Talk:Microwave/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uncategorized

Lumped-circuit analysis does not apply to microwave circuits because the microwave wavelengths approach the scales of the circuit. Distributed/transmission line analysis must be used instead. I have modified the first paragraph accordingly. Please do not revert.

Fbmyers 04:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Frankie Myers, fbm@berkeley.edu

Needs editing?

"There is also much more bandwidth in the microwave spectrum than in the rest of the radio spectrum."

Does not make any sense - does it mean "free (unallocated) bandwidth" ?

No, higher frequency (shorter wavelength) => more bandwith.

Again, makes no sense. Higher frequency => more *unallocated* bandwidth ?

No, it has nothing to do with allocated bandwidth, its sheer data capacity. Higher frequency = more bandwidth = higher data capacity.

For example, thats why 2.4GHz cordless phones have a clearer signal than 900MHz cordless phones. 2.4GHz is higher frequency than 900MHz, thus 2.4GHz has more bandwidth to transmit more audio data which makes the audio connection sonud clearer. Probably not the best example since the quality of the handset and phoneline are major factors but yapping about 802.11 bandwidth would probably just confuse you more.

Someone needs to clean up ths talk page. Up at the top it says I will pull out a knife after finding your home by your ISP address. Is that possible? Anyway... for some reason I cannot edit what is at the top of the page.

All this microwave talk is fascinating though!

This stuff about bandwidth is kind of misleading. Just because 2.4 GHz is higher than 900 MHz does not mean that there is more bandwidth to transmit a signal. The bandwidth is regulated by the FCC in any kind of commercial application, not by the frequency that is being used. An example will probably explain things best. Suppose you are broadcasting a signal that requires 10 kHz of bandwidth (typical AM radio). At typical AM broadcast frequencies from 540 kHz to 1600 kHz that means you could have (1600-540)/10=106 AM stations all operating at the same time (this is called frequency division multiplexing). If these stations were instead broadcasting in the range of frequencies from 540 MHz to 1600 MHz but still using 10 kHz each you could have (1600000-540000)/10=106000 AM stations all operating at the same time. Modern digital communication systems may require bandwidths of 10s of MHz. If you tried to use frequency division multiplexing to send a signal with a one MHz bandwidth in the AM frequency range you could only send one signal at a time: (1600-540)/1000~1. But in the frequency range from 540 MHz to 1600 MHz you could send over 1000 such signals. I hope it is clear that a 2.4 GHz cell phone does not use 2.4 GHz of bandwidth and that a 900MHz phone does not use 900 MHz of bandwidth.

Right on ! That's what I was talking about, higher frequency need not mean higher bandwidth ! Whenever someone says 2.4GHz, its a 'carrier frequency', there is some 'bandwidth' around the carrier frequency.

I hope I made it a little clearer. If you want a 6 MHz channel for TV, there are only 50 of them below 300 MHz but how many between 300 MHz and, say, 30 GHz? Also, the point about microwaves going through the atmosphere with less interference than lower frequency radio was simply wrong. Altaphon 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Need diagrams people don't know where things are in the micro wave! Denden136 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Denden136

Just a bit of clarification on the discussion that is going on here. One of the people above is saying that the Microwave region of the spectrum has more "bandwidth" than others. The point the person is trying to get across is correct, but the way he/she is trying to get it across is misleading. The first thing to realize is that virtually no traffic that is in the "900 mhz" band or the "2.4 ghz" band actually operates with the specific carrier frequency of 900 mhz or 2400 mhz, respectively. Let's take the example of the 2.4 ghz band, and a common method of communication on that band, 802.11g. 802.11g has 11 channels, each of which uses a nominal amount of the spectrum above and below the primary carrier frequency given to that channel. The sum total of this nominal amount of spectrum "used up" by the channel is called the channel's bandwidth. For example, the nominal frequency of 802.11g CH1 is 2412 mhz, but it has a minimum and maximum frequency of 2401 mhz and 2423 mhz, respectively. This means that each channel in 802.11g uses 22 mhz of bandwidth. This of course is decided by how sensitive your equipment is expected to be and how much interference you will have to deal with. The better your equipment is, the narrower your channel bandwidth can be. It is therefore feasible to have a radio system operating in 900 mhz that can actually fit more information into the same amount of spectrum that say, 802.11g can, however, it is also true that because a system that has a higher base frequency has more "resolution" to it, your modulations can be bigger and more detectible, giving you more possible channels for a given modulation strategy.

Clear as mud? :)

The comment about Ku also being called P band is unattributed. P-band is traditionally a UHF band (225-390 MHz). It would be better if the comment were attributed (I can't say whether the comment is true or false) and that the generally accepted definition of P-band be included in the comment.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.78.108 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

can a microwaves oven be used for sterilisation?

I was just wandering if it kills bacterias and could be used to kill pests like lice or fleas on stuffed toys without adding water. Dominique

My friend says you can put your toothbrush in the microwave to sterilize it when you are sick. YesJesusLovesYou 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, most bacteria and parasites have water in their bodies, and I really can't imagine them surviving the ordeal of having its innards heating to boiling point. Viruses might be another matter, not being alive, I don't know if they necessarily need to carry water inside their shells. 66.227.95.240 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

as long as it wont melt you can sterilize it not with the radiation but with the heat if it will melt you would probly be better off boiling it for a few minutes or it might only take a few seconds but im going with a few hours just to be safe--Av1497 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Differing Values

The Pozar reference appears credible, but the values for frequency and wavelength are significantly different than what's commonly taught at the university level, with wavelengths from 10 cm to .001 cm, and frequencies from 3*10^9 to 3*10^12 Hz. Source: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/spectrum.html Recommend updating the first paragraph and citing a better source. Mugaliens 16:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are they called Microwaves?

This article needs a bit more history. Who called them "microwaves" and why? What parameter is "micro" - the wavelength isn't in the micron range, so what is the "micro"? Please expand the article to explain this stuff.149.167.200.118 05:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, this use of "micro" isn't related to the "micro" prefix of SI units. Historically the bands of the radio spectrum in common use were divided into "long wave" (1-10 km) "medium wave" (100-1000 m, which includes the AM broadcast band in most countries), and "short wave" (10-100 m). Wavelengths under 1 m are much shorter than even the short wave bands, so they were referred to as "microwaves." See also the table in the article on the Electromagnetic_spectrum. DGaryGrady (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Frequency Bands discussion

Band links wrong/misleading?

The D, E, and F band links go to pages on radio frequencies. Is something wrong here?

Changed Q Band Limits

  • I changed the Q band limits from "30 to 50" to "33 to 50 GHz". This change is consistent with current band limits presented in the Q band wiki article and with the band designation presented in the text book "RF and Microwave Circuit and Component Design for Wireless Systems" by Chang et.al. Wiley Inter-Science, 2002 edition.--WikiDrive (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Form of power?

Ok, if you put a light bulb in a microwave it turns on, couldn't this theroy be used to transport electricity through the air?

