ED R E

S
U ATU
C
FO E FE
SU
S
I

Steve Maas

Armstrong and the

Superheterodyne

t is difficult to pinpoint the invention of the mixer.

Although the superheterodyne receiver was invented by
Edwin Howard Armstrong around 1918, the use of heterodyne techniques began much earlier, and a crude modulator, arguably a sort of mixer, existed in 1906. Thus, we are
currently at a soft 100-year anniversary of the mixer, so it seems
like a good time to look back at that technology to see how it
arose. Its a good story.

istockphoto.com/lightkeeper

Steve Maas (s.maas@nonlintec.com) is with AWR Corporation, El Segundo, California, USA.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MMM.2013.2269858
Date of publication: 6 September 2013

34

1527-3342/13/$31.002013IEEE

September/October 2013

Electronics
In the late 19th century, Thomas Edison added an electrode to an incandescent light bulb to investigate why
his bulbs tended to blacken on the inside. He discovered
that a current could be conducted in only one direction
through the tube; when a positive voltage was applied to
the newly added electrode, current conduction occurred
between it and the filament, but if the voltage polarity
was reversed, no conduction occurred. This puzzling
phenomenon became known as the Edison effect, and he
patented a device based on it, although it was not a radiofrequency (RF) detector. The phenomenon was caused
by thermionic emission of electrons from the filament,
which, as we now understand, were attracted only to a
positively charged anode. Thermionic emission had been
observed earlier, so Edison really just rediscovered it.
In the early 20th century, Ambrose Fleming experimented with the Edison effect with the hope of improving the detectors for radiotelegraph systems produced
by the Marconi company. It seems clear that he must
have understood the rectifying nature of a detector, a
considerable intellectual accomplishment at that time.
Existing detectors were crude; one of the most widely
used, for example, called a coherer, consisted of a closed
tube filled with metal particles. It was not a spectacular
detector by any means, and keeping it working required
repeated tapping to rearrange the metal particles. His
creation was the Fleming valve, the first practical vacuum diode detector and, at that date, the most sensitive
detector created (Figure1). Unfortunately, it was expensive to produce as it involved substantial delicate assembly work, glass fabrication, and evacuation of the bulb,
all expensive prospects at that time. Nevertheless, in
spite of its cost, the Fleming valve was far superior to any
other detector. Vacuum diode detectors had a short technological life span, however; they were soon supplanted
by the cats whisker detector, a kind of primitive pointcontact diode consisting of a metal wire contacting a
crystal of galena, naturally occurring lead sulfide. Patent
litigation between Edison and Fleming also prevented
the valve from being manufactured in quantity.
The reason for the Edison effect was unknown,
which is not a great surprise, as the electron was not discovered until much later, a result of experiments carried
out by J.J. Thompson in 1897. Well into the 20th century,
the idea that the Edison effect was caused by an electron current was not at all clear. An understanding of
the effect was confused by extensive experiments with
cathode rays, which today we might call a form of coldcathode emission, in tubes that were not well evacuated.
In such tubes, the residual gas is ionized by an electric
field and can glow in the vicinity of the cathode. It is
easy to see a parallel between this unidirectional phenomenon and the Edison effect, even though they are
unrelated. At the time, many held a strong belief that
the Edison effect was a type of cathode-ray phenomenon. This idea was not without justification, as tubes

September/October 2013

Figure 1. An early Fleming valve. The two terminals at

the top are for the filament and the side terminal is for the
plate. (Source: IEEE Global History Project.)
often were badly evacuated, and the glow of ionized gas
sometimes could be observed in them.
Around 1904, Lee DeForest experimented with the
Fleming valve, at one point patenting it himself and
claiming to have invented it. Although well educated as
an electrical scientist (his Ph.D. dissertation concerned
reflections at the end of a parallel-wire transmission
line [1]), DeForest was most strongly interested in making money, preferably great quantities of it, and like
many entrepreneurs of his age, he was not terribly troubled by any need for ethical behavior. Indeed, he made
and lost several fortunes during his life. He was also
an enthusiastic but unskilled self promoter, in his later
years claiming the title father of radio [2].
DeForests most important contribution came from a
misunderstanding of the operation of the Fleming valve.
DeForest was a card-carrying member of the cathode-ray
theorists club. From observations of electrical conductivity in flames and their sensitivity to radio waves, he
concluded that the Edison effect was a cathode-ray phenomenon. Convinced that residual gas in the tube was
the key to its operation, DeForest wrapped a wire around
a Fleming valve and showed that it could demodulate a
radio signal, imagining that the wire changed the conductivity of the excited gas plasma. A logical next step in
the development of that idea was simply to move the new
electrode to inside the tube between the filament and
the plate, where its effect was expected to be greater. The
result was the triode vacuum tube, which DeForest called
his audion. Figure2 shows an early DeForest audion tube.
It is ironic that DeForest, who had a penchant for
claiming other peoples inventions, apparently underestimated the importance of his own. It was not until
others began to experiment with the audion that its
real potential emerged. It soon became clear that it was
capable of amplification.

