphasis added) and changing it to a 3000Hz/3100Hz/100Hz example because 1Hz is not audible to humans (see Human_hearing).

If anyone disagrees, please discuss.

--KNHaw 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Need different definition
The definition is not consistent with "beating", which is the article's favorite example. If beating is truly an example of heterodyning, then the definition is wrong. For example: 1) The definition says "...in a nonlinear device". However, beating is a linear phenomenon that occurs in linear devices and mediums (it's just addition!).  The definition should be expanded to include linear phenomenon also... if beating is to be included.  2) "...the generation of new frequencies..." - beating doesn't really create new frequencies. A spectrum of the beating signal would actually show the original two frequencies unchanged. The beating frequency wouldn't show up anywhere. By contrast, multiplication actually creates REAL signals at the sum and difference frequencies. Instead of saying "new frequencies" maybe "new frequencies (real or apparent)" 3) "mixing of two frequencies".  Using the word "mixing" would be ok in general usage, but in this field it has a technical meaning which would exclude beating (for example, see wikipedia for "Frequency Mixer").  I suggest using a word that doesn't have the same technical association for example: "combining" instead of "mixing".  It's great to use the word mixing elsewhere in the article as an example, but not in the definition where it excludes other types of heterodyning. Catapultsam 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of definitions, I didn't see this discussed already, but if we're talking about mixers and audio in one direction, saying that what a radio engineer calls a mixer, an audio engineer calls a ring modulator, I wonder if we ought to talk about it in the other direction as well, and say that the audio device called a "mixer" is an X to radio engineers. Adder?  I don't know what to call it.  Obviously not really directly related to heterodynes, but probably helpful to the inexperienced reader when an article is discussing both radio and audio, and using the word "mixer."  When I first started working with radio, this tripped me up.
 * This is tricky. In the usual case, beating requires something non-linear. In the audio case, it is non-linearities in the ear that allow us to hear a difference. A perfectly linear ear would not hear one. Gah4 (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is tricky. In the usual case, beating requires something non-linear. In the audio case, it is non-linearities in the ear that allow us to hear a difference. A perfectly linear ear would not hear one. Gah4 (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is tricky. In the usual case, beating requires something non-linear. In the audio case, it is non-linearities in the ear that allow us to hear a difference. A perfectly linear ear would not hear one. Gah4 (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Mathematical Treatment/Derivation?
I *believe* I once read a mathematical derivation of how heterodyning works in a book by Donald Wehner.. it may have been the 2nd Ed. of "High Resolution Radar", but my point is that heterodyning made ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD to me at the time I read that derivation. When I read this Wiki article, heterodyning seems very vague and mysterious. Perhaps a mathematical treatment could illuminate things... I recall it being a very simple derivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.146.246 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Recall that the product of two complex numbers is a complex number whose argument is the sum of their arguments, and whose magnitude is the product of their magnitudes. Therefore, if f(t) = A cis(ut) and g(t) = B cis(vt), f(t)*g(t) = A*B cis (ut + vt) = A*B cis ((u + v)t). The frequency of a sinusoid is the coefficient on t inside it (or that coefficient over 2*pi, depending on your convention), so we multiplied a sinusoid with frequency u by one with frequency v, and got one with frequency u+v. I'm eliding some complexity, here, specifically aliasing and phase, but I hope that gives you some intuition for what's going on.

 * The "Mathematical principle" section has a derivation using ordinary trig functions.  Your complex exponentials is an interesting alternative approach, though. --ChetvornoTALK 19:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Important reference
Please see the section on Frequency Counter, and Prescaler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.16.209 (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Name change
I disagree with the unilateral name change of this article. I think "heterodyne" is the much more recognisable term than the verb form. A quick google seems to indicate it is not just me: ghits for "heterodyne" = 14.6 million, for "heterodyning" = 60,800. I propose to move it back to heterodyne.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree.--79.74.165.39 (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be clearer with graphics
It may be clearear if it is shown the graphics with the original sine waveform and the mixed ones, or a screenshot of an osciloscope...