Yes. Look up Nikola Tesla. Altaphon 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Turntables

Why do microwaves have turntables? Since the device is heating the whole compartment, do they really do anything? --David Youngberg 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

David, I believe this is because microwaves ovens do not evenly distribute the emitted microwaves to all areas in the oven. I think this question might be better addressed under the Microwave Oven entry. --Arterion 22:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually this is because microwaves do not fill the entire oven. They actually only penetrate into whatever is being cooked by a few centimeters, and so there are large shadow regions in the oven. The turntable simply helps make cooking even. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.79.57 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
The generated electromagnetic field has nulls present in the cavity, similar to sines and cosines which make up the "wave". It is possible to place a small object at a certain point in a microwave oven where it will never be touched by the electromagnetic radiation (in the nulls), the turntable minimizes this effect as stated above.
Also, the penetration depth of the microwave is called the "skin depth" and is proportional to the permittivity of whatever it is you are cooking, it is not a constant of the microwave oven itself.

Microwaves vs. microwave

When talking a bout a term I am under the impression that the plural form is normally used. Should we then rename the article? --Tunheim 10:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case it's commonly used as an adjective, such as microwave communication. Altaphon 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of style. The house style of *some* publishers is to use the plural form, but the house style of Wikipedia is to "create page titles that are in the singular". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Misattributed discovery

They were *not* discovered by Max Lazarus.

Heating different states of matter

Can anyone tell me why it is that water in a gaseous state isn't heated as easily as water in a liquid state. It says it why it doesn't work with frozen water, but a gas is even less dense than a liquid, so wouldn't it more freely rotate. Is that why, because it is to free and their isn't enough friction? It makes sense, but is that true? 74.225.66.28 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

yes it is true--Av1497 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It`s not just friction, but also a change in resosnant frequency. And for the sake of completion, I'd consider the fact that the density of water in air is, generally, much much smaller than the density of liquid water; Even if the microwave heated them equally, I don't expect you'd notice the change. Darryl from Mars (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced Comment

I'm relatively new in editing, but i'm trying to be bold. I am removing "For the proven dangers of microwave ovens visit this page http://www.ghchealth.com/microwave-ovens-the-proven-dangers.html" from Health Effects because it seems like original research and/or unsourced material. (Let me know if this is incorrect some way, I didn't see anything here about it. --Suamme1 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If not on that ground, then on grounds of sloppy language, incongruous placement within the article, and placement in the incorrect article. I should have killed it earlier myself. Welcome to the Wikipedia vigilantes. It's not the most fun job in building the encyclopedia, but it's a necessary one.
Let me make it a bit clearer. External linked sites don't have to conform to the same standards of neutrality, etc of articles. Links may for example go to the personal or official sites of controversial persons, corporations or organizations that may be concerned with promoting and defending their products, views or selves, rather than with balance or reliable sourcing. This idea obviously necessitates judgement calls, and I figure you made the right judgement here. Sometimes a look at other edits by the same account can help understand where they are coming from. Jim.henderson 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Irradiated

Today's effort to disconfuse the different kinds of radiation is a good effort but not entirely successful, as some kinds of EMR ionize while others don't. I hope you can get it right. Jim.henderson 17:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is only fair to add other sides of the Health Effects discussion. The current presentation seems biased, and needs editing.

Biased view

I feel it is only fair to add other sides of the Health Effects discussion. The current presentation seems biased, and needs editing.

Naming

Who assigned the name "microwaves"? Was it simply because they are shorter than radio waves? -- Beland 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of health effects research

The references to the "microwaves are unhealthy" research are all to the original journal articles. This is insufficient to determine whether or not the conclusions of these papers have been accepted by scientific consensus. Wikipedia's summary also implies that these studies have implications for human health. Is this implication supported or contradicted by scientific consensus, if any? -- Beland 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement. I think many of these research articles are flawed. However, they are published and citable, and I think that the Wikipedia user should be the one to determine whether or not what they are reading here is sound science or not. Does that make sense? Sean Egan (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Radio Spectrum?

Why does the "Radio Spectrum" template appear at the bottom of this page, especially if Microwaves do not even appear within that template? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a "Microwave Spectrum" template, or just remove it entirely? The "Electromagnetic Spectrum" template already suffices. Alex Heinz 02:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hypothermia

I had this somewhat sci-fi-ish fantasy about having a portable microwave emitter on hand for first-aid use against hypothermia.

Then out of curiosity, I googled "microwave hypothermia" (without the quotes) and there were a lot of interesting-looking pages, including a patent, that might be worth a look.

If anyone wants to look into this and possibly add any good information to the "Uses" section, be my guest. I may do the research myself if I find the time. Mbarbier (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that point of the word "medical" in the phrase "industrial, scientific, and medical band" ( ISM band ) is an oblique reference to just such medical microwave diathermy devices that are used against hypothermia.
Alas, the Wikipedia diathermy article does not back up my vague recollections.
Is this a gap in the diathermy and microwave articles that needs to be filled in?
Or I am mis-remembering and confusing ultrasonic diathermy with the microwave energy used in some kinds of minimaze procedure on the human heart?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Sources

http://www.tuc.nrao.edu/~demerson/bose/bose.html Experiments with microwave and no klystron or vacuum stuff. Today the fastest spark gaps need 10 ns to develop some current. 1 ns is possible between dielectrics. Is the above mention source bad? Arnero (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC) (interested in the spark gap driven nitrogen laser)

Annual brand reviews/comparisons are necessary to improve the product qualities

Any authentic bussiness review magazine...similar to

PC magazine etc...???--222.64.27.38 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Microwave Engineering Europe or IEEE Microwave magazine? --catslash (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Red links in the See also section are based on the following...

--222.64.221.37 (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.221.37 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.221.37 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.221.37 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.221.37 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Take this to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PC keyboards?

Are there any keyboards for the Mac or PC that communicate by microwave? The main page of this article doesn't explicitly say so, so I suppose there might be a few? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

See Apple Wireless Keyboard and Bluetooth (Bluetooth uses the 2.4-2.5GHz ISM band.--catslash (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that any keyboards would use microwave to transmit data. Radio requires much less energy and has less matter in our atmosphere which tries to interfere with it. Sean Egan (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sdegan, Catslash is correct. There are numerous Bluetooth keyboards and mice out there, and Bluetooth uses the 2.4 GHz band, which is in the microwave part of the spectrum - microwave ovens use the same band, and some cordless phones. Atmospheric absorption is indeed significant in this band, that is why it is allowed for license-free operation: the absorption makes it impractical for radar or for long distance comm. But for the distances usually involved in wireless keyboards it's not an issue.
Please note that "radio" is not an alternative to microwave; microwave is a type of radio! Saying something would use radio instead of microwave is like saying you'd use light instead of green light. Nor is microwave necessarily high power. "Microwave" is a description of the wavelength (meaning "very short wavelength"), it has nothing to do with the power level. The reason I don't have to worry about my Bluetooth mouse or headset cooking me is of course that the power level is very, VERY low - far less than the energy you'd absorb from sunlight, even on a cloudy day. Jeh (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Better Photograph?

The current photograph is beautiful from an artistic perspective, but it is nearly a silhouette and shows no detail, its just a dark circular object on a tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esbboston (talk • contribs) 12:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Electric cars?