35

Figure 2. A DeForest audion vacuum tube from 1908.

The plate and grid connections are on the right, and the
filament, whose connections use the screw base, seems to
have burned out, not an unusual fate even for more modern
vacuum tubes. (Source: Wikipedia Commons.)
Like most new technologies, early vacuum tubes
were not very good. Their amplification was not great,
and their frequency capability was limited. This was
to change as Edwin Howard Armstrong (Figure 3),
one of the most brilliant and creative engineers of the
20th century, started experimenting with the audion.
Armstrong was still a student at Columbia University when he did the work that led to one of the
most important discoveries and influential papers in
electronics. Working with Prof. John Morecroft, Armstrong began experimenting with the audion. In 1913,
this work led to his first great discovery: enhancement
of amplifier gain by positive feedback, for which he
coined the term regeneration. It comes as no great surprise to most of us that he could use regeneration to
create an oscillator as well; after all, many of us have
performed the same experiment. This was the first
source of RF energy from vacuum-tube electronics.
In 1914, Armstrong published a paper in Electrical
World describing the operation of the audion [4]. In
1915, barely out of school, he presented the information
before the IRE [5]. The paper is considered a classic; it
is indeed remarkable to see the depth of understanding he had developed so early in his work. Some of the
points he made in that paper are noteworthy.
1) He understood that the operation of the audion
was entirely thermionic (he even uses the term),
that no residual gas was necessary, and that residual gas was actually harmful to its operation.
2) He recognized that the wing current (i.e., the
plate current) was a nonlinear function of grid
voltage, and he understood many of the implications of that nonlinearity.
3) He had, by then, discovered regeneration, or
positive feedback. He recognized that it could
be used not only to increase gain but to create a
demodulated receiver (which was later called a
regenerative receiver) and to generate oscillations
in the absence of an input signal.

36

Figure 3. Edwin Howard Armstrong [3].

4) Finally, he noticed that the tube could behave as
a kind of self-oscillating mixer (which he called a
beat receiver) creating a pure telegraph tone.
The paper is also remarkable in showing Armstrongs clear understanding of the physics of the tubes
operation and the nature of its circuit behavior. Modern
concepts such as impact ionization, injection locking
behavior, and even a Colpitts oscillator circuit can be
gleaned from it.
The statement that residual gas was unnecessary was
viewed by DeForest, who believed it to be fundamental
to the operation of the tube, as a direct challenge. It seems
clear, as well, that DeForest resented the young upstart
Armstrong treading on his technological turf. The published version of the paper includes two argumentative
letters from DeForest; Armstrongs responses are to the
point, much more so than DeForests letters, but they
show obvious irritation with what he sees as DeForests
inability to understand (or, more likely, unwillingness to
accept) concepts that he recognized to be obvious and
proven. Indeed, DeForest had claimed to discover regeneration two years earlier than Armstrong, and the two
were in patent litigation at the time of the publication, so
a little bad blood was not unexpected. That litigation continued, in one form or another, for 20 years, eventually
reaching the U.S. Supreme Court [2].
Regeneration allowed a practical receiver to be constructed with a single vacuum triode. Figure4 shows
the schematic of such a receiver. Inductive coupling provided feedback; in early receivers, the coupling was often
adjusted by rotating the feedback coil so its axis was at
an angle with the main coils axis. Achieving good reception required adjusting the feedback so the circuit was
just short of oscillation, and tuning to a new frequency

September/October 2013

usually required readjusting the feedback coil. As well

as providing amplification, the tube acted as a detector.
Armstrong was candid about the difficulty of adjusting receivers based on regeneration. With our modern
understanding of feedback, its not difficult to understand that tuning a receiver having several positivefeedback stages required special skill and patience.
Regeneration was the best thing that could happen to
early vacuum-tube circuitry, but it certainly was not a
mature technique. Something better was needed.
Today, we view noise and dynamic range limitations
as fundamental problems in amplifier design and happily assume that we can achieve any desired gain simply by cascading amplifier stages. This clearly was not
the case in the early 20th century. Because of their high
interelectrode capacitances and low transconductances,
early vacuum triodes simply did not have any gain at
frequencies above 0.5 MHz. Additionally, such essential
components as interstage transformers had limited frequency response. Getting enough gain to hear a weak
signal was a significant difficulty, and achieving adequate gain, as well as greater frequency response, was
the primary goal of vacuum-tube research.
Because of interaction between stages and the resulting tuning difficulties, cascading amplifier stages was not
a practical way to increase gain in a radio receiver. Tubes
also were expensive and used a lot of power, especially
for the filaments. Radios of that era were powered by batteries, and battery life, as now, was an important consideration. It was clear to Armstrong and to everyone else in
the business that further research to increase tube gain
and to simplify the operation of the receiver was necessary. This need, more than anything else, led to the invention of the superheterodyne receiver.

