Talk:Extremely high frequency

True or false: someone has coined a name for the next member of the frequency system after this. 66.245.75.195 22:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's called infrared light. ;-) radiojon 05:30, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Would this heat-wave gun be an example of milimeter-wave technology? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6300985.stm If so, should the article reference the prototype? -P-

Yep. Since it uses a 3mm wave.

Woah- it says that weapon is not painful. Every news report says it is extremely painful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furbybrain (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure to 3mm waves is shown to be painful and causes heat-burns when exposed in high-power 3mm.

Link to news article about TSA installing this in US Airports: [[1]] 66.196.90.212 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

This article needs a cleanup. All radio band articles (VLF LF MF HF VHF UHF SHF EHF) should be structured in the same way. --HelgeStenstrom (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify if this means a kilometer above the ground or a kilometer in distance of transmission. If it is distance I think this is incorrect and possibly meant under about a kilometer? "Therefore, they have a short range and can only be used for terrestrial communication over about a kilometer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.41.230 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

This article should be called "Millimeter-waves", since that is the name used everywhere (except on WP). Calling it "Extremely high frequency" is anachronstic. Setreset (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Extremely High Frequency" or EHF is the official designation of this band by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) standards body 1 the same as VHF or UHF are for those bands. The term "extremely high frequency" seems to be widely used in professional electrical engineering literature. However, maybe the name "millimeter waves" should be moved up into the lead sentence. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WiMedia Alliance

This alliance no longer exists and the reference cited is a dead link. Sooku (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions on health effects

Recently an editor has been repeatedly adding content on health hazards of the EHF radiation used in the Active Denial System, and health hazards of radio waves in general, to the Weapons systems section. While I think this material is important, I feel it is too general and WP:OFFTOPIC for this article. The material pertaining to the Active Denial System probably belongs in that article. The material on health hazards of cellphones certainly does not belong here because cellphones do not use the EHF band, it could perhaps be put in Cell phone. Alternatively, it could all go in Electromagnetic radiation and health. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Extremely high frequency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311160429/http://www.newscientisttech.com:80/article.ns?id=dn10160&feedId=tech_rss20 to http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn10160&feedId=tech_rss20

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

millimeter wave propagation at elevated altitudes ??

Am wondering about possibilities for mm wave radar as a sensor for aircraft. The article states that for communication mm waves are good for only about 1000 meters, and that the short range is due to absorption by O2 and N2 molecules (or possibly other trace gases not mentioned?). This is not stated in the article, but I am assuming that this value of 1000 meters pertains to mmW propagation at sea level. Now my thinking is that if an aircraft is flying, say, at 16,500 meters then the air density is one-eighth the value at sea level. And since the density of air molecules is 1/8 the useful range of a passive mmW sensor at that altitude would be around 8000 meters. It could be greater since a detection device could be much more sensitive than a communication device meant to transmit information. Also, the sensor could be built as a mmW telescope and thus offer magnification at the expense of restricted field of view. If true, this could be useful for some applications. So it seems helpful if some expert here could offer an opinion on this: does thinner air equate to decreased atmospheric attenuation (increased range)?. Thanks in advance.Wikkileaker (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine

The section "Medicine" in this article looks very fishy. This looks to me to be unscientific and esoteric. I did a quick search and am pretty sure it's nonsense. I am particularly suspicious of the fact that there are no specific diseases that can be treated with this technique. However, I am neither a physician nor a physicist, so I do not want to change the article. Can an expert provide clarity here? --Stahlgrün (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick PubMed search[2] brings up a few results, so this is not entirely made up, although the way the section has been written indeed sounds somewhat promotional. A rewrite would be warranted, but I wouldn't be keen on deleting altogether. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extremely high frequency. 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/20110718035939/http://www.benran.ru/Magazin/El/13/N71320.HTM to http://www.benran.ru/Magazin/El/13/N71320.HTM

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Extremely high frequency. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DEWs-related frequency range as ADS uses this ...

... as such, UNUSABLE for telecoms-typical purposes in Germany. SORRY! That's why 5G mmWave is ILLEGAL here. Sorry again. --2001:16B8:5722:F600:310A:4950:93AD:1F41 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]