I took a part a microwave the other day, and noticed everything inside a microwave consitutes as a heat induction device. From the magnetron, to the transformer, to a high density capacitor, to the inverter and fan. If added to a vehicle it would make electricity to electromagnetism ie radiation. The magnetron would be a high frequency att, the magnets are all there. The transformer would be converted to an input transformer, or a powerful dc to ac feed and the inverter would be a surge motor or replacement to a alternator in order to feed the battery. The capacitor would be a dc feed. All of this would indeed work, as I tried it and experimented. On the upside, the radiation would be taken out of the circuits and trasfered via an actual load att back into electricity, this would be the magnetron or gravitron type device in a microwave to prevent over heating in electromagnetic cars. This would make the electric car more useful, at the same time a little more complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 November 2011

Because this page does not contain a reference to microwave energy heating inorganic fluids, please add this link to the External Links section: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYdaYQuEhy4

Caption: Microwave energy also heats fluids other than water, fats, and sugar.

68.108.252.131 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance in making this page more complete. You may contact me at: LDighera@att.net

 Not done Conflicts in my opinion with WP:ELNO #1...glass is not a standard thing to heat in a microwave. CTJF83 13:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Frequency Table

I think the frequency for Gamma Rays is wrong, shouldn't it be "more than 30EHz"? The current 15EHz overlaps X-rays and according to Electromagnetic Spectrum the Gamma Rays starts at 30EHz with 10pm and 124keV. The content in this table is very different from the one at Electromagnetic Spectrum.

I would change it but I'm not an expert, maybe it's that way because gamma rays overlap X-Rays or Hard X-Rays are considered Gamma rays? If it's like this, than the table at Electromagnetic Spectrum should be modified??

Thank you,

Serpentus (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

300 GHz – 300 MHz

Why are the range values in the chart backwards, going from high to low, wouldn't it be 300 MHz – 300 GHz etc? not 300 GHz – 300 MHz50.47.114.29 (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Because the chart is sorted by wavelength and the frequencies are proportional to the reciprocal of the wavelengths. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of microwaves in spectroscopy

A collective effort has recently improved the wikipedia page on pure rotational spectroscopy which is most often performed using microwave radiation. I have therefore inserted a link to this page by slightly altering the final sentence under "Spectroscopy" on this page.128.240.229.66Nnrw (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2015

Add the pp-vandalism template. 115.188.191.246 (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done –Sparkgap (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

wrong frequency to wavelength ratio in first paragraph

In the first paragraph it says "300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm)". But 300 MHz corresponds to 1m and 300 GHz to 1 cm wavelength in free space. Can someone edit? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.215.201 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Water absorption

There's an odd statement in the intro: "Beginning at about 40 GHz, the atmosphere becomes less transparent to microwaves, at lower frequencies to absorption from water vapor..."

But in fact there's quite significant absorption of RF energy by water vapor at far lower frequencies. Later, the article itself points out that microwave ovens rely on the absorption of RF energy at around 2.4 GHz, and in fact this absorption is already significant at a few hundred MHz, right at the lowest threshold of what a "microwave" is.

There's no reference cited for this 40 GHz figure. It appears to rely on the accompanying figure "Atmospheric_Microwave_Transmittance_at_Mauna_Kea_(simulated)", but that figure is based on DRY AIR: "a precipitable water vapor level of 0.001 mm", whereas 100% relative humidity at 20º C is equal to 17.54 mm, so the graph is based on 0.00057% relative humidity. Super dry. No wonder the effects of water vapor on RF absorption are not visible at the low-frequency end of the graph.

In other words, this section of the introduction, and the accompanying figure, are grossly misleading with respect to the relationship between water vapor and RF absorption in air. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but take the blame on water out, and 40 GHz is not a bad estimate, as microwave absorption gets particularly bad, at wavelengths shorter than about 7 mm in air. Enough that the atmosphere blocks most of it from space. But it's oxygen that is there starting to be the culprit, and dry or not, you can't see through in bands after that. Of course, all these things are relative, and there is some water absorption at even longer wavelengths. Here's the fine structure from an astronomer's view:
https://sciencesprings.wordpress.com/tag/milky-way-galaxy/


This has a diagram from Wiki Commons somewhere, but I can't find it.

IT is something like this, but with the area from 1 mm to 1 cm stretched out.

Rough plot of Earth's atmospheric transmittance (or opacity) to various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Microwaves are strongly absorbed at wavelengths shorter than about 1.5 cm (above 20 GHz) by water and other molecules in the air.
Anyway, the microwave oxygen stretch starts to get important after 40 GHz and that's what does it, not water. So indeed all these bands still show up in dry air. Water can absorb far below 40 GHz as you point out, and indeed the article should say that, not blame the problems above 40 GHz on water. It's THAT, that is the error. Below 40 GHz, well into the radar K band, absorption depends grossly on simple humidity-- how high you are, whether you're trying to look humid air, and so on. SBHarris 07:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks! 71.197.166.72 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I was taught that microwaves had a wavelength of 1 inch or less. This "meter" ,as mentioned, is more UHF than microwaves.

Ref: Electronics tech 35 years, 17 years experience. Worked with microwaves at Microsource, Inc, and at Hewlett-Packard in Sonoma County. Took Microwave tech at Santa Rosa Junior College, subscribed to Microwave Journal.67.1.186.95 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong frequency descriptions for microwaves?

I was taught that microwaves had a wavelength of 1 inch or less. This "meter" ,as mentioned, is more UHF than microwaves.

Ref: Electronics tech 35 years, 17 years experience. Worked with microwaves at Microsource, Inc, and at Hewlett-Packard in Sonoma County. Took Microwave tech at Santa Rosa Junior College, subscribed to Microwave Journal.67.1.186.95 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

Dfurbeck (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 20:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

In the electromagnetic spectrum box radio waves are incorrectly labelled in the frequency column where is should be "300 MHz – 3 Hz" instead of "300 GHz – 300 MHz" 82.18.73.222 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The text of the article matches the table. RudolfRed (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microwave. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

In "Electromagnetic Spectrum Table", change frequency of Radio from 300GHz - 300kHz to 300MHz - 300kHz 192.136.15.23 (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Not an improvement, radio technique applies down to about 8 Hz. ]] --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Antenna

please change ((antenna)) to ((Antenna (radio)|antenna))

The first already pointed there. I've removed the second, as overlinking. It's a common term, we don't need to repeat it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-Ionizing Blanket Statement

