Talk:X band

There really is no need to have seperate W/V/K/Ka/Ku/X/C/S/L-band radar articles (9 articles total) for each radar band. Suggest all be merged into the actual band articles. --Evmore 12:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Properly expanded (with history, uses, generation methods, etc.), these articles would be of approrpiate length for encyclopedia entires. And the current templates tie them all together nicely.:Atlant 13:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I disagree as well... X Band is more than just radar. --Xephael 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree they should be merged, but only if the length of the radar article is kept sufficiently long to cover the details of each of the bands. If not, then each of the bands should retain their own entries. Mugaliens 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

X-band is about more than just radar - on spacecraft it often is a comm band. They should be kept separate. LeeWF 26 Sept 2006

What if the X-band article first introduced the band (its frequencies, etc.) and then had a Radar section, a Communications section, etc.? -- Coneslayer 22:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that's inverted from what the approach should be. I believe that all the bands should be lumped into radar, but if they're used for comms, then notice should be made, accordingly, as an aside. Mugaliens 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

no need to merge; the 'X-Band Radar' topic states info as required and can further specify with addition; the details of 'X-Band' can be greatly more complicated with further evolution; the link integration solves any issues of information access; one is sub-category of 'Radar', the other is sub-category of both 'Frequency' and 'Radar' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.156.100 (talk • contribs)

Please don't merge as there are several other non radar topics to discuss in X-band. Originally radar may have been the only application, but the term has far more use than just radar. Even though this is a stub there is more to write. —The preceding -- comment was added by GB 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

I think the articles on each band are short enough to merge into one article, but they're also OK to stand alone. However, the X band radar topic is much narrower than the X band topic, so the radar topic should probably be a section within the X band article. -Amatulic 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I work in satellite communication field and find it useful to have X-band satcom seperate from X-band radar. - M. Mead 25 March 2007

I agree, no need to merge. I work in terrestrial microwave and have worked in remote sensing; communications and sensing are entirely different disciplines and should be kept separate. For any band, satcom, telephony, networking, etc. belong together while radar and remote sensing belong to another discipline. Altaphon 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The variations in usage, from the earliest days of radar (UK-developed L-band in what we now define as High Frequency) to the present are egregiously large and ambiguous, varying by user and specialty, so are functionally obsolete. I suggest that we refer to frequencies and wavelengths for radar, rather than to band. LVManess 11 October 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.76.1 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article is essentially a list of what this band is used for. I'd like to see a section on the properties of these frequencies: its advantages, disadvantages, and why this band is used for the applications it is used for. The same goes for all the other microwave bands.Pulu (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, like the wavelength. Isn't it between 2.5 cm (for 12 GHz) and 3.75 cm (for 8 GHz) ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would be perhaps appoint, to be useful in articles. Which big Staete are with X-band radar covered nicely against enemy attacks, and can finally relax? Laxlynaves (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't these two paragraphs in the first section contradict each other on the band's allocated frequency?

For communications engineering purposes, the X-band frequency range is approximately from 7.0 to 11.2 GHz. Above 11.2 GHz is where the Ku-band exists. All of the other microwave communication bands also have somewhat fuzzy boundaries, and they are lettered, L, S, C, X, Ku, K, and Ka, just as the radar bands are lettered.

The first several I.E.E.E. radar bands are defined as follows: 1.0 - 2.0 GHz, L-band; 2.0 - 4.0 GHz, S-band; 4.0 - 8.0 GHz, C-band; 8.0 - 12.0 GHz, X-band; 12.0 - 30.0 GHz K-band; where the sub-band of 12.0 - 16.0 GHz is called the Ku-band, where the "u" is a subscript meaning "under". In the high end of the K-band, there is also a Ka-band, where the "a" is a subscript meaning "above".

Aslaveofaudio (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The definition of X-band was based initially on waveguide dimensions when the inner walls were milled and machined to 1.0" x 0.5" and thus the propagation frequencies were essentially 7.0 to 10.5 GHz. When extruding machines proved so much more economical, the extruded waveguides were produced with 1.0" x 0.5" on the outside dimensions, not the inside and thus the inside was 0.9" x 0.40" with a .100" wall thickness. For this "new" dimension, the best propagation frequencies were 8.2 to 12.4 GHz and can be extended to 8.0 to 12.5 GHz (some cutoff modes occur on the lower end) without too much decline in efficiency and loss parameters.

So X-band for mnemonic-sake is 8-12 GHz, but the true X-band covering large and more recent bands can cover 7.0-12.5 GHz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.231 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now that is SERIOUS fascinating; thank you! I invite you to put it in the article, as I was wondering the same thing.

If you happen to know the answer, I also wondered about this:

"A Viking lander would transmit two simultaneous continuous-wave carriers in the S and X bands. Simultaneous measurements at the two different frequencies enabled theoretical physicists to verify the predictions of General Relativity."

What does GR have to say about different frequencies from the same source? Is one delayed or freq-shifted, or what? (I know SR pretty well, but not GR at all.)

...Unfortunately, I'm talking to an IP editor, which means he'll never read this and I'll probably never find out the answer. Oh well.

Verdana♥Bøld 12:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on X band. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090205161745/http://www.iaru-r1.org:80/VHF_Handbook_V5_11.pdf to http://www.iaru-r1.org/VHF_Handbook_V5_11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on X band. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120318235802/http://www.comreg.ie/radio_spectrum/exemptions.541.488.rslicensing.html to http://www.comreg.ie/radio_spectrum/exemptions.541.488.rslicensing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply