Talk:Microwave transmission

Untitled
PttrPnkn (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Air-born pollen at any rational concentration attenuating noticeably microwave signals must be just another silly urban legend. It is contrary to my 30-year+ experience with microwave links. Citation on pollen affecting microwaves outside the microwave oven is required.


 * Tunable microwave device **

This section is complete gibberish. I don't mean that these tunable devices are nonsense themselves, I just mean that the section makes no sense in English. And, I suspect, this article is also not the right place for it, since tunable devices belong here as much as any other electronic component related to microwaves. I go on to delete that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.13.213 (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Were they refering to a microwave? I have never heard of them described as such. There is a microwave page, so no issues.Millertime246 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is wrong microwaves have a relatively large wavelength but a smaller wavelength than radiowaves-in this article it says they have a small wavelength.--94.1.177.16 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
If you read the section on Wireless Power Transmission (WPT), it's pretty obvious that the paragraph "During the Cold War, the US intelligence agencies, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), were reportedly able to intercept Soviet microwave messages using satellites such as Rhyolite.[5] Microwave also used in mobile communication." doesn't belong in that section, as it has nothing to do tith WPT. --50.129.254.188 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe add information on the recent Pearlman activity and possible impact?
The implications of Steve Pearlman's recent research and patent filings (using a [PCell] concept) could be huge. Regardless whether the 5G or 6G standard will be based on PCells or not, this could very well become the main wireless energy transfer technology present in the lives of civilians/consumers.

So maybe there should exist a section about Patent US8469122 and the potential applications as noted in this excellent summary: http://akbars.net/how-steve-perlmans-revolutionary-wireless-technology-works-and-why-its-a-bigger-deal-than-anyone-realizes.html

Maybe a separate article on the subject or this new pCell protocol and a mentioning on the [List of emerging technologies]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.88.207.45 (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Microwave transmission. 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/20051023080942/http://www2.univ-reunion.fr/~lcks/Old_Version/PubIAF97.htm to http://www2.univ-reunion.fr/~lcks/Old_Version/PubIAF97.htm

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) 11:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal split article into two, Microwave Power Transmission and Microwave Radio Transmission?
There is a section within this article that relates to Microwave POWER Transmission, I feel that this should have its own wiki page. The Main article is actually about Microwave Radio Transmission.