As this article stands, the whole world is being mislead that there is zero ionizing from microwaves. Simply falsifiable claim with a microwave and a grape. This is irresponsible under current form, since lack of information is not proof of non-effect, it's proof of lack of testing. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? I put a grape in my microwave to try it out. It made a mess, but my Russian-made Geiger counter did not click even once. SpinningSpark 16:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
50.232.76.252|: Its not even close. The photon energy at the top of the microwave band is about 10 meV, a factor of 1000 below ionizing energies. Any ionization occurring in a microwave oven would have to be caused by food burning, arcing, or UV entering through the viewplate. --ChetvornoTALK 19:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure fellas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCrtk-pyP0I Plasma = Ionization. Total internal reflection is based on the material, the material size, and the wavelength of the microwave as it travels in the material... at least so far. The answer, yes, microwaves ionize under certain conditions, and this (new) science has not been thoroughly tested to find all those. (pro-tip, guess how many wattery sacks the size of a half a grape you carry around? and now account for those across your typical human growth).50.232.76.252 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to double down on this, but both of you created red herrings, probably by accident. Mr. Spark, ionizing doesn't have to be related to internal orbital unbalance for what we consider "radioactive." I understand the snark based on years of "I never saw it so..." but imo we are actively killing ourselves as a species, because lead tastes excellent in wine; just ask Julius Maxiumus IV. Mr. Vorno, arcing is the transfer of electrons, which cannot happen without an ion to catch or cause, depending on your view, so in your very statement, you agreed it is available. I think it stands proven that microwaves DO ionize. The question is how far have we studied, and I'm betting you both know that AT&T, Verizon, and VirginMobile, have spent decades fine tuning everything before they released it to the public for profits, so it's likely thoroughly tested and there will never be a possible problem with this ionization. Just ask your doctor as he lights up a Winston.50.232.76.252 (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about my first post, that was just sarcasm, not meant to be taken literally. SpinningSpark 23:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
(after edit conflict - I haven't read the above post yet) That's an interesting video. Thanks for linking to it. The published paper with this research was only flashed up very briefly. For those that missed it, it is here. I would say this is the same class of effect as corona discharge on power lines. Both are plasma discharges due to very high electric field strength rather than microwave ionization. Power lines are at an even lower frequency of course, typically 60Hz, which shows that these effects really are not due to ionizing radiation. Low levels of microwave energy are not going to cause ionization in the human body because the field strength will not be great enough for this to happen. SpinningSpark 23:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The question is not what is the exact pattern in the molecules by which the plasma is creating, it is the do microwaves trigger ionization. Yes, they trigger ionization. The finite details will earn you a Ph.D., the fact that microwaves are causing the effect seems pretty unquestionable. 12:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.76.252 (talk)
Right now, if you search Bing for "Do microwaves ionize," the answer will come back as this health section, which says, "Microwaves do not ionize..." This means that the algorithm is reading all that pretext or subtext you keep in your heads which say "in these circumstances," as "absolutely not." Be it as much as we may wish people would do more research, sometimes we just want a short answer or don't have time. Ipso, this is grossly misleading to the world, not just this article. Bing's flaw or otherwise. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I will add a tangential, I am of the opinion that with our refinement into microwave studies and uses, the broad-base term "microwave" needs greater dissection or possibly abandonment. It's going to get clearer, I am convinced, the more we get into using these, that different wavelengths have consistently different behaviors in our section of this solar system, which necessitate closer investigation for fine tuning and new possibilities. As we expand beyond this star, I think it will be absolutely necessary to refine these wavelengths into new groupings (though naming and catagorizing for those uses is best left to those at that time). However, this relates to this complaint, as it is construction of the argument (tho perhaps begging) that we don't really have much research in this phenomena in the grander scheme, and blanket statements may do harm both in direct damage to individuals and property, and to the development of fields generally. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Now you're back into scaremongering urban legends and fake news. Micorwaves will not cause harm to people and property. Gamma-rays and X-rays will ionize at any intensity, even down to a single photon. That's why they're called ionizing radiation. Microwaves will not do that and these experiments with grapes don't change that. All sorts of situations involving high field intensities or high energy densities will cause ionization. But you will not experience those sort of energy levels from microwaves in the normal environment. Hard UV radiation, on the other hand, can give you skin cancer due to ionization breaking bonds in cell DNA. This can happen even at very low levels of UV, but with decreasing probability as the intensity is reduced. SpinningSpark 14:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
In none of that paragraph is there anything that is scaremongering. Are you now going to claim we have no evidence at all of microwaves making harm? This has taken exactly the bent I figured I'd get with the editorial types at this sh*Thole. Tell me that you have studied every wavelength of the "microwave scale" on every possible molecule in the human body, and I'll begin to hear your argument that there is no harm (absurd, we know much better already, as we have blindness and burns for starters). Protect your theory of your own intelligence, protect the errors of your youth, but you will not be protecting your people, or yourselves.