 * I agree that a signal diagram would be useful. I think it is most illustrative to show what's happening in the frequency domain. Time-domain representation is not particularly insightful. --Kvng (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jargon? What jargon?
As a matter of fact, this article contains very little jargon. Perhaps this was not the case when the notation was added, but as it stands today, there is no further need of jargon removal/definitions.

While many of the terms used in the article are unfamiliar to the unwashed masses, they are fairly ordinary words, often used for varied purposes having nothing to do with radio, or electronics. We aren't expected to dumb down articles on technical subjects to the point where functional illiterates can read them, are we? If one hasn't the vocabulary to understand this article, this article will remain undecipherable, whether definitions/explanations are given, or not. Eudaemonic Plague (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the only two comments here show no need for the Jargon tag, I am removing it. -tonsofpcs (Talk) 01:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Upconverting and downconverting currently have two separate pages, but both are really just the application of the heterodyne process. I believe they should be merged into a new section of this article. Dsmouse (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Ugh. I just noticed there is also Radio frequency downconverter which seems to mirror upconverter. Dsmouse (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with the proposal. I'm not sure the diagrams in the Downconverter article are useful for the Heterodyne article. It looks like there's a technical misunderstanding there (see Talk:Downconverter) --Kvng (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say keep it separate, the upconverter should have a bit more on the real world application and be expanded. rather than merged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Are you in favor of merging the Downconverter article? --Kvng (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Weakly In favor of both mergers. -- Chetvorno TALK 09:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I think there is a place for these articles. Firstly, it is helpful to readers who want a clear description of what these devices are all about without the in-depth technical descriptions of the heterodyne process.  Secondly, heterodyning is not the only method of achieving a frequency shift - although, admittedly, it is ubiquitous.  Technical errors in the existing articles are a non-reason for merging, editing is the answer to that.  I do, however, think that the upconverter and downconverter articles could usefully be merged with each other.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  09:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Agree; there is next to no content in the upconverter and downconverter articles, and the reader would therefore be better served by being redirected to the Applications section on this article. If the merge into this article does not reach consensus, then I think there's no question that at the very least, the two stub articles should be merged into one.  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merged. Cutting and pasting from one article to another then inverting a few words doesn't really make the encyclopedia stronger. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. --Kvng (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Heterodyning and modulation
I recently added this sentence to the introduction: "It [heterodyning] is used for moving signals carrying information from one frequency to another, and for modulation and demodulation." This was reverted with the comment: "rewrite changes meaning. hetrodyne does not directly modulate or demodulate." I think this is erroneous. Although the term "heterodyne" is not often used to describe modulation, heterodyning (mixing two frequencies to generate new frequencies) is the process behind AM and several other types of modulation. In AM modulation, two frequencies, the carrier and the modulation frequency, are mixed in a nonlinear mixer, resulting in sum and difference frequencies (the sidebands). It's just a matter of terminology whether it's called modulation or heterodyning. I think the sentence should be put back. -- Chetvorno TALK 07:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Can you find a reference to support this? I agree that a frequency mixer is used for AM and technically that's the same operation as heterodyning but I'm not convinced it is appropriate to apply the heterodyne term to this process. --Kvng (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I would offer that mod/demod is indeed a fundamental application of heterodyning (c.f. superhet receiver etc.). Whether or not it's appropriate to mention this so early on in the article is another matter.  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 * "A mixer can be used as a modulator, and vice versa. The language you use depends on whether you are using it to translate a low frequency "baseband" of information up to high frequencies (in which case you call it a "modulator") or translating a modulated RF band down to baseband, or perhaps an intermediate (IF) band...(in which case you call it a "mixer")"  Paul Horowitz (2006) The Art of Electronics, p.897

 * "The process of combining two or more frequencies in a nonlinear device and producing new frequencies is called mixing, modulating, heterodyning, beating, or frequency conversion." Basic electronics (1973) U. S. Bureau of Naval Personnel, p.338
 * -- Chetvorno TALK 20:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The "Beat" Receptor
144px|thumb|right|Instrument to receive radio waves of 1896-1899 structure.