So I Propose that the article be split into two separate ones. Perhaps Microwave Radio Transmission and Microwave Power Transmission? Please comment. kind regards,Read-write-services (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly that the power transmission content should be removed - glad you brought it up - but I think it should be merged into Wireless power transfer.  I don't think the microwave power transmission content is large enough to merit its own article, and it can fit well within this existing article, which explains it in context with other wireless power transmission technologies.  A separate microwave power transmission article would necessarily duplicate a lot of the content in Wireless power transmission. -- Chetvorno TALK 03:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I see! I didn't realise that there was an article about Wireless power transmission-thanks for bringing that to my attention, well then I guess that that would be the best place to put this (microwave power transmission) article then.Read-write-services (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So, Could someone perhaps User:Chetvorno? Please split this article into the two technologies i.e. Microwave POWER transmission (or merge the relevant information into Wireless Power Transmission article) and, Microwave Radio Transmission (links), as I don't have the time to do this myself-However, I will expand etc. the resulting article, once this is done, thanks. Read-write-services (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ A year late. Sorry, --ChetvornoTALK 03:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Order of magnitude
When a number is "of the order of magnitude 40", it's somewhere between 4 and 400 - the difference between miles and kilometres is not significant for a 1-significant-digit approximation of distance expressed with this qualifier. Why change 40 miles to 64 kilometres, and not 64.37336 kilometres? Because there's only 1 significant figure. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You missed my point (or maybe I missed yours), however, I was correcting the distance conversion? That I thought you were trying to do. 40 Miles is 64 kilometers. (In actual fact we use nautical miles, when discussing radio paths, regardless of whether the local area/country is metric.) I think that either the conversion you are using is wrong, or you meant that 40mi was the same as 40Km which it is not. I see you have chosen to revert it again-to 64 kilometres-that's fine, again, that is not what I was trying to fix. I think you think I'm pedantic about the decimal point accuracy, which you can see-I'm not. Sorry, If you have taken offence, I'm trying to do, the same as you, keep Wikipedia healthy, accurate and factual, Cheers.Read-write-services (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't matter. It's an order of magnitude comparison. What we're trying to do is give the reader some idea of the distance between towers. We need to convey that it's longer than an afternoon walk, but less than the distance you'd take a jet to travel. 40 miles or kilometres is about the same from this perspective.  The exact distance is the result of days of calculations and reliability estimates and doesn't matter to us here, because we're not designing a micorwave link.  It is always wrong to do a metric conversion (or lb-ft conversion) that implies more significant figures than the original source supplied; it's false precision. 64.37336 km is as wrong as 64 and for the same reason; the source figure of 40 miles has only one significant digit,and, since we're just giving an order of magnitude, it doesn't matter if we say 40 km or 60 km or 64.37336 km as the metric equivalent. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are claiming that 40 miles is 40 kilometres (which is actually what you said in the original edit summary). You are now claiming that 4 to 400 miles is the same as 4 to 400 kilometres which it isn't - it's 6.4 to 640 kilometres (to two significant figures, though 6 to 600 km would be entirely adequate in this context).  'Of the order of' is often interpreted as 'approximately' regardless of its strictly correct meaning, certainly in this context. Nevertheless, anyone seeing your version will almost certainly add the conversion on sight as two of us now have. 86.153.132.218 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above, by 86.153.132.218, The point I was making was not the precision, or otherwise of your calculation, it was the inference that 40 mi being the same/or, in the order of, 40Km. It's not.Read-write-services (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked a few people how they would interpret the statement, "... of the order of 40 miles". All agreed that it could be rewritten more succinctly as, "... approximately 40 miles" as I suggested. Wtshymanski's interpretation that the phrase is interpreted as ,"it's somewhere between 4 and 400", does not square with the phrase as written, because in that context it should be written as, "... of three orders of [magnitude] of 40 miles". That is 4..40..400 (three orders) which tells the reader nothing useful. I note that Wtshymanski has removed the claim which is OK as it was unreferenced anyway. In any case the line of sight distance is heavily dependant on the elevation of the stations concerned. The German Luftwaffe routinely had line of sight distances of around 600 mi or more from aircraft flying at high altitude over Britain to Stolberg in Denmark during bombing raids. 86.149.143.168 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If my co-editors are this uncertain about the meaning of the expression "order of", then it can't help but confuse the readers and we should extirpate it from the encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have found no evidence of anyone who is unfamiliar with the obvious meaning of 'of the order of' with the single exception of yourself. 86.149.143.168 (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's original research and inadmissible on WP. 4 to 400 is two orders of magnitude, anyway, but thanks for playing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not when a simple Google shows that I (and everyone else bar you) is right. . 86.149.143.168 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And while we are at it... If your 40 miles is an order of magnitude, then 4 miles is another order of magnitude, and the 400 miles is a third. That's three orders of magnitude in total. 86.149.143.168 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microwave transmission. 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/20100125152731/http://www.porticus.org/bell/longlines.html to http://www.porticus.org/bell/longlines.html

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) 10:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Article should be renamed
Now that microwave power transmission has been removed from the article and it is limited to communication, it seems to me the current name Microwave transmission is overinclusive and ambiguous (actually it always seemed that way to me). Should the article be renamed?

We could move it to the existing redirect Microwave communication. However, "microwave communication" is a gynormous, huge, sprawling subject area, as most modern telecommunication services are using microwaves: microwave relay, cordless phones, cellphones,  Wifi, Bluetooth, cable television, communication satellites, interplanetary spaceflight communication, satellite television, television studio backhaul,  low latency stock trading,  wireless microphones, baby monitors, aircraft transponders, computer data busses, telephone trunklines, amateur radio moonbounce. . . . There's not much all these applications have in common besides microwave frequencies. It would be a lot of work to write an adequate article on microwave communication.

Another idea is to move the article to the redirect Microwave relay. Most of the article is about this already, and my feeling is there could be an article devoted to this subject alone. Microwave relay refers to the historical networks of daisy-chained microwave stations set up on mountaintops after World War 2 by phone companies to transmit telephone calls and television programs between cities. This technology was the ancestor of the zillions of terrestrial microwave dish links you see hanging off office buildings and radio towers today; it's just not called "microwave relay" anymore. Or we could make the article about point-to-point terrestrial microwave data links in general, and include the old microwave relay systems as history. I think I'd prefer one of these latter two ideas, they are smaller and more doable. What does everyone think? --ChetvornoTALK 05:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree: the article to me was actually originally about microwave radio communications-links/relays anyway so I think it should be within or instead of microwave relay. I teach terrestrial microwave radio links (perhaps that should be the title Terrestrial Microwave link communication?), so it makes very good sense to me that your suggestion is a good one! keep up the good workRead-write-services (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)