Talk:Radar

message: There are two top-level articles for radar: Radar sensor and Radar.  This makes very little sense.  As Radar is the more comprehensive article, I propose that Radar sensor should be merged into the Radar article and then changed into a redirect to this page.  Anyone disagree??  Paul (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None from me.  I've watched this page for quite some time and also edited it and some of it's related articles, and I had no idea that Radar sensors even existed.  It seems to have some good information too.--Terry C (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First time I see the Radar sensor article. By its title, it should be a detailed article focussing on the sensors used in a radar. So only talking about the technical details of the transmitter, receptor, etc... The article is in fact a mixture of radar principle and technical points and has no real related links to it (orphan article). A merger is a good thing. However, it could be bit tricky to integrate the content into the main Radar article. An alternative could be using it as a  for radar sensors in the Radar#Radar engineering section after striping it of redundant radar article text. Pierre cb (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The following was floating around on the page, probably debris from an incomplete edit.  Someone who knows this stuff could probably figure out where it belongs:
... especially at the Radiation Lab at MIT (I. I. Rabi) and played an important role in the outcome of the war.
--Ortolan88 12:56 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
: It's from an old version, and has been replaced by a lengthy section of expanded text now. --Anonymous No.I
: MIT still boasts that they are the ones that develiped it here's a video where MIT President Susan Hockfield says so... can anyone provide clarification on this? H0riz0n 02:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MIT Radiation Lab was specifically set up to co-ordinate the US radar efforts with those of the British Telecommunications Research Establishment. The links between the two countries goes back to the Tizard Mission of 1940  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: MIT Rad Lab & I. I. Rabi

message: It seems useful to me to split this entry in two: one radar in general, and the other more focused on the military history side of it. I'm thinking of the link I'm about to make in an explicitly military context and seeing an article that doesn't deal with the stuff that it's appropriate to link to until you scroll quite a way down. And it's easy enough to imagine the contrary example, where you want to link to radar from an entry on a completely non-military area - microwave ovens or car safety devices or astronomomy, say. What do people think? Tannin 09:26 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
:On the history section: it's a very good history of British and German developments, but US work deserves more mention, esp the Rad Lab stuff. Also, Watson-Watt gets too much prominence at present: he played an important role in the development of British radar, and an even more important role in the getting-to-say-who-invented-it-afterwards department, to the exclusion of several others. There is an excellent and fairly recent American history of the Rad Lab that covers this in detail. I have it here somewhere, just can't remember the title at the moment. Tannin 11:16 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
: Found it! Added it to main article. Tannin
83.160.168.115 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the balance is wrong.  Much of the early work was driven by the military, both for airborne and naval use.  Civilian applications followed from this and were all based on the techniques developed for military purposes.  I agree that ship and safety radars per se don't get explicit coverage, but all that's needed is for someone to add a section to Section 5.  BTW there is no mention of guns and killing machines in the article, apart from radar guns :-)
--Terry C (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: General vs military radar

message: In the Frequency section, in addition to listings of a couple of 'bad' frequencies/frequency ranges, I would very much like to see an overview of the frequency range(s) used in all kinds of radar applications. That would make the article much more accessible and usable in a reference setting, I think. --Wernher 00:57, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Heron!  --Wernher 02:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency range(s) wanted 

message: I'd like to see (or add) a section or a separate page on some of the current scientific uses for radar, particularly in my field of atmospheric/ionospheric research.  In the ionosphere#Geophysics entry there is a link to Project HAARP, but there is much more to tell.  The Arecibo Observatory was built to be a radar, a fact not obvious from the entry, and there is a handful of ionospheric incoherent scatter radars around the world.  In addition, there is a large number of ionosondes and digisondes for automated ionospheric monitoring, and VHF meteor radars and coherent scatter radars for upper atmospheric research, as well as the SuperDARN radar chain of which the UK CUTLASS radar is just one pair of stations.
There is also the fascinating topic of passive radar, which probably deserves a section or page of its own.
I have read the various FAQs and tutorials for contributing to the 'pedia, and I'll be willing to contribute to these sections, if this is of interest.  I'd appreciate opinions on structure, though.  I.e., add a section or create separate page on scientific radar instruments, etc.  Also, should I create an account before starting on such contributions?
--Tom Grydeland Tom.Grydeland@phys.uit.no
:Thanks for your offer to contribute, Tom.  I think we would all welcome your help.  Here are my suggestions, which are by no means authoritative.
# Get yourself a user account on Wikipedia (see Special:UserLogin).  This is not obligatory, and some contributors manage fine without one, but it tends to encourage other users take you more seriously.  You can advertise your email address, but many Wikipedians won't use it, preferring to keep all communications on the Wikipedia record.
# Add a section to Radar summarising the scientific uses, and then, if you feel like going into more detail, add more articles on the more specialised topics.  Personally, I feel that lots of medium-sized articles on the specific areas you mentioned, such as Cutlass, would be more interesting and easier to navigate than a huge amorphous article on "scientific radar", but others might disagree.
# Beware of creating articles with ambiguous titles, such as "Cutlass".  The convention here is to describe the most common sense of the term (i.e. the knife) in the article of that name, but to add a note at the top or bottom saying "See Cutlass (radar) for the scientific radar system."
# Prepare yourself for lots of discussions and perhaps even arguments with other contributors, some better informed than others.  
Best wishes, -- Heron 17:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific use of Radar

message: I wanted to make a small change but refrained due to the warning that it's already 38k and should be shortened or split up.  Are there any ideas on how to do that?  None looked obvious to me, but splitting it up seems prefereable to just shortening it, since all the information looks to be well worth keeping. Maybe split off the frequency bands since that is a very specialized thing that is probably not of interest to most readers, or condense the history section and move the contents to a radar history article?  And does this Talk page count against the limit (probably not since it is a separate page, but just verifying)?  Spalding 12:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
:The 32k limit is a technical thing to work around a bug in some older browsers.  If you want to make a small change in the short term, just go ahead.  If the article is already 38k, then you won't make the problem any worse by expanding it to 39k.  In the longer term, I would agree with splitting off the history section, although I would leave a single-paragraph summary here to satisfy the casual reader.  Finally, the Talk page doesn't count towards the 32k. Thanks for taking the trouble to ask. --Heron 12:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: How to shorten the article since it's well above the 32k limit?

message: Shouldn't we change the title of this page from "Radar" to "RADAR" since RADAR is an acronym?--P Todd 04:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by the rules of English and the treatment of acronyms on Wikipedia, RADAR is in fact supposed to be all caps.  Just because other articles don't do it, doesn't excuse this one.  The others may have special reasoning for non-all caps (i.e. business name, indeterminable as an acronym, etc.), or may in fact be in error themselves and are in need of editing. I say update it, or at least add something to the article stating the use of 'radar' in non-capped form.Dannybu2001 19:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, everywhere I've looked says acronyms are to be capitalized, and Wikipedia says to follow the standard rules of English.  As such, it should be 'RADAR' not 'radar'.  I'm moving it unless someone has a reason why it shouldn't, then just revert it.  But please think about it and actually research tbe rules instead of assuming that Wiki-articles aren't supposed to do all caps at all, this is not what they say, in fact, the Manual of Style says something to the effect "don't make new rules" not "don't ever all-cap a word."Dannybu2001 20:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radar versus RADAR 

message: These are the old band designations arent they? Anyone think we should put the new ones in as well?--Light current 07:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old designations are still widely used, especially in the US. For example, a Google search for C-band satellite dish yields almost 700,000 hits, but together G-band satellite dish or H-band satellite dish only produce around 500 hits. It might be worth making another column in the table, but it could turn the table into a complicated alphabet soup. --Dual Freq 16:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's the first I have heard about a G band.  Looks like the old designations are almost exclusively used, but you are right the encyclopedia should explain this sort of thing, but not push the new designations. Graeme Bartlett 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: IIRC, the development of 9.1 cm H2S preceded recognised band designations for such short wavelengths and so when a 3 cm version of H2S was projected, it was initially referred to as "H2X", the 'S' and 'X' being retrospectively used to refer to the bands upon which the two sets of equipment operated, i.e., 9 cm and 3 cm, subsequent bands letters being added later. A US version of the 3 cm radar later took the "H2X" name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.56 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band designations 