One of the simplest devices I used in my experiments between my laboratory on South Fifth Avenue and the Gerlach Hotel, and other places in and outside the city, was an instrument constructed in 1896 with a magnet which sometimes was so designed as to give me a very intense magnetic field up to 20,000 lines per square centimeter. In this I placed a conductor, a wire or a coil, and then I would get a note which I amplified and intensified in many ways. From the characteristics of the audible note, I would immediately judge the quality of my apparatus.

When I speak of an audible note, I mean a note audible in a telephone as produced by the diaphragm of a telephone, or by a vibrating wire within the range of audibility.

[The figure] shows the general arrangement of the apparatus. Two condensers are the boxes at each end, and in the center a coil, or two coils, according to necessity, with which I produced a strong magnetic field and in it a wire. These condensers and the wire form a circuit which I tune. The condensers are of comparatively large capacity because my conductor is so short. I usually would transform the current in the receiving circuit and make as close a connection as possible and then tune the circuit to the vibrations. I would also mechanically tune the wire, according to the frequency, to the same note or to a fundamental.

This machine was suitable for transportation. I could put it under my arm with a couple of batteries. I had relays, which were very big, in which I produced (for stationary work) a very intense magnetic field so as to affect the conductor by the feeblest current. Furthermore, I used these relays particularly in connection with beats'''. '''When the frequencies were very high, I combined two frequencies very nearly alike. That gave me a low beat.''' One of the frequencies I sometimes produced at the receiving station, and at other times at both the receiving and transmitting stations. This always gave me the means of producing an audible note. I used machines of this character from 1892, but this specific instrument in my laboratory on Houston Street.'''

This instrument comprising a magnet and chord or coil in the magnetic field -- I mean a wire or coil in the magnetic field. . . . It was very convenient for producing audible effects because, if I used other forms of a receiver, I had a reading which was not at once translatable. If I listened to a note, I could immediately tell the quality of the transmission. For instance, I would tune a circuit in my laboratory, take it out to another building, and I would receive the signals; and from the quality of the signals I would see how I was progressing.

Counsel

In the experiments that you have spoken of with the instrument of which the picture is shown, what were the distances between the transmitting and receiving stations?

Tesla

The distance at that time, and I think the greatest distance at which I ever received signals from the Houston Street laboratory, was from the Houston laboratory to West Point. That is, I think, a distance of about 30 miles. This was prior to 1897 when Lord Kelvin came to my laboratory. In 1898 I made certain demonstrations before the Examiner-in-Chief of the Patent Office, Mr. Seeley, and it was upon showing him the practicability of the transmission that patents were granted to me. . ..

Schematic
144px|thumb|right|Ways of receiving practiced in 1898-1900.

[This] illustrates a device which has already been discussed. I have used it very frequently. This is also a drawing of the period of 1898 to 1900 and illustrates a way of producing audible notes by reaction of the received impulses upon a magnetic field. Here is a transmitter, diagrammatically represented, with an arrangement for varying the intensity of the waves emitted, and on the receiver side I have, as you see, a grounded antenna. [The] secondary [has a conductor under tension in] a very powerful magnetic field, and [the reaction of] this conductor, traversed by the received currents in the field, causes the conductor to emit audible notes.

I had several magnets of various forms, like this, and employed a cord in the field, which, when the current traversed it, vibrated and established a contact. Or, I used a small coil like this one here through which the current was passed, and which by its vibrations produced the signal, an audible note, or anything else I desired.

Counsel

Where was that patent drawing published?

Tesla

That drawing was not published. It is exactly the same thing as the other, but in my writings, which I have before commented upon, I had already shown the reaction of the high frequency and low frequency currents on magnetic fields, and had specified the frequencies within which one has to keep in order to receive efficiently audible notes.

Counsel

This drawing, however, was actually made about when?

