Talk:Skywave

Do it!

(Another response): The Earth's ionosphere is a physical "object" layer of the earth's atmosphere, quite apart from skywaves, which are electromagnetic radiation trajectories. Certainly the state of the ionosphere is critical to the propagation of skywaves, just as the opaqueness of glass is critical to the transmission of light. But skywave is an important and separate phenomenon which has played and still play a critical role in radio transmission. While the current "skywave" article is minimalist, a complete study of the phenomenon from many angles (scientific, technical, historical and political for starters) could easily consume a very large volume. It's a complex and fascinating technical subject. For these reasons I suggest that it be kept separate.


 * I have to agree with this logic and say not to merge the two pages. KeoniPhoenix 12:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Correction
The wavelength of a signal in meters is 300,000/frequency in KHz. Thus the wavelength of a 30KHz signal is 10,000 m or 10 Km. The ionosphere is at about 100 Km, so I corrected what an earlier editor wrote changing 30Khz to 3Khz. Although I'm not certain what bearing a wavelength greater than the distance to the i-sphere has on skywave prop. Twang 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NB. You mean kHz and km. KHz and Km are both incorrect. There is no SI prefix "K". K is for Kelvins.--Srleffler 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, a typo on the Talk page. (Tell the people who use MB for megabytes)Twang 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! Pedantic pontification like that is why you guy geeks never have any sex but the illiterate dumb guys do!  Helvitica Bold  00:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Note on Sporadic-E (E-skip)
possible correlation with lightning, which is associated with whistlers sprites et. al., which may be the result of draining iono. charge to earth's surface ... which may "light up" the iono-surface somewhat. Might be a thought should someone decide to go all tech on the subject later.) -- Twang 09:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article needs to be broken into sections, and the See also and External links lists are really long - can they be incorporated into the text somehow?--Kharker 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Kharker: I've done some of what you suggested. In the event that the article doesn't attract other editors, I could try to incorporate more links into the article. Some of them are peripherally related, but I think their presence is hypertextual for people trying to traverse the subject of radio; short of consolidating all articles on propagation (which would certainly overload article length and discourage more depth later on) I think it's a good mix. Twang 01:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

History
I'm not expert enough here to do the edits, but perhaps another amateur radio historian is--the section describes first amateur transatlantic tests as being in 1931, I believe it was December, 1921. Also, 200 meters wasn't the shortest wavelength amateurs were permitted to use, it was the longest (hence the ARRL history book title "200 meters on down"). The great discovery of the day was that shorter wavelengths than 200 meters were useful for "skip" communication. Dkazdan (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Skywave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091130112737/http://www.arrl.org:80/news/features/1998/1102/2/?nc=1 to http://www.arrl.org/news/features/1998/1102/2/?nc=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Skywave. 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/20150320053915/http://www.porthcurno.org.uk/page.php?id=104 to http://www.porthcurno.org.uk/page.php?id=104

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) 03:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Difference between sky and space wave propagation
Please the question Pratik salekar (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Radio Act of 1912
A citation to the Radio Act of 1912 that I added to the article was removed. Here is that ref.

Here is an image of that page from that source:

 Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 10:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That is a useful reference. Put it back in, but try to make the link so it can be accessed. As it was I repeatedly got error 503 when I tried to read it, which was one reason for the deletion. Also be very careful about the wording. It is wavelengths 200 meters and SHORTER that the private stations (amateurs) were allowed to use as they were deemed useless. I made the change I did because your change at 03:20, 16 October 2021‎ it was wrongly stated as LONGER. The Longer waves were well used and considered the better ones. I am sure you know what the facts were and simply got the wording wrong which is so very easy with the wavelength/frequency confusion.

I found conflicting sources as to the "technical" legal status of operation on shorter waves than 200 meters. Were amateurs assigned "all wavelengths shorter than 200 meters", or were they assigned 200 meters, period? I accept that without an authoritative reference, taking a side on that issue was unwarranted.

During 1921, the Amateurs crowded together on 200 meters and only gradually learned to use the shorter waves which were technically more difficult. A 1921 Jan QST editorial insisted that the law allowed that, but I think it was a "grey area". Many of the services, including broadcasting, at first were permitted only on a specific wavelength for all stations, not a range of wavelengths. And like the article once said, the authorities overlooked amateurs on the shorter waves it as they a thought those frequencies useless and not worthy of regulation. JNRSTANLEY (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Most of the "Marconi" section is copied verbatim from this article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-man-who-made-waves-9147309.html

(and it really doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry either)

I'm not a WP editor, just a reader, but I wanted to flag. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.158.54 (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)