message: I notice that the origin of word "radar" has been changed from "The term RADAR was coined in 1941 as an acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging. This acronym of American origin replaced the previously used British abbreviation RDF (Radio Direction Finding). The term has since entered the English language as a standard word, radar, losing the capitalization in the process." to "The term RADAR was coined in 1941 as an acronym for Radio Assisted Direction And Range. This acronym of American origin replaced the previously used British abbreviation RDF (Radio Direction Finding). The term has since entered the English language as a standard word, radar, losing the capitalization in the process."  The Oxford English Dictionary gives the etymology as "[f. radio detection and ranging.]".  Is there evidence of the etymology?  The earliest example quote by the OED does not give the etymology - "1941 N.Y. Times 18 Nov. 8/4 The Navy undertook a special enlistment campaign today to recruit men for training in maintenance of the radio device known as ‘Radar’, which is used to locate ships and aircraft that are hidden by fog or darkness. "  jmb 15:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who works in this field, Radio Detection and Ranging as always been the description I've encountered as the definition of Radar. A good reference on radar that could help on that is "Radar in Meteorology by David Atlas", published by the American Meteorological Society Pierre_cb 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who worked in the field, RADAR was always RAdio Direction And Ranging, the two jobs a RADAR was originally required to perform. There are many citations for this version of the acronym as well, including U.S. patents. It certainly makes more sense than 'detection'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.96.61 (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are four references in the text that say this IP is wrong. Pierre cb (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Another wikiuser deleted some changed I had introduced in this article in the description section saying that it was historical information that was out of place and not documented enough. His comment made sense, however he left this part which is is obviously historical and not documented:
The use of radio waves to detect "the presence of distant metallic objects via radio waves" was first implemented in 1904 by Christian Hülsmeyer, who demonstrated the feasibility of detecting the presence of ships in dense fog and received a patent for radar as Reichspatent Nr. 165546. Another of the first working models was produced by Hungarian Zoltán Bay in 1936 at the Tungsram laboratory.
*There is a link to radar history in wikipedia at the bottom of the article. This is a very good article and I think that the above paragraph should be deleted and its information, if pertinent, be moved there. 
*In order to avoid further such add-on, I was wondering if the link to radar history should not be put just under the description section as just a HISTORY section with the link as the only item. 
:Since I'm not sure of the right way to do it and I don't want to offend any contributor to this excellent article, has anybody have a comment on that?Pierre_cb 2006/04/28 00:23 UTC
* Quite an interesting discussion on early radars runs on newsgroup: . It mentions article from 1935  and lists website about early radars . Pavel Vozenilek 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radar history 

message: In the context of speed detection, does anybody know if lidar and radar were fixed on the same target from roughly the same place if they could mess with each other? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.43.137 (talk • contribs) .
:I answered this very question on Talk:LIDAR (to sum it up here: "no, it's impossible"). However, in future please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project and not a discussion forum. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LIDAR and RADAR interfering with one another

message: Noticed that situation awareness systems, like those used on commercial and pleasure boats, is missing from here. In fact, the roles section seems to have a significant military spin, with a few non-military tacked onto the end. How does everyone feel about fixing this? I thought since this was FA already I'd post here before making any additions myself. - Davandron | Talk 21:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functions and roles; civilian situation awareness systems missing 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 0 mm, use 0 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 0 mm.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**is considered
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbour (B) (American: harbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), fibre (B) (American: fiber), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), ization (A) (British: isation), traveled (A) (British: travelled), program  (A) (British: programme).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
**Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated Review

message: whats the acronym for radar?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.58.215 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "RAdio Detection And Ranging" - it's in the first paragraph of the article. Bistromathic 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Around 1970, Flying Magazine reviewed something called "Airadar". This was a phased array radar for light aircraft, with electronic scanning, a fast-refresh display, and a conformal antenna. Today, that's not unusual, but it was way ahead of its time. So far ahead that it was classified and disappeared from the commercial market. Any info on this would be appreciated. No, it's not in Google. --John Nagle (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any information on "Airadar"?  

message: At high resolutions and low grazing angles the occurance of spikes significantly increases the clutter RCS. Waashwal (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sea Clutter

message: In the Radar Engineering section, subhead Radar Coolant, the last paragraph seems almost repetitive. I didn't study it thoroughly, but it looks like a definition of Coolanol, perhaps. Was it, say, a long footnote within the paragraph that was not designated as such?
As well, is this level of detail appropriate? Imho, not really, although I have been tempted to do it, myself (I did, in the Friden Flexowriter article).Nikevich (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused text 

message: The article Types and uses of radar is redundant with the Radar article and should be merged into it. Pierre cb (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While being invited in my talk page  for my opinion, unfortunately I am not an expert (nor hobbyist) in radars, so I cannot take part in the effort on the article improvement. - 7-bubёn >t 15:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All good comments. I agree now that maybe it should be the other way around as mentionnend by the last writer and Wolfkeeper : transfer the material to "Types and uses of radar", or what ever name is best, and just leave an introduction. I wait a little bit for more comments. Pierre cb (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that approach.--Terry C (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types and uses of radar 

message: 3-D SAR and IFSAR should be mentioned and placed under interferometry
also, another use of radar is crop monitoring and identification of military and civilian vehicles see http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L4E_sar.htm
include in article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.171.68 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Interferometry

message: A new User without a talk page (Syaps) has just added some detail to the Radar signal characteristics article, giving a formula for Maximum Unambiguous Range with staggered radars.  I put in some corrections to the style and layout, but I had not heard of this formula before and cannot find any information that confirms that this formula is valid.  If anyone can help, I would appreciate it.  --Terry C (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Help - Maximum Unambiguous Range

message: Hi,
It seems there is a rash of vandalism from IP since the beginning of October. It is probably a bunch of students back to school and with time on their hands. I think it would be a good idea to have the article semi-protected for a month or two in order to make them forget about wikipedia vandalism and do something else. Anybody against that I request that to the administrators ?
Pierre cb (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection ? 