Tesla

From 1899 to 1900. The date of these drawings we can easily locate from the bills I have received.

Counsel

And the devices shown here, were they ever used by you?

Tesla

I used them, of course, frequently. That is, in fact, one of the best forms, but as far as the principle of the employment of the magnet is concerned, it is not novel. The only novel thing was that I used my own discovery, which I had made known in my writings before. I was the first to use high frequency currents reacting on a magnetic field and producing audible notes through the reaction. I employed here only what I described in my lectures. It was a logical application of the principles which I then set forth.

Local oscillator
144px|thumb|right|AC Generator/Local Oscillator.

[This] oscillator was one of high frequency for isochronous work, and I used it in many ways. The machine, you see, comprised a magnetic frame. The energizing coil, which is removed, produced a strong magnetic field in this region. I calculated the dimensions of the field to make it as intense as possible. There was a powerful tongue of steel which carried a conductor at the extreme end. When it was vibrated, it generated oscillations in the wire. The tongue was so rigid that a special arrangement was provided for giving it a blow; then it would start, and the air pressure would keep it going. The vibrating mechanical system would fall into synchronism with the electrical, and I would get isochronous currents from it. That was a machine of high frequency that emitted a note about like a mosquito. It was something like 4,000 or 5,000. It gave a pitch nearly that of my alternator of the type which I have described.

Of course this device was not intended for a big output, but simply to give me, when operating in connection with receiving circuits, isochronous currents. The excursions of the tongue were so small that one could not see it oscillate, but when the finger was pressed against it the vibration was felt. . ..

Regards, GPeterson (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I assume you are posting a primary source so we can interpret it and reach a conclusion. Unfortunately we can't: ":--> Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:PRIMARY. Its pretty cut and dry. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The text is from a transcript of a pre-hearing interview with Tesla by his legal councel in 1916 and therefore is a primary source. It has not been posted for interpretation.
 * GPeterson (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Dr. Nikola Tesla and His Achievements" (excerpt)
By Samuel D. Cohen The Electrical Experimenter, February, 1917

P ERHAPS the ever-broadening field of invention has never known a genius more successful in developing far-reaching and original inventions than Dr. Nikola Tesla, whose name is known in every corner of the globe for his scientific achievements. . ..

Dr. Tesla's most important work at the end of the nineteenth century was his original system of transmission of energy by wireless. In 1900 Tesla obtained his two fundamental patents on the transmission of true wireless energy covering both methods and apparatus and involving the use of four tuned circuits. He also obtained a number of other patents at the same time, describing many other improvements. Among these may be mentioned his application of refrigeration and the oscillatory systems with which he obtained remarkable results in his well equipt laboratory on Houston Street, New York City.

In 1901 and 1902 several patents were granted to him describing a number of improvements, among which two have assumed great importance in the radio art; one of these is known under the name of the “tone wheel” and the other the “tikker.” Others are making claim to these inventions, but Tesla was far ahead of any of them.

Fig. 5. The First “Beat” Receptor for Radio-Telegraphy Invented by Tesla, Which Foreshadowed the “Heterodyne.”

At a little later date Tesla secured two patents on what he termed the principle of individualization, involving the use of more than one oscillation for the operation of the receiver. This property is now known under the commercial name of beat receptors. In long protracted interference proceedings carried on in 1903, however, Tesla has been accorded full and undisputed priority over Fessenden and other claimants. His first beat receiver is shown in Fig. 5, which consisted of a steel band stretched above a powerful electro-magnet excited by a high frequency current, causing the steel band to vibrate at an enormous rate. A small sensitive electro-magnet is placed in proximity to the band, in which is produced an alternating e.m.f., and this is acted upon by the received wave.

The apparatus is timed by adjusting the periodicity of the band until the received wave is made audible. The large electromagnet was usually excited by means of an alternating current generator, and this is illustrated in Fig. 6. Like all Tesla inventions, the construction of this oscillator is very unique, consisting of two chambers in the center of which is placed a vibrating membrane. This is inclosed in a magnetic field, consisting of a powerful coil encircling the device as seen and which was excited by a direct current. The membrane was caused to vibrate by passing interrupted, comprest air thru the two chambers by the inlet pipes as indicated. In the process of vibration, an E.M.F. is produced in a coil secured to the vibrating disc.