Modulation and Heterodyning

In the early 20th century, another experimenter, Reginald Fessenden, conceived of the idea of heterodyning
and actually coined the term. Like a musician, he was
aware that combining audio waves of slightly different
frequencies produced a beat note, a pulsation in the
intensity of the composite waveform, whose frequency
was the difference of the two original tone frequencies.
Fessenden discovered that two radio signals that were
close in frequency could create a similar beat note, and
he imagined using this idea for detection. Unfortunately,
no clean source of RF energy existed then, so the idea
was well ahead of its time. It was also incorrect, confusing the interference phenomenon of added audio beats
with the multiplicative process of mixing. The idea, however, stuck in the technical consciousness; Armstrong,
for example, referred to it regularly.
Fessenden used a technique for generating radio signals that was very different from the dominant spark
transmitters of his time. He developed high-speed
mechanical ac generators, some operating at speeds of
80,000 r/min, and hooked them directly to antennas.

September/October 2013

Antenna
Headphones
Feedback Coil
Grid-Leak Bias
RF
Bypass
Tuning

B+
Gain

Figure 4. A schematic diagram of a regenerative receiver.

Inductive feedback provides high gain, and the asymmetrical
characteristic of the tube provides rectification for
demodulation. The bypassed resistor provides grid leak
bias: gate-leakage current in this resistor biases the grid to a
negative voltage.
Such generators were capable of a few hundred watts, so
a strong signal, probably stronger than that of an ordinary spark transmitter, could be produced. The operating frequency of most spark transmitters was around
80100 kHz, so Fessendens 80-kHz generators seemed
thoroughly appropriate. They also produced a much
cleaner signal, which could be used, when modulated,
for voice transmission.
By connecting a carbon microphone in series with
the antenna lead of his transmitter, Fessenden created a crude modulator, probably the first in existence,
although the modulation percentage must have been
quite low. He tested the idea on Christmas Eve in 1906
by transmitting voice and music; today, that transmission is viewed as the first radio broadcast.
Attempts also had been made to modulate spark
transmitters, usually by inserting a carbon microphone
into the low-voltage part of the transmitter. DeForest performed one such experiment in 1910, which is
sometimes incorrectly credited with being the first
radio broadcast. Spark transmitters, however, produce
damped pulses of RF energy, not continuous sinusoidal
signals. This characteristic was probably helpful in creating an audible tone in early receivers, but that spectrally
dirty signal could not be cleanly modulated. Although
DeForest claimed to have achieved high-quality audio,
that claim was probably more self-promotion than
reality. Attempts to modulate spark transmitters were
invariably disappointing. (For an example of the sound
of a modulated spark transmitter, see http://www.
hammondmuseumofradio.org/Fess_voice_trans.AIFF.)
Fessenden probably never understood the multiplicative nature of modulation and heterodyning or
their equivalence. Armstrong eventually figured it out,
of course, but its not clear that he appreciated the distinction in his earlier papers. It is clear, in his 1914/1915
papers, however, that he was making good use of the
phenomenon. From that point, it was just one short step
to heterodyning a signal to an intermediate frequency

37

L
C

D1

D2
T2

T1

Figure 5. A schematic diagram of an early

superheterodyne receiver. The input H is for the local
oscillator (LO) and the diode D1 is the mixer. A is the IF
amplifier. A second diode, D2, is used as the audio detector.
The loop L is the antenna, which typically consisted of a
few turns of wire approximately one meter in diameter [8].
instead of baseband and thus the invention of the superheterodyne receiver.