The language is "non-ionizing." We can prove it ionizies. Just becuase your teachers, and maybe you, were unable to see that in the first 70 years of using microwaves, doesn't mean we shouldn't now (arguing with boomers v3.5)50.232.76.252 (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ionization due to field strength can occur at any frequency, all the way down to DC. Following your logic, we should not include batteries as non-ionizing which is nonsensical. SpinningSpark 17:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Spinningspark. This discussion has taken a ludicrous turn. The article does not say that microwaves can never under any circumstances cause ionization, it says that microwaves are not ionizing radiation. This is a particular category of EM radiation [1], [2] and means that microwave photons do not individually have enough energy to ionize atoms.--ChetvornoTALK 19:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
In March 2020 the ICNIRP completed a 6 year review of exposure standards citing hundreds of studies that confirmed that exposure to microwaves within current legal limits appears to be safe. There are a great deal of conspiracy theories and false information about supposed dangers of microwaves. If anyone's interested, it all started in 2000 with an erroneous study by biophysicist Bill Curry that implied as frequency increased microwaves became dangerous to brain tissue, as detailed in this NYT article. In his meta study, Curry mixed up in vitro and in vivo studies. --ChetvornoTALK 19:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
https://www.popsci.com/article/science/100-years-smoking-studies-popular-science/ Science doesn't speak in certainty, but in results of tests. Since Microwave includes wavelengths from the size of a basketball player, to the size of your nail trimming, this is hardly evidence for the entire bandwidth. But yes, let's say I'm taking ancedotal evidence of a new wavelength rollout and a series of large supposed disease outbreaks as a sign that perhaps not all is clear. Is that incorrect to do? The next thing would be to test, which you say I must not bother with? Of course not. And in any event, the question is on the language. Current language "Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation" If ionizing means breaking electrons free, or opening gaps (again, your view) then this is blatently, clearly, and absurdly disproven already in just this discussion, and by your words. Save your Verizon shares for another argument. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, another angle. Perhaps the problem isn't with you being unable to see with your own eyes that microwaves cause ionization. Perhaps the issue is with the technicians term "non-ionizing radiation" which has niched itself from continuous use. You don't actually intend to say the words you're using, you've redefined the words "ionizing" and "radiation" when joined, to create a neologism for your speciality technical work. Grand ol' time, I suppose, but which one is scientifically and factually correct? Microwaves do ionize, and they are radiation, hence they are, factually, ionizing radiation. But technicians and labs across the world have called as ionizing radiation only certain particles and wavelengths, and that has become "standard." Are you more interested in keeping your technical manuals from 1950? Or are you more interested in being grammatically, and factually, correct?50.232.76.252 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-ionizing radiation is a well defined term that very clearly applies to microwaves. This discussion is a waste of time. ApLundell (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation "any type of electromagnetic radiation that does not carry enough energy per quantum (photon energy) to ionize atoms or molecules—that is, to completely remove an electron from an atom or molecule." This is nice for this particular use of ionize. I asked both google and bing if microwaves can ionize, and both said, outright, no. One of them brought back this "Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, which means that microwave photons do not contain sufficient energy to ionize molecules or break chemical bonds, or cause DNA damage, as ionizing radiation such as x-rays or ultraviolet can. The word "radiation" refers to energy radiating from a source and not to radioactivity. The main effect of absorption of microwaves is to heat materials; the electromagnetic fields cause polar molecules to vibrate." This is clearly not a complete answer to the facts, and it is this article specifically which is being referenced. Yes, it is a waste of time, with people who refuse to be responsible to the meanings of their words. Microwaves can cause ionization in circumstances, and to read blanket no is to be misinformed. Please, continue misinforming. If you're wondering, the Google reply was an FDA blather page dated 2017.50.232.76.252 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I dont like misleading people, so to be clear, I asked, "[do] microwaves ionize" not "can..." Pardon my freshmen certainty wording in the query. The point remains, this particular unclear phrase is being used to, incorrectly, answer a question. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The article is correct. Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation.
If Google's Deep Mind is incorrectly processing the article to provide simple answers to ambiguously-worded questions, that is their problem not ours. We don't change our articles to try to second-guess Google's algorithms.
But really, you're using a very strange definition of "ionize". I could use a broom-handle to knock a jar of salt into a tub of water, thus creating ions. Does that mean that broom-handles are "ionizing"?
ApLundell (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Great question. The answer is that you could do this with any number of blunt or sharp objects, so no. But you cannot excite these molecules in the same fashion, without microwaves. Are you interested in people getting more information, or less? 50.232.76.252 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
" The answer is that you could do this with any number of blunt or sharp objects, so no. " You're so close to getting it. ApLundell (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I can't know how close, because it has barely been studied, possibly because for decades it has been said to not happen at all. You not understanding the creation of plasma out of microwaves is not a cause for them not existing. If you came to do a russian troll dance, please beat it.50.232.76.252 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So there is a definition of "ionization" here on wikipedia which suggests, pretty clearly, that the non-ionizing radiation" is a neologism or techincal term, not a grammatically correct version. Ionization "Ionization or ionisation is the process by which an atom or a molecule acquires a negative or positive charge by gaining or losing electrons" We have seen, if we can see, the creation of plasma via microwaves and a gel material. This seems to evidence that, yes, at least under certain circumstances, the prefix "non," which I read as intending a meaning no, nil, naught, none, zero, zilch, etc. etc. in nothingness, is simply not correct when applied to "ionization."50.232.76.252 (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Microwaves have no special power to ionize. Like all things, they can indirectly cause ions, but that is true of literally everything. From batteries to broomsticks.
I'm sorry if the English language has confused you. But the article is correct as-written. ApLundell (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Technically correct.
But unclear. Apology accepted for your lacking in speaking your meaning. How can we correct this confusion? 50.232.76.252 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
And let me be clearer. We don't actually know the limits of this ionization, the sizes of molecules required for its initiation, or the wavelengths, shapes, energy levels, etc. etc. You have part of an answer, and you are content holding a defense of a former education. Hard to fault. But there is clear evidence that there is more under the surface. You have right to dig in and be a bigot. I won't do that to myself or my kin.50.232.76.252 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The confusion and error is on your end. That's where the correction has to happen. The article is correct and clear as written. ApLundell (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Were that correct, I would not be receiving this page as a reply to a query on ionization. No, you're right of course, you don't have to pull the trolly lever and save the ignorant who will be mislead by the neologism written by technicians in the first 80 years of a brand new science to humanity. But then, that is the aim of this damn organization, or so they claimed.50.232.76.252 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Righting great wrongs is not our mission. SpinningSpark 17:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Right. The mission is to give the most up-to-date, most clear expression of the facts. That seems to be failing, that's why I'm here. For others, it seems to be a protection of the youthful adventures in limited education, and the pretending that what we thought knew fifty years ago, must still apply.50.232.76.252 (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I think there's a clear consensus that 50.232's proposed changes won't happen. Three editors have tried to explain why. I think this thread has done all it can do. ApLundell (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
No change has even been proposed, I so far only pointed out an error and took a truck load of BS from boomers who want to claim everything is already known. Would you like to start talking about how we can help people not get a bad answer when looking for the truth about microwaves being capable of ionization?50.232.76.252 (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Per discussion of alterations, perhaps starting the health section with "When injury from exposure to microwaves occurs, it usually results from dielectric heating induced in the body. [...]" This actually gives the section the opening discussion the reader would likely be most interested in from a medical perspective. Per the language of non-ionizing, since we can prove, and have seen article proving that, at the least, multiple microwaves in certain conditions do ionizing, adding the word, "individual," or other singular identifier, to microwave, wave, particle, etc. etc., would offer that space and accuracy for the field. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The IP may not understand WP's WP:V requirement. 50.232.76.252, all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, which means it must be directly supported by statements in WP:reliable sources, which for scientific data means textbooks, survey articles in refereed journals, or official websites of authoritative organisations like WHO, CDC or the NRC (WP:PSTS). We can't use Youtube videos, Reddit articles, or our own experiments, that is called WP:original research. We also cannot make up our own definitions of words like "ionization", as you did, or conclude from some specific experiment in a journal article that microwaves are ionizing, that is called WP:synthesis. If you want the article to say that microwaves are ionizing, you have to give a reliable WP:secondary source that says specifically "microwaves are ionizing radiation". And in fact you would have to give many such sources, enough to refute the many statements in biophysics texts that they are non-ionizing radiation. Bottom line: when reliable scientific sources say microwaves are ionizing, the article can be changed to reflect that. --ChetvornoTALK 19:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
"Make up definition" Apparently you don't cross reference inside Wikipedia. My definition fits the definition for ionization which wikipedia outlines. The reality is that the field of photon work, and research, is new, but has settled on a poorly worded designation for certain wavelengths which are incorrect when read with simple English meanings, or the very meanings the same field gives in other areas, per the definition of ionization. Perhaps if you thought and read more, instead of assuming my intellect or capability, you'd know this. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Let me reply to your pickle analogy. In what cases are microwaves used singularly by humans? If we're going to talk about microwave damages, one of the obvious concerns, and the one place we have the most power as a species, is the creation of those for our uses. Since you like to set up the surrounding cases where ions may be created, lets talk about the surroundings of microwave creations. In nearly no cases are single microwaves used in human industry. So the discussion that microwaves are unable to ionize singularly is lacking from your argument standpoint, in the reality that we nearly never see a single microwave, anywhere. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Read what Chetvorno said. If your next post does not contain at least one link to a reliable source claiming that microwaves are ionizing radiation, or does contain any more ad hominem remarks, I will archive this thread without further discussion. People are becoming exhausted replying to you. SpinningSpark 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You already gave one link here to the article showing how microwaves do Ionization "here" and I use the definition that Wikipedia holds for that. If you wish me to restart this discussion as Ionization of microwaves to discuss the non-technicians word ionization as Wikipedia defines it, only, I will do so. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ionizing of Microwaves: New Section