'''Fig. 6. Unique Alternating Current Generator for Exciting Tesla's Early “Beat” Receptor. Actuated by Comprest Air or Steam Which Vibrates a Special Diafram-Coil.'''

The above analysis of Tesla's work concludes that Tesla's ""Beat" Receptor" anticipated the Fessenden's radiotelegraphic heterodyne receiver.

GPeterson (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 * For there to be any case for "heterodyne technique was first used by Tesla around 1896" or "Heterodyning was invented by Tesla" you would have to show where the above author says "Tesla's ""Beat" Receptor" anticipated the Fessenden's radiotelegraphic heterodyne receiver" and then show some version of that statement many more times from other reliable sources that are mainstream, i.e. easily found here or here. Again it is pretty cut and dry per Wikipedia policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (reworded for typo and clarity Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

 * Peterson created an article for this device, Beat receptor, inadequately sourced as usual, which makes the same WP:REDFLAG claims. I don't know what should be done with this article, whether it should be rewritten or merged, would appreciate some input.  I put my criticisms on the Talk page. -- Chetvorno TALK 20:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Hard to find any sources on it that postdate Calvin Coolidge, I found one (calls it a "beat receiver" or "oscillating detector"). A pre-Taft source attributes it to Fessenden. I do not see any sources that attribute it to Tesla. I would say, if this is not a Beat frequency oscillator, then crop the article back to available RS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture worth a thousand words?
I wrote a simple BASIC program to graphically show this principle. I could easily grab some screen captures of various frequency pairs (eg, two very similar frequencies, two very different frequencies, different amplitude ratios, etc) and put them here. Would that be worthwhile? Old_Wombat (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to sentence on "beats"
I object to the recent change made to the sentence in the introduction about the relation of "beats" to heterodynes. The previous sentence
 * "Heterodynes are closely related to the phenomenon of "beats" in acoustics."

was changed to
 * "The essential nonlinearity of heterodyning makes it distinct from the linear phenomenon of beats."

The original sentence is more accurate. As Glrx pointed out, beats and heterodynes are related (note the original sentence didn't say they were the same phenomenon); they are duals of each other. They both come from the same trigonometric identity, the prosthaphaeresis identity. The "heterodyne equation is
 * $$\cos \omega_1 t \cos \omega_2 t = {1 \over 2}\cos (\omega_1 + \omega_2)t + {1 \over 2}\cos (\omega_1 - \omega_2)t \,$$

By changing variables and adding and subtracting, you get from this the "beat" equation
 * $$\cos \Omega_1 t + \cos \Omega_2 t = 2\cos {1 \over 2}(\Omega_1 + \Omega_2)t\cos {1 \over 2}(\Omega_1 - \Omega_2)t \,$$

More importantly, however, the word "beat" is often used for heterodyne, for example in the beat frequency oscillator, which actually uses heterodyning, not beating. Both techniques combine two frequencies to produce sum and difference frequencies. The sentence in question is in the introduction, where it will be read by readers who are not experts in the field. To them, the objections that AmarChandra made to the original sentence on Glrx's talk page, that the power in the sum and difference frequencies in the case of beats can be unequal, is simply not important. I think not only should the original accurate sentence be restored to the introduction, but the article needs a section on the relation of beating to heterodyning. -- Chetvorno TALK 00:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm late returning here, but I agree with Chetvorno. I reverted on the math identity which does not require any nonlinearity. I haven't had a chance to pull the IEEE article, but I'd disagree with the notion that human hearing is linear. Glrx (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I am even later replying, but there is still an issue. A non-expert who reads the sentence in question (Heterodynes are closely related to the phenomenon of "beats" in acoustics.) may believe that beats are caused when signals are combined nonlinearly.  Adding a section on the relation to beats is the best way to clear this up.  Short of this, the sentence in question should be changed to note that a different, although related, phenomenon causes beats. 96.27.143.2 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to add a section on the difference between "beats" and heterodyning. I will write one when I get the time.  However, regardless, I don't think the sentence in the introduction should be changed. The sentence is accurate; it does not say that the two processes are the same. -- Chetvorno TALK 20:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I just re implemented changes the user made to that sentence. Although they are not necessary, they increase clarity without bogging the sentence down.  The value they provide (tipping the non-expert that there is something different going on with beats) is worth the extra 3 syllables.  The original leaves a little room for ambiguity - this clears that up. -hm39  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8BC:3300:11A9:F1AE:4DF3:6D36 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 * If this sentence contains too much information, another alternative is "Heterodynes are closely related to, but distinct from, the phenomenon of "beats" in acoustics.", or "Heterodynes are related to the phenomenon of "beats" in acoustics, but do not cause it.". -hm39