The Superheterodyne
It seems clear that communication systems operating at a
few hundred kilohertz wouldnt be acceptable very long.
Efficient antennas were large in that frequency range, and
atmospheric noise was severe. The available bandwidth
was not great, receiver selectivity was poor, and the number of radiotelegraph stations was increasing rapidly. Writers of the time discussed the problem of owning the air:
the fact that often only a single station could transmit, as
receivers could not separate individual transmitters [6].
The value of wireless radiotelegraphy was increasing
rapidly in the early 20th century. Perhaps the most dramatic demonstration of its value was in directing rescue
ships to the site of the Titanic disaster in 1912 [7]. (Indeed,
David Sarnoff, the legendary head of RCA, claimed to
have participated in that effort as a young telegrapher.
That story is almost certainly an attempt by Sarnoff to
polish his reputation, however, which on many occasions
did indeed need a bit more luster.) As a result, the pressure for improvements in wireless technology was great.
In 1914, the first world war broke out, and, like wars
since then, it became a stimulus for the rapid development
of radio technology. It was clear, early in the U.S. participation in the war, that radio could be used for direction finding. For that to be practical, however, higher frequencies
were needed. The limitations of early vacuum tubes and
their associated components were so severe that amplification at higher frequencies initially didnt seem possible.
Research began in the United States and France on
receivers and transmitters that could operate at the
extraordinarily high frequencies of 36 MHz. Only with
the most painstaking research did it become possible to
make amplifiers in that frequency range; tubes required
low interelectrode capacitances, and other components,
especially interstage coupling transformers, had to have
low capacitive parasitics. Even so, the amplifiers had little
gain and exhibited interstage interactions, even oscillation.
Tuning a receiver consisting of a cascade of such amplifi-

38

ers was painfully slow and difficult, as each interstage network had to be tuned individually. That was unacceptable
for military use; something better was necessary.
By that time, Armstrong had joined the army. Given
a commission as a major, he was hard at work creating improved receivers for the American military and
its allies. In conjunction with researchers in France, he
developed improved vacuum tubes and interstage transformers. The problems of low gain and difficult tuning
remained, however, and Armstrong was deeply concerned by them. At some point, probably in 1918, he took
the idea of heterodyning one step further. Instead of converting the received signal to the audio frequency range,
he converted it to an intermediate frequency (IF) of a few
tens of kilohertz, where it could be amplified more easily. At 10 kHz, tubes had enough gain that regeneration
was not needed, so interstage interactions could be minimized. At the end of the amplifier chain, a conventional
detector was used.
The superheterodyne neatly avoided a number of
problems that bedeviled heterodyne receivers. Most
importantly, the receivers sensitivity to oscillator drift
was reduced, as the down-converted signal could drift
around happily within the IF bandwidth, usually at
least a few kilohertz. This was much milder than the
stability of a few tens of hertz required when a signal
was converted directly to baseband. The problem of tuning the interstage networks of interacting stages also
disappeared, as the IF amplifier chain could be tuned
once and left untouched after that. The operator tuned
only the oscillator frequency and perhaps tweaked the
antenna tuning a little; only rarely was more adjustment needed. Some problems of interaction between the
oscillator and mixer were encountered, especially when
economics dictated that the functions be integrated into
a single tube. This problem was largely eliminated by
using the second harmonic of the oscillator for mixing,
an idea that Armstrong generously credited to one of his
coworkers. It seems that harmonic, self-oscillating mixers are not by any means a modern invention.
Armstrong also encountered instability in long
chains of IF amplifiers, especially at higher frequencies.
To avoid this, he suggested the use of a dual-conversion system, each IF having only enough gain to keep
it stable. Of course, much of that instability was caused
by poor grounding; the receivers were built in wooden
boxes, after all, and had no shielding. Later work identified ways to prevent such instability, but for other reasons, dual conversion receivers remained attractive.
Armstrongs early superheterodyne receivers used
vacuum-tube oscillators and diode mixers; by then,
cartridge-mounted, point-contact diodes had become
available. Later, receivers used vacuum-tube mixers and,
to reduce the power requirements and the number of
expensive tubes, self-oscillating mixers. The heterodyning signal, which today we call the local oscillator (LO),
and the received RF signal were applied to the mixer