With the advent of [3], it becomes apparent that there is a new phenomena previously generally unstudied with mirowaves. Despite the technical term "non-ionizing" applying to singular photons of the microwave spectrum, microwaves as grouped pulses appear capable of releasing electrons under multiple conditions. This has been suggested to offer new lithography techniques, and possibly other industrial uses, but may also have effect in astrononmy and physics. How do we best go about making the public aware of these new findings and research? Is a new section appropriate? 50.232.76.252 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's significant enough to warrant any mention based on that one article. Any EM will heat matter to plasma if it's intense enough; it isn't a special property of microwaves. VQuakr (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
In this case, it is an optical property of the material and the wave in conjunction. Size of the wave in the material, and size and shape of the material seem to combine, and they combine in as yet (at least to myself) poorly defined ways. This is not simply burning, it is the creation of arcing currents. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
See above. Also, it is most definitely not the role of an encyclopedia to be "making the public aware of these new findings and research". We are a tertiary source: we report coverage in proportion to its publication in secondary sources. We don't break news. VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Veritasium has 14 million views on his version of this, giving an expose'. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Yikes on several bikes. Please read WP:RS. I think it's past time for this discussion to be archived and for you to focus on something else; there is clear consensus from the discussion above that this doesn't rate changes to the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
If there's arcing, that's a plasma, and sure that's ionisation. And there will be UV given off which is also ionizing. But there's absolutely no arcing when people warm up their cocoa. There's no arcing around the microwave that the user is exposed to. It's just not notable. GliderMaven (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Coherence

Most industry and certainly communication, uses coherent or multiple photons in a "pulse" formed into a "stream" in the range between 1meter and 1mm, not individual photons. Single photon uses do apply in other wavelengths as well, so distinguishing this should help better inform readers of current conditions of the field, and of the properties of a microwave. I think the opening of "uses" section would gain by clarifying this. Suggestion is "Coherent microwave technology is extensively used for point-to-point telecommunications..." Would also see this addition working in the second sentance of this section. This property is yet found no-where in the article, but it seems an important distinction in physics, if not obviously in industry. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"Multiple photons in a stream" is not the definition of a coherent beam. All beams are "multiple photons in a stream".
It seems like you might be trying to describe a Maser, which is a coherent beam. I don't believe those are often used for communication, except in unusual situations like spacecraft.
I could always be wrong, of course, but we'll need a citation to an actual reputable source, not just your say-so. ApLundell (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
”Coherent” means the photons are in phase. The radio waves and microwaves emitted by all ordinary transmitters are coherent beams of photons. Incoherent microwave photons would be emitted only by random sources, such as blackbody radiation. --ChetvornoTALK 10:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Then it's only adding unnecessary baggage to the description. The same modifier could be applied in all our articles on radio or transmission bands. If it doesn't disambiguate anything, then we don't need to include it. SpinningSpark 14:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Then should it for those articles as well? At risk of begging, it seems to me that it does disambiguate, since there are single photon uses.50.232.76.252 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Re: In reply to Chetvorno, in no place in the transmitter article does this point get clarified either. It remains a property of the human use of the photon from 1m to 1mm, which I suggest means this is the place to note its distinction in use.50.232.76.252 (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Do you have sources that describe microwaves in this way? And can you demonstrate that those sources are considered more authoritative than the many thousands of sources that don't do it? SpinningSpark 17:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. For instance, I would ask if it is a factual property of the phenomena in common use, when speaking of disambiguation, not if it's commonly discussed when used. Just as most people will eat apples without discussing their nutrient value, but there is knowledge value to the reader to have this at their fingertips. If wikipedia can explain it via a hyperlink, and it's known true, that seems sufficient as authority. If you insist on me finding articles that describe our usage as coherent, I will oblige. The rest of your request seems to me to be unneccesary burden for a factual point. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The question is one of weight. When discussing content like this, it is necessary to demonstrate verifiability of the content, but that alone isn't enough to establish that content should be added to the article. You would also need to establish due weight - that this aspect of radio waves in general is discussed in reliable sources about microwaves prominently enough to merit mention in the article - and get consensus for the proposed addition. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The radio wave article has a mention that radio waves generated by an antenna are coherent in Radio waves#Generation and reception, which should cover microwaves. I didn’t source it. A good source is Bruce Shore (2020) p. 54, but I’m on a phone so I’m not going to add it now --ChetvornoTALK 18:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Aug06/0806_PolivkaPart2.pdf
Experiments with Microwave Coherence Tomography: Part 2
"In the microwave region, the majority of signal sources are highly coherent, mainly used for information transmission or radar sensors."
https://www.radartutorial.eu/11.coherent/co05.en.html
"In a pulse radar system, coherence describes the phase relationships between the transmitted and the received pulses."
"Phase information and spatially coherent illumination have usually been considered indispensable components of most microwave imaging systems. "
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.225306
"Phase information and spatially coherent illumination have usually been considered indispensable components of most microwave imaging systems. "
https://www.mwrf.com/community/contributors/article/21847139/bliley-technologies-are-you-being-affected-by-phase-coherence
"Phase coherence can be an ambiguous topic, yet one that’s important for RF, electrical, and design engineers to understand."
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/11/8/2108#:~:text=Coherently%20controlling%20the%20spin%20of%20NV%20centers%20using,that%20enables%20one%20to%20reliably%20manipulate%20NV%20spins
Discusses the creation of a "novel" microwave antenna to create coherent spin in nitrogen vacancy centers via coherent oscillations (Rabi oscillations).
https://www.bnl.gov/atf/experiments/References/AF85_access.pdf#:~:text=However%2C%20because%20the%20wavelength%20of%20the%20microwaves%20is,is%201018%20times%20stronger%20than%20a%20single%20electron
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.043002
The by-product of fusion particles can create pockets of coherent microwave cherenkov radiation. A bit off the road from communications, but I like novel things and you are now informed better.
https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica-5-12-1529&id=402705
"Use of Coherent microwaves to create ultracold"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qute.201900077
Discusses in the opening how it is as yet difficult to use single photon microwaves. "For a high fidelity microwave to optical transducer, efficient conversion at single photon level and low added noise is needed."
I don't have time to search for more articles today. I will be traveling for the next week or so, so replies may be spotty. I also welcome discussion on how to discuss this phenomena of our uses on-topic in the article in other ways, or if I am overgeneralizing down to coherence, or if there is gain from this in a different section of the article entirely.50.232.76.252 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
You are all over the map here, from quantum computing to radar to Cherenkov radiation to interferometry. I am curious, though, why you think mention of the difficulty in detecting a single microwave photon from background is relevant? VQuakr (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Because the point was to cover that the majority of human industry with microwaves is coherent in use. Being all over the map in the fields of microwave uses was the goal which matches the claim in the opening paragraph of this section.50.232.76.252 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