 * It seems to me that heterodyne and beat are closer than the above suggests. If the ear was a perfectly linear detector of audio waves, we would not hear beats, but instead the two separate frequencies. The ear needs to be able to do time dependence of its input, and so can't just do the (infinite time Fourier) spectral response.  The non-linearities are what gives us beats. Gah4 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Tesla wp:redflag
I have removed this paragraph because I do not see this claim in any mainstream sources. It is a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources" and a "claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community," i.e. two points of WP:REDFLAG. The Leland I Anderson source does not mention Heterodyne and the Samuel D. Cohen source is almost 100 years old and offers no detail for the claim (only appearing in a caption) "The First “Beat” Receptor for Radio-Telegraphy Invented by Tesla, Which Foreshadowed the “Heterodyne.”". We are way short of the "multiple high-quality sources" required at WP:REDFLAG. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Heterodyne detection
I propose that the short article Heterodyne detection be merged into this one. That content all seems relevant here (if it isn't here already). Layzeeboi (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree; there is absolutely no need for that article. -- Chetvorno TALK 11:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested info: Accidental heterodyning? (e.g. Tenerife airport disaster)
The Tenerife airport disaster article links to this page in the context of two simultaneous radio broadcasts heterodyning into illegibility. Can someone more knowledgeable than me maybe add a section or subsection discussing this phenomenon? Ninjalectual (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Even though I remember it, I had to read the whole Tenerife airport disaster article before replying. I am assuming that the radios in question use amplitude modulation (AM), otherwise the statements don't make sense. Two AM stations transmitting on exactly the same frequency just add, such that you should hear both conversations. It is my understanding that ATC uses AM for just this reason. Broadcast AM stations (in the US) have a 20Hz tolerance. In that case, two conversations won't exactly overlap, but it should be obvious that it is two. The carrier of each will look like modulation to the other, at the frequency of the difference between the two. That is, pretty much, the meaning of heterodyne here. At 20Hz, it is close to inaudible, but with AGC will reduce the amplitude of each other. However, the article says 3-second-long shrill sound. That implies a carrier difference much more than 20Hz. Shrill implies a much larger frequency difference. Do you know the tolerance for ATC radio frequencies? Gah4 (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Unsourced speculation/extrapolation/synthesis is poor argument. Broadcast AM stations are 540–1600 kHz and are nowhere close to aircraft VHF.
 * Frequency tolerance for the 108–136 MHz aircraft band is 20 ppm. See 47 CFR 87.133.
 * Each transmitter may be off by 20 ppm × 100MHz = 2,000 Hz.
 * Glrx (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I tried to find a reference, but didn't find one.  I didn't guess that Cornell would have it. 2kHz is probably enough to qualify as shrill.  What are pilots supposed to do in that case?  Gah4 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Heterodynes" vs "Heterodyne Frequency"
This article uses the term "heterodynes" throughout in place of "heterodyne frequency". Heterodyne, and all its forms, are either an adjective or a verb. There is no recognized noun form of the word that I can find from any dictionary source in print or online. As we all know, words matter. The proper syntax for the two new frequencies created by mixing two original frequencies in a non-linear device is "Heterodyne Frequencys". In the words of Steven Crowder, "Change my Mind". — Preceding [[Special:Contributions/131.22.200.58|131.22.200.58 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)]] comment added by 131.22.200.56 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 * There is a saying from a famous scientist: Any noun can be verbed. Can we also say that any verb can be nouned?  Gah4 (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 * There were three, one of which is the plural of superheterodyne (receivers). I removed one, is it already was followed by frequency. Now they aren't throughout, but only one. Maybe one isn't too many. Gah4 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