September/October 2013

at the same port, without any attempt to filter or diplex

them. It is likely that the LO radiation from the receiver
was substantial, and it is fortunate that the enemy had
not developed the sophistication to use this for locating radiotelegraph stations. Armstrong alludes to this
problem by mentioning that the second-harmonic mixer
reduces LO radiation significantly.
Armstrong described the superheterodyne receiver
most completely in two papers, one in 1921 [8] and a
second in 1924 [9]. These make fascinating reading for
modern RF and microwave engineers. The 1921 paper
largely introduces the technique, discusses a number of
implementations, and describes the practical considerations in each. Figure5 shows a schematic diagram of
an early receiver taken from that paper. The principle
is clearly the same as in modern receivers, and, in fact,
might well describe some receivers built today. The 1924
paper is more comprehensive.
The 1924 paper, like the 1915 audion paper, made a
number of remarkable points whose validity is easily
recognized by todays engineers:
1) Armstrong recognized the problem of interaction
between stages, even in the IF amplifier, which
led him to reject regeneration in that part of the
receiver. It was clear that any use of regeneration,
beyond a single tube, would require a skilled operator, and his goal was to eliminate that need.
2) He also recognized the importance of circuit interactions on oscillator stability.
3) He understood that the tuning of the IF amplifier was critical to achieving good selectivity and
describes the use of sharp-cutoff filtering to minimize interference.
4) By then, reasonably good high-frequency tubes
were available, so a receiver using a single stage of
RF amplification was described. It had the advantage not only of increased sensitivity but also of
reduced pulling (as we would call it today) of the
oscillator by the antennas loading.
5) Finally, the paper shows a clear understanding of
the effects of noise in various parts of the receiver,
and that sensitivity is ultimately limited, in a well
designed receiver, not by internal electrical noise
but by atmospherics. It describes also the reception
of signals in New York from transmitters all over
the United States, and occasionally even Europe.
By 1924, considerable effort was underway to create
receivers for ordinary radio broadcasting. Armstrong had
sold his superheterodyne patent to RCA, and RCA engineers were working assiduously to improve the technology. An important goal was to make it practical and cost
effective for home use [2], [10]. It seems clear that, without
the superheterodyne, such receivers were at best impractical. Even so, some manufacturers attempted to create
tuned-RF receivers, consisting of a chain of amplifiers
having gang-tuned interstage networks. Its not difficult
to imagine how unwieldy those circuits must have been.

September/October 2013

Radio technology improved dramatically through the

following decades, and mixer technology improved as
well, although more because of improvements in vacuum
tubes and electronic components than because of any
deeper understanding of mixer theory. That would wait
until the 1940s and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Radiation Laboratory. Until then, however, radio
broadcasting experienced a period of growth and creativity that seems, in retrospect, magical [11]. It could not have
happened without the superheterodyne receiver.
I would love to say that Armstrong lived out the rest
of his life as an elder statesman of radio, continuing to
develop new ideas and new technology while imparting
knowledge and wisdom to younger engineers. Unfortunately, that was not to happen. Political machinations at
the U.S. Federal Communications Commission crippled
his FM radio broadcast system, and unending legal battles
with his onetime friend, David Sarnoff, over patent rights
destroyed his fortune and his spirit. Much of this was the
result of political influence of the nascent television industry, strongly assisted by Sarnoff. In 1954, at his emotional
limit, Armstrong stepped out of the window of his New
York apartment and into the air. His body was found a few
hours later, on a third-floor patio, by a custodian.
Ironically, Armstrongs greatest legal successes were
won after his death, as his wife, Marion Armstrong, continued and eventually won all of Armstrongs patent suits
against RCA. David Sarnoff, on the other hand, spent the
rest of his life denying the perception that he had driven
Armstrong to suicide. DeForest publicly expressed sadness over Armstrongs death but showed little sincerity.
It is also ironic that regeneration, for which Armstrong
fought his hardest patent battles, is no longer in use, but
his other major inventions, the superheterodyne receiver
and FM radio, survived into the present and show every
sign of continuing long into the future. However tragic
his life, he remains one of the great engineers of our time.

References
[1] L. DeForest, Reflections of Hertzian waves at the ends of parallel
wires, Ph.D. dissertation, Yale Univ., New Haven, CT, 1899.
[2] T. Lewis, Empire of the Air: The Men Who Made Radio. New York:
Harper Collins, 1991.
[3] J. E. Brittain, Scanning our past: electrical engineering hall of
fameEdwin H. Armstrong, Proc. IEEE, vol. 92, no. 3, Mar. 2000.
[4] A. H. Armstrong, Operating features of the audion, Elec. World,
vol. 62, no. 24, p. 1149, Dec. 12, 1914.
[5] E. H. Armstrong, Some recent developments in the audion receiver, Proc. IRE, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 215247, Sept. 1915.
[6] T. D. Taylor, Music, Sound, and Technology in America. Durham, NC:
Duke Univ. Press, 2012.
[7] I. Settel, A Pictorial History of Radio. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1967.
[8] E. H. Armstrong, A new system of short wave amplification,
Proc. IRE, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 311, Jan. 1921.
[9] E. H. Armstrong, The super-heterodyneIts origin, development, and some recent improvements, Proc. IRE, vol. 12, no. 5, pp.
539552, May 1924.
[10] H. Silverman, One cityTwo giants: Armstrong and Sarnoff,
IEEE Signal Processing Mag., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 125136, Nov. 2011.
[11] M. C. Keith, Talking Radio. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2000.

39