So I think these articles give evidence that Coherence is the expected use of Microwaves in our human industries, per the initial paragraph of this section. If anyone disagrees, I would venture to listen to their explination and offer more information where it doesn't ask me to beg. Again, if this should be placed in a different section, or if the wording is poor, I'm listening to questions.50.232.76.252 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) 50.232.76.252 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, this is already mentioned at Radio wave. It's not particular to microwaves and isn't due coverage to mention in this article. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
For the sake of the article microwaves are not the only source of light that is line of sight, but it was worth placing that tidbit in this article. Oranges are not the only fruit with vitamin C, but the article on oranges has mention of Vitamin C. This seems like a terrible argument. Following your logic, why did this article have a section on uses at all, we can simply go looking up radar and antenna in their own articles! Then by this logic you are proposing we remove everything except direction description of the photon as it occurs in nature? At the moment, I'm requesting literally an internal hyperlink referencing another wikipedia article. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • 50.232.76.252, I haven't looked at all your sources, but I tend to agree Vquaker has a point. What I was looking for when I requested sources was basic textbooks on microwaves that described them in this way. What we got was a mish-mash of many things. Your first source is an article on microwave coherence tomography. Hardly a basic description of microwaves. I note that the source the author uses is actually not a coherent source, but a partially coherent source derived by band-limiting random noise. I also see web pages of questionable reliability. If what you want to say is that most microwave applications are coherent tehn a source directly saying that is what is required. A long list of sources with coherent applications does not cut it, this is the fallacy of proof by example. SpinningSpark 23:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough that it may be over generalization, I'm not an expert here, but I am aware that it seems to be an important distinction in uses for certain fields. That is, there are industries using various light waves that are using single photons vs thermal vs coherent, and it seems that most of the microwave uses are in the coherent range. If we simply point out that these varying uses are utilized in different sections of industry I'd be happy. I'd be happy just referencing those three concepts anywhere on this page, since right now this article doesn't even seem to reference the radio-wave article until after 10 uses of the words, in an otherwise seemigly obscure section "Design and analysis," which are two items which seem to fit in with Use, to me.50.232.76.252 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, just to be sure, they are still sources. You may not like them because they aren't textbooks, but they are references which agree, in a few cases basically verbatim, with the premise. That I'm not digging out reference books doesn't change the validity of references, in my opinion. In fact, on that, since we're talking about the practice of, and not education on, I think it makes more sense to ear to professional articles. In any event, if they don't meet your view of relevant sources, that is a personal view I disagree with. More interestingly, Chetvorno apparently expresses a perfectly good text book source in this discussion. If it is agreed it covers microwaves, then the original claim I make stands correct by that source.50.232.76.252 (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The claim isn't really being disputed. What is being disputed is whether it should be covered in the article or not. Not all your sources are good. The second source is self-published so we probably can't use it. To put in something specifically in the micorwave article requires a source that specifically discusses coherance in microwave applications broadly, not a specific example of microwave coherance. SpinningSpark 23:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
So we're abandoning the claim that this is otherwise covered in radio waves? This is probably going to come off snarky, but I gotta say, under this constriction, I have no idea at this point why any article exists on wikipedia that references anything except a molecular layout of the item, and even that might be unneccessary information. I'm asking for an internal reference within wikipedia by referencing via one word which Chetvorno has already agreed is factual. Is this point being held to a higher standard than the current condition of wikipedia in other articles? The only change in the article is that the condition of coherence vs incoherence vs single might be introduced to the reader via an internal wikipedia hotlink (we can, generally, trust wikipedia?) creating a reading point which helps inform on the current types of uses of phenomena, a condition I think which fits any encyclopedia well, especially when it can "toot its own horn," so to speak if not just continue to open the doors to information, by providing simple internal hotlinks within articles. Are you refuting Chetvorno's claim? 50.232.76.252 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
We have another problem with claiming Chetvorno's explianation is useful here. The article says "In descriptions of the electromagnetic spectrum, some sources classify microwaves as radio waves, a subset of the radio wave band; while others classify microwaves and radio waves as distinct types of radiation. This is an arbitrary distinction." Now the reader has a reduced reason to click on the article hyperlink to learn about this trait, since the article implies there is nothing different. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
In reply to questions of specificity causing confusion between other forms of microwave (eg thermal or single): "Microwave technology is extensively used for point-to-point telecommunications (i.e. non-broadcast uses)." This sentence might be considered mushmouth, since extensive is unmeasured. At the least, the use of this word suggests that point to point is not the exclusive use of microwaves by humans. So there ought to be no concern that the addition of "coherent" anywhere in that sentence would mislead anyone into thinking that we're talking about all uses. But, in conjunction with the facts as wikipedia lays out in radio wave it would not be in error to expand the information that readers are getting here about the conditions of microwaves as those photons leave the antenna.50.232.76.252 (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
No, we're not abandoning that claim. "Claim" is a strange word choice for something so easily verifiable, though. We definitely say, "An antenna is a coherent emitter of photons...". Are microwaves usually referred to as "Coherent microwave technology" in relevant top-tier sources? That's the sort of analysis we are looking for when trying to establish whether coverage is due. The analogy to the orange article and vitamin C does not hold up; we mention Vitamin C in the articles on oranges, limes, and lemons because sources about these fruits often mention their historical connection to preventing scurvy and their modern popular recognition as high vitamin C foods. WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SCIRS discuss source quality. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Just a reminder, most of what we know will be found completely stupid in a thousand years or so. But we digress. What is the difference between "sources about these fruit often mention," and "wikipedia already says sources say as much about this, we're just connecting the dots" as it's on sources already accepted elsewhere in wikipedia?50.232.76.252 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand your question. Who suggested we "connect the dots"? It is in quotes but I do not know what you are quoting. VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
"Who" This is wikipedia by design. There is no requirement for any platform to have hyperlink capability. Again, I'm confused. It appears at the moment that we're aiming for either pure copy, which would be plagiarism, or the hardcopy of Britannica. We have the ability to hyperlink, and though I'm aware that it doesn't require every word to be hyperlinked, this is the greatest power that the internet currenty carries (and with the Vogonization of wikipedia, the best thing wikipedia has going for it). Also, from that informative article on sources, I am confused by Spark's claims. "A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research." I guess the argument is that she wasn't researching to prove that most microwaves are used coherently? I shouldn't answer for Spin, but I'm really lost now. Also, there is no link on this page to radio wave that isn't buried in an obscure section, or coherence (or incoherence) at all. These are conditions which must be overcome inherently for use, and we currently walk past them because they're assumed understood, or irrelevant. They can't be the latter, so the only question is on the former, that everyone knows. 50.232.76.252 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It might be helpful to reset the conversation and simply say the exact words that you wish to add to the article. Constant314 (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ok now I understand, thank you. In the vitamin C analogy, weight has been established. If you checked out 5 random physics textbooks and they all mentioned in the introductory paragraphs that artificially generated microwave radiation is generally coherent, that would be a strong argument re WP:WEIGHT and a parallel situation with vitamin C. In our case, verifiability has been established, but not weight or editorial consensus for inclusion. My words only, but I would say 'unimportant to an understanding of microwave usage' is more accurate than 'irrelevant'. VQuakr (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
That would be arguing against the factual for your opinion of the usefulness. Let me ask it this way, what purpose in the article would be harmed if we added this word as a hyperlink? Would this addition harm the article, or wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.76.252 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm gonna start moving back down or I'll be reading this from my printer. Just to make another point, your influence choice of 5 textbooks would necessitate 5 3rd party sources, and each of them could be using the same first party, per your earlier link on sources.50.232.76.252 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Per discussiuon of weight, I understand this being a tight discussion in the coverage of events, but this is an article on the behavior of microwaves, and the human usage of. Weight on more and better factual information is already implied. We're not debating if it's important to name the color of the outfit Lincoln was wearing when he was inaugurated. We're discussing hyperlinking to a wikipedia article in explination of the uses of the phenomena. There are single photon emitters, and their creation and uses are increasing, and from a techie standpoint alone, I would love for more uses to be invented, and facilitating that by getting more information on this to people is a pleasure. But importantly for an Encylopedia, the statements of the condition of use of materials and processes, as a congealing of the current image of the fields which use them, helps complete the picture of how humans interact with these phenomena. This next few lines will be original research, and I don't ask for this to be included, but we started with incoherent light waves being placed in certain locations to send messages, then we flashed in smoke signals and patterns, and later messaged in morse code. We currently utilize coherent infrared light to communicate hundreds of miles as fast as the speed of light in our atmosphere. The recognition of this condition is simply recognition of the human industry in microwaves as it stands.50.232.76.252 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

