Talk:Radio frequency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Banners
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of High importance within physics. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
Radio frequency is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
This page should definitely be merged with that other page that you guys wanted to merge it with. The subject matter if very different. Watch college basketball games today.
[edit] ELF
Isn't there a cow, Extreme Low Frequeny ?
Yes, but there doesn't seem to be agreement on the extent of it, so I finally settled for "below 3 kHz." -Palmpilot900
- Try Extremely low frequency (SEWilco 08:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC))
[edit] This page is lacking in many areas IMHO.
First off BNC is (British Nut Connector or it varies) (and this is most often Video, or in it rg58 form yes RF) The most common connector is a F connector on a RG6 cable vis-a-vis house hold cable or outdoor antenna connection. Not a BNC.
Also need to mention RF radiation. (IE are you getting zapped) RF Engineering.
And the H and vertical elements and magnetic.
(above from anonymous)
I would have to agree with the fellow above, this articule is lacking in many areas. Unlike some people on this discussion board, I feel merging the Radio Frequency page with the Radio Wave page would add confusion to the reader. On the other hand I'd suggest linking the Radio Wave page to the Wave page, because of the Wave Propagation section. After all there are many kind of Waves: Radio, Light, Sound, Energy, Shockwaves, Kinetic, etc. Wave Propagation applies to most/all of them does it not?
Also, some mention or links to the different radio spectrum regulatory commissions (ie: FCC, EU, IEEE, etc) wiki pages would be helpful aswell.
<CodeMonkeyLikeFritos>
[edit] More charts
Maybe https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/freqspec.htm would be of use. (SEWilco 08:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC))
[edit] RF Connectors
Entering RF in search goes to RF disambig page, not here, so the RF connectors should be moved there. They really don't belong on this page. --Blainster 16:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Some suggestive names for future ITU bands.
After thinking a while, and searching in many sources (including books, Internet), I've got a collection of suggestive names for decade bands in the electromagnetic spectrum. There are enough names to extend the ITU nomenclature beyond visible light: e.g.: THF, HHF, AHF, IHF, RHF
Here is how I assigned these names:
| Band name | Abbr | "ITU band" | Frequency Wavelength |
Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tremendously high frequency | THF | 12 | 300–3000 GHz 1 mm – 100 μm |
far infrared |
| Hyper high frequency | HHF | 13 | 3–30 THz 100 μm – 10 μm |
thermal infrared |
| Astounishly high frequency | AHF | 14 | 30–300 THz 10 μm – 1 μm |
middle and near infrared |
| Incredibly high frequency | IHF | 15 | 300–3000 THz 1 μm – 100 nm |
near IR, visible, near UV. |
| Really high frequency | RHF | 16 | 3–30 PHz 100 nm – 10 nm |
hard UV. |
I've seen the band THF - Tremendously High Frequency already in use in many documents written in many european languages (English, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc) with exactly the same definition in the table above.
The remaining bands aren't official ITU bands, are just suggestions. What do you think about? Any suggestions? What about to propose them to ITU?
The "ITU band number" that appears in the article table and in this table follows a very simple logic. It's simply the base-10 logarithm of the central frequency of the band (in Hz) rounded to the nearest integer. Eg. for the band AHF, the central frequency is near 100THz, so it's "ITU band number" is log10(1014) = 14.
Maaf 2:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Somehow "glow" seems appropriate. :-) But don't worry, engineers will make sure they have names before they get used. (SEWilco 03:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
I've sent an e-mail to ITU pointing to this article (Radio frequency) and to this discussion page. I've also asked them to verify the correctness of the article.
SEWilco, what did you mean by " Somehow "glow" seems appropriate. :-)"? I'm not a native english speaker, and I haven't understand what you meant.
By the way, the THF - Tremendously High Frequency already exists (even if it's not an official ITU band), perhaps it did existed even before I thinked about the subject. I'm going to write a short article about THF. What do you think?
Regards, Maaf. (Maaf 3:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
I do not believe that any of these suggested terms for frequencies far above 100 GHz will come into common use. One should recall that the technologies needed to generate and detect frequencies from ELF up to UHF are all quite similar, but the technologies needed to generate and detect radiation at higher frequencies is quite different. As a result, there is an entirely different community of practitioners, who already have their own well-established terminology. It is probably best to stick to these (somewhat) established terms, in order to minimize confusion.
- In addition, the atmosphere absorbs all these frequences pretty well, so they're all useless for radio communication. The ELF-EHF naming conventions are almost solely used for radio communication purposes. -- Ch'marr 02:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is there a radio spectrum pollution article anywhere?
Hello. Can anyone with an interest in this article suggest an article somewhere that might discuss radio spectrum pollution? (More specifically, the problem of radio frequencies overlapping and so on -- I don't know if there are other names for it.) I'm not exactly an expert on the electromagnetic spectrum, but a while ago I thought that the Light pollution article should be disambiguated from non-visual light, because as related as they are on some levels, that article doesn't presently discuss anything other than visible spectrum light pollution. (It's also quite long, and the topics might work better being split anyway.) At the time, I made a stub article called Radio spectrum pollution, but it's been a stub for a while, and I'm wondering if there might be a better place to disambiguate to. Thanks for any help or suggestions. Izogi 04:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Howard6 06:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC) The page exists. There are issues within RF which correspond to light pollution; the main difference is that the main concern in the RF area is the effect the extraneous RF has. The correct term when considering unwanted radio waves would be "Radio Frequency Interference". See interference.
[edit] Merge
I propose merging this article with radio waves, and suggest that wave radio would be the best title for the combined article. Discussion is at talk:radio waves#Merge.--Srleffler 01:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- support merge with preferred surviving name of Radio frequency Anlace 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I ve read the old posts, but they are not very convincing on the name. It sounds like there is agreement on the merger. The name really should be Radio frequency. Doesn't anybody else here work in this field? Besides being outmoded, the term "radio wave" is really not nearly as encyclopaedic as "radio frequency". Google hits are 20:1 supporting Radio frequency, but more importantly Radio frequency hits are clearly tied to the more encylopaedic literature whereas many of the "radio wave" hits are linked to pop-science etc. Anlace 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- support merge with preferred surviving name of Radio frequency Anlace 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Electrumz 05:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) I was searching for information regarding RF inductance coils from the inductuction coils page and was lead to this page about radio waves. Perhaps there is not a page for what I was looking for; however, if there was, has it been replaced by this page? Electrumz 05:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Howard6 06:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC) against merge I am an electrical engineer with 30 years experience in RF design and working with radio waves; the two terms have very different connotations even though they sound similar. Amongst the engineering and telecommunications community, "Radio Frequency, or RF" defines a distict field of engineering and in this respect is a bit of a misnomer. "Radio Waves" are only one phenomenon within the broader field of RF. "Radio Waves" refers to the existence of waves in air and space; "RF" also refers to the circuitry which controls and modifies these waves and the existence of these waves within RF circuitry.