AM
The article says: CW Morse code signals are not amplitude modulated. It seems to me that they are amplitude modulated, with the amplitudes being either zero or full power. The exact sound depends on the shape of the on-off and off-on transitions. But yes, spark gaps generate a wide spectrum of frequencies, including audio frequencies, and CW transmitters mostly don't do that. Gah4 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't call the standard method of transmitting Morse AM; it is OOK. (Compare WWVB's ASK.) There's FCC terminology such as A1 (Morse) and A3 (voice). Morse can be sent as a tone modulating an AM or FM carrier, but such usage does not have the benefit of concentrating the transmitter power into a narrow band. Glrx (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 * on-off keying claims to be a form of Amplitude-shift_keying which claims to be a form of amplitude modulation. Using transitivity, then, OOK is a form of AM. The OOK article mentions minimizing bandwidth, which I believe means making sure that the transitions aren't too fast.  If one just keys the carrier (besides the safety problems at high power), one will get sharp transients and large bandwidth. I think that makes it more like AM, with a band-limited modulation signal. Gah4 (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Principle
A recent edit changes difference to sum, in the generation of sum and difference signals. And that is correct, for the equation given. But why is the cos identity used, and not the sin identity? (We say sinusoid, not cosinusoid.) If the sin identity is used, then it is the difference. And since it really doesn't matter, there is no need to keep sum/difference apart. Gah4 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heterodyne


text:
Sophilos

Sophilos (Σώφιλος; active about 590 – 570 BC) was an Attic potter and vase painter in the black-figure style. Sophilos is the oldest Attic vase painter so far to be known by his true name. Fragments of two wine basins (dinoi) in Athens are signed by him, indicating that he both potted and painted them. In total, 37 vessels are ascribed to him, mostly amphorae, dinoi, kraters, as well as three pinakes. Apart from his work for the domestic market, he was also one of the masters of major significance in the process of supplanting the dominance of Corinthian vase painting in the markets of Etruria, and Southern Italy, the most important export area for Greek vases. His works were exported as far as the Black Sea region, Syria and Egypt (Naukratis).

He was one of the first painters to use additional colours at a grand scale, thus increasing the optical and artistic distinction between Corinthian and Attic vase painting. While he was conservative and traditionalist in terms of the ornamentation and animal figures he used, his intervening figural scenes, mostly of mythological motifs, were entirely innovative. He broke up established standard scenes, had figures act individually, and found clever and unconventional new ways of structuring the narrative. As his artistic style progressed, he increasingly pushed ornamental designs into the margin, as his figural scenes became more and more important. Stylistically, his work is close to that of the late Gorgon Painter, whose style he developed further, to be continued later by Klitias, and culminate in the François vase.

In spite of his innovative pictorial compositions and his talent to constantly invent new scenes; his drawing style was usually not very accurate. The overall impact of his works is hardly diminished by that.

Works (selection)

 * '''Athens, National Archaeological Museum’’’
 * Neck amphora 991 • Chalice krater 995 • Neck amphora 1036 • Fragment of a '’dinos’’ 15499

 * formerly Berlin, Antikensammlung
 * Belly amphora F 1683 (lost 1945)

 * Boston, Museum of Fine Arts
 * Tripod kothon98.915

 * Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität
 * Amphora

 * London, British Museum
 * ’’Dinos’’ 1971.11-11

title: Sophilos