Talk:Radio frequency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Banners 2 ELF 3 This page is lacking in many areas IMHO. 4 More charts 5 RF Connectors 6 Some suggestive names for future ITU bands. 7 Is there a radio spectrum pollution article anywhere? 8 Merge 9 MHz? 10 Wavelenght 11 article name 12 Rework of this article

[edit] Banners

	Portal 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.
Help with this template 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.

	Radio Portal This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	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 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

---

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)

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.

But this article is not about RF circuits; that's at radio electronics. -- Beland 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comment, maybe radio electronics needs to be merged with electronics. This article is about RF itself (mainly RF electrical currents), not RF circuits, and not waves. It seems to me RF is distinct enough from those topics to warrant an article, if it is not distinct, we can delete it, but not combine it with something technically unrelated but often confused with. If it appears RF should be merged with Radio Waves, perhaps the articles don’t describe them properly.

Surprisingly (to me) there must be a lot of confusion about the distinction between waves and frequency. To combine the articles would simply add to the confusion so Im against merge. Before we can proceed with a discussion, it might be a good thing for participants to first understand the distinction.

Radio frequency is a kind of frequency. Radio frequency could conceivably be discussed under the topic frequency, but it would make the RF article unaccessible under that topic. It would not make common sense.

Radio waves is not a kind of frequency because waves are not frequency. Frequency is the time rate of oscillation, it does not travel. RF does not travel through space, RF is not even a thing, it is a rate of change of something, usually current. This is the way we most often use it (technically that is also a slight misuse, but conventional) is for electric currents, but never (properly) as a wave.

Waves are a thing, they travel through space. Just because waves can have a property of frequency doesn’t make them the same thing nor does it imply that any kind of waves are a subset of any kind of frequency, or vice versa. Waves have a property of amplitude too, but why are there no suggestions to combine it with some kind of amplitude topic? (I may regret that question...)John 06:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MHz?

what does the "M" in front of the hertz mean?

Mega, as in Megahertz. -- Beland 15:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wavelenght

The wave lenghts are wrong. They are much too big. Check out the formula here in wikipedia under wavelenght.

They agree with the chart on Electromagnetic spectrum. -- Beland 16:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article name

I came to this article for a definition of "radio frequency". Alas, there doesn't seem to be one. Instead, the article is about radio bands, and electromagnetic waves.

In normal usage, does a 500 kHz signal qualify as RF? What about 50 kHz? —EncMstr 22:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and yes. John 06:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rework of this article

This article used to contain a great deal more information. It was all deleted as a minor edit about six months ago [1]. This is really inappropriate to delete 90% of an article and not discuss it on the talk page AND mark it as minor. I was about to restore it before I realised that most of the deleted information is now in radio waves. Still not sure I shouldn't have just restored it. The editor who did this seems to think that this article should be about radio frequency other than transmissions. I find this a bit odd. I expect to find here information on radio bands - I followed a link that said it was here. The radio waves article I would expect to be on the physics of radio propagation. The table of bands has since been recreated by other editors but there were other tables and several templates were using them. I have fixed the MWband template but there are others. There are also a huge number of incoming links from all over the wiki many of which are expecting information that is not here any more. In short the job was botched and was not by consensus in any case. I propose to reverse the change. SpinningSpark 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)