50.232.76.252 What text do you want to add, or what changes do you want to make to the text in the article? Give us your proposed wording. --ChetvornoTALK 13:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Section 6 Sentence "Coherent microwave technology is extensively used..." Suggestion 2: Section 6 Sentence 2: "...since they are more easily focused into narrower coherent beams than radio waves..." I am also still open to this being inserted in other sections, if anyone has an idea. 50.230.233.2 (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that the first place to mention it is in section 5 on sources. Thermal sources, like the sun, produce incoherent microwaves. Oscillator based sources, like a magnetron, produce coherent or mostly coherent microwaves. Constant314 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the most that is consistent with due weight is a single mention in the "Microwave sources" section along the lines that Constant314 suggested. Putting "Coherent microwave technology is used in..." in other sections, as 50.230.233.2 proposes, risks giving general readers the impression that there is something called "coherent microwave technology". There isn't: "coherent microwaves" are just called "microwaves". --ChetvornoTALK 16:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Single instance as suggested by Constant314 and Chetvorno works for me. VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I think section 5 is also appropriate, frankly I'm up for it in as many places it's relevant as possible, but is there a wording where you can place it so that it's unobtrusive? Also, does this fit reference usage? Having reaad the section as is, I think we would have to reform the langauge, or risk adding a stiff sentence or phrase. But I don't have any imagination right now, and would love to be shown. I do think it can be inserted in section 6 with a single addition in sentence 1 or 2 without any other editing, and its use there fits the most direct references I found earlier, to this property in our general use.184.174.181.243 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
No, we should not add it in multiple times, that would be repetitive, add unnecessary emphasis to a mundane factoid, and would be repetitive. VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Then I return to asking someone to find a form of sentance for "Sources," where I find it available to be inserted for "Uses."98.159.193.131 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to get into ad hominem, but maybe a glance at this talkpage discussion would give an idea of what's motivating this long and drawn out discussion. ApLundell (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, besides this being ad-hom you repeatedly edited that page to delete replies done in otherwise good faith, though admittedly with pen disdain for your censorship, and then mid-comments you blocked me from defending myself. Now you've returned in an unrelated conversation, that "deleted" page that nobody would think to look for, to refute an otherwise sensible factual addition? This is 100% persecution based on the person involved, and yes, it's why I don't like telling anyone to even come to this place. What a mockery of humanity and me. Nothing in that comment refutes the sources given above. It is my view on the idiocy of humanity and the abject failure of this place to live up to anything as an education site as it started. You are revered here, I am not of your worship, and I will not pray to your advice. I request you recuse. 98.159.193.131 (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I have never edited that page. And the only reply I've removed from this page was when an IP editor (you?) posted "EEE! I farted!" [4].
However, the conversation I linked to was on a user talk page, and the user it belongs to is 100% entitled to remove comments from it after he's read them. There is no obligation to keep anything on your talk page after you've read it. ApLundell (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
That post was from January. You seem to me to be trolling? I'm removing that because it would be 100% ad-hom even if that was me. As for your reply ApLundell, it's still ad-hom, because it's attacking me, not answering if the request is factual, talking about the grammer or the language, or the placement of the request. The SOLE purpose of that addition is to bring question to the cause of adding information, which is not in question to an encylopedia. 71.14.28.60 (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I see. 184.174.181.243, it appears that you are interested in microwaves because you are concerned about their health effects? --ChetvornoTALK 21:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
In case it was unclear Thie above is fully ad-hom. Either the references back the factual claim for addition or they do not. My veiws on the operation of the world are not in question, nor are yours. I protest this remaining, I have removed this ad-hom 2x now, and it returns to slander. What follows starting with "I don't thin we should be pandering" is response to ad-hom. There is nothing at question except my view of the Soviet Union and the Japanese Empire, in the above "information." It's addition to this discussion at no point talks of sources or factual claim. An encylopedia ffs.98.159.193.131 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should be pandering to this. Don't make any change at all. SpinningSpark 03:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree --ChetvornoTALK 03:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This is fully ad-hom. Either the references back the factual claim for addition or they do not. My veiws on the operation of the world are not in question, nor are yours. I protest this remaining, I have removed this ad-hom 2x now, and it returns to slander.98.159.193.131 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear anonymous editor. You have not been slandered. You have been asked a question. The reason for the question is to elicit a discussion as to why you think that coherence should be mentioned more than once. Constant314 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I have not requested it more than once, I was stating my opinion, dearest friendly buddy editor.98.159.193.131 (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Section 6 Sentence 1: "Coherent microwave technology is extensively used..." . Suggestion 2: Section 6 Sentence 2: "...since they are more easily focused into narrower coherent beams than radio waves..." Either one or both works for me. I also willing to entertain other options, but apparently nobody else either has imagination for those as yet. 98.159.193.131 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

To recap some ancedotal information, when this request started, at least 3 editors didn't have any idea of this condition existing. Multiple outside sources, also including one editor, have confirmed this is a condition which is factual about our usage. The request is to add a single word in a phrase where it fits the references. To defeat any questions in advance, your not understanding what other people will do with more information is not an example of why it should not be added. The fact that only one of you were even aware of this condition, despite publishing, is exactly the perfect example of why it need be added. 98.159.193.131 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Propose immediate archiving of this discussion. For pretty much the same reasons as the previous thread started by this editor – it's turned into a ill-tempered wall of text that is going nowhere. SpinningSpark 16:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, please. --ChetvornoTALK 17:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
OK with me. The conversation has become incoherent. Constant314 (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
How many of you were even aware this was a condition of our usage prior to this discussion? One of you. You are choosing to shut down facts to your nation and this planet, because you don't like me. I think it's hilarious, except that you're trapping people in ignorance for a hilariously petty reason, and for that, you're deserving of far more than clear replies to your ad-hom. Discussions not on this topic, such as my views on the world, or referencing discussions taking place off this page, do not make this topic unclear.71.14.28.60 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
All of us. We simply do not distinguish between coherent microwave technology and microwave technology because almost all microwave technology is coherent microwave technology. By the way, most radio technology is coherent also. At least spatially coherent and I assume that what we have been talking about. Constant314 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You don't because it's common? This discussion alone gives rebuttal to this claim, as at least three editors to this page, I supposed learned men on the topic, didn't know it. And the fact that it is a condition which is not all, and may be otherwise, doesn't make it unworthy of being included in an evidencial repeating of our human condition, aka. encylopedia. I don't understand. It seems more important because it is common and unthought about. You're saying we shouldn't have the meaning of the day Monday here, and we do, because the goal is MORE information, especially where it's "common." I can't help it, I think this is being held to an absurd higher standard. I continually get the view of Cerberus if you're listening, I don't want any of these dead souls getting out either. 71.14.28.60 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microwave/Archive_1&oldid=1121937924"