Talk:Frequency mixer

message: Another form of mixer operates by switching, with the smaller input signal being passed inverted or uninverted according to the phase of the local oscillator (LO). This would be typical of the normal operating mode of a packaged double balanced mixer, with the local oscillator drive considerably higher than the signal amplitude. 
:I wish this sentence could be explained more fully. 89.217.6.135 (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: JC wept! As an engineer who uses mixers daily, I wouldn't recognize the article as being related to either a simple, or a pedantic, treatment of mixers. While most of the words written are true, they are irrelevant and uninformative, one would need to be an expert to understand in what sense they are true, a beginner would be hopelessly lost.
:As I mostly was, except for the math. 89.217.6.135 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a lot clearer than the present article, where one of the signals is inverted depending (how?) on the phase of the other. 89.217.6.135 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks NeilUK for writing something practical. --NA 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NeilUK, please add your description of a frequency mixer to the wiki and then we'll have an understandable description (for non eng types) and we'll still have the "math" geek description too.64.50.249.202 (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reader I would love to see this written into the wiki! Your explanation includes information I have not seen in any other article. 89.217.6.135 (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm removing the  template from the top of this article.  It has been there for some time with no explanation, and with no discussion here.  I assume it was added because someone saw the word we in the text.  Looking at WP:Manual of Style#Avoid first-person pronouns and one, mathematical discussions such as where we may be found here are clearly made an exception to the normal rule: "It is also acceptable to use “we” in mathematical derivations; for example: “To normalize the wavefunction, we need to find the value of the arbitrary constant A.”" --Nigelj 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see the  template has been re-added, but still no discusssion or comment regarding my quote above from the Manual of Style.  I think the problem is either lack of familiarity with mathematical texts, or the same with the Manual of Style. I can't be bothered to keep trying to help here without constructive discussion. --Nigelj 18:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the "we" has anything to do with it directly; I get the feeling it was re-added because of the conversational nature of the prose, as a dialog with questions and suggestions rather than as a simple narrative.  I've rewritten the entire article to say the same thing more clinically, and removed the ; I hope it will be easier to improve it further now (perhaps with NeilUK's suggestions at the top of this page).  --Tardis 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove 'tone' tag from article 

message: * Agree As they are on the same subject, but taking two different approaches: one based on the principles, the other based on the implementation and uses. IMHO the should be merged - Figarema 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: comment: Muennemann, you seem to be talking about the difference between a Gilbert cell and a ring modulation circuit. Remind me again -- which one is not electronic, and which one is not a frequency mixer? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding merger with Electronic mixer