message: Mention should be made of Baldwin's 1932 statement 'the bomber will always get through' One man was dissatisfied and thought that there must be some scientific defence and later formed the Tizard Committee. Death Rays were fashionable but Arnold Wilkins briefed Mr. W.Watt to say that radio wave energy sufficient to be effective could not be generated, but it might be possible to locate the aircraft target. The one man accepted this and provided the money to start research. That one man was Neville Chamberlain. Watson Watt had Arnold Wilkins do the experiment using a BBC transmitter. Appleton had already noted that aircraft echos interferred with his ionosphere research, but he was only a junior scientific officer an his opinioin not sought.
Contributed by R.Brett=Knowles, sometime JSO at TRE, Malvern.
Transcript from an intervention made by user:86.131.57.146 which is more for the discussion page.
:This is already in History of radar, which is mentionned as the main article on history, and has nothing to do here. Pierre cb (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was preparing to start a new section when I caught this section that deals with what I was going to discuss.  I have been exploring old issues of Popular Mechanics/Sciences and came across some very interesting articles that deal with the history.  It seems I am going to have to go back and delete a lot of my stuff and take it over to radar history.  But it would be nice if there was a note at the top of RADAR stating there is a Radar History article. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But there IS a mention at the top of the History section "Main article: History of radar" and it is pretty obvious. I don't know why you did not see it when you added to that section? The intro is not the place to mention about the history article and sections are not the place to put historical information since an history section exist. Pierre cb (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Do we have any evidence for this statement, currently in the lede? I may have missed it in the existing refs. --Nigelj (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The term RADAR was coined in 1940 by the United States Navy" 

message: Removed this primary sourced statement about Tesla to talk. This is a common type of statement on Wikipedia: "Tesla did something" or "Tesla said something" implying Tesla had a significant roll in the subject, such as the history of Radar - followed by a primary source that shows.....well yeah, Tesla did something or said something. Wikipedia policy per:WP:PST is: Any interpretation of primary source material (such as "Tesla outlined a concept " or had a significant roll in a short history of  radar) requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Lots of people did something or said something but it takes a reliable secondary source to show if it was significant, not some past editors original research of finding a primary source and concluding that it is significant. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this edit, still does not address "Tesla's roll" re: Lack of a secondary source leaves no way to judge WP:BALASPS - is this "disproportionate" to its overall significance to the article topic. "outlined a concept" is a bit WP:WEASEL "implying" a Tesla roll "through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis". Again this can all be verified with reliable secondary sources on the history of radar. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think Tesla had as much of a role in the early thinking of radar as shown by a short quote about it (i.e not much, but a little) but are quibbling about sources, or do you think he played no role at all? The former would mean you should add a sourcing tag without deleting it, the latter seems ridiculous. (Hohum @) 18:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When you start digging into reliable sources, the answer is the latter. Tesla's 1900 remarks are cited more than his 1917, and the conclusion is not very flattering towards Tesla Technical and Military Imperatives: A Radar History of World War 2, By L Brown, page 41. Electronic Inventions and Discoveries: Electronics from its earliest beginnings to the present day, Fourth Edition - page121-122 does not mention Tesla. This http://edisontechcenter.org article claims "Tesla invented radar in 1917" as a No. 5 myth, I know that one will make the Tesla fans mad. Tesla seemed not to have built or invented anything, he just seems to be making predictions to reporters about future inventions without any details. Buck Rogers did that as well but we don't seem to be quoting Buck Rogers. But the WP:BURDEN does not lie with me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the useful links, I now agree that Tesla's quote isn't worth including because he didn't have enough influence on radar development. Although, comparing Tesla's opinion about a general field he had expertise in to the opinion of of a fictional character isn't valid. (I note Leonardo da Vinci gets a mention in the Helicopter and Tank articles, along with H.G. Wells in the latter, without references). (Hohum @) 20:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tesla's roll? 

message: I'm still working through the history of the US's Nike program and the ABM field as a whole. One issue that comes up repeatedly are statements to the effect that the long-range detection of RV's is improved through the use of long-wavelength radar. I would like to better understand this statement, because its in every article on ABM defences, seems important although vague, and in any event I don't think I can currently do it justice.
I am familiar with the basic concept of wavelength and resolution, which seems to argue against the use of long-wave radars in the ABM role. The presence of decoys essentially demands the ability to resolve small objects - and, I assume, the main reason the currently deployed US ABM system uses the X-band. I am also familiar with the fact that designers in the 1960s were working with much more limited hardware, and designing a super-powerful radar in the S-band was likely far, far easier than on in the X-band. So perhaps these statements are simply ones of "ease of deployment".
But they don't seem to be. Consider Hans Bethe's (yes, that guy) statement in a seminal 1968 article: "In some recent popular articles long-wave radar has been hailed as the cure for the problems of the ABM missile. It is not". This statement clearly implies that there was some sort of technical reason that long-wave was technical preferable, even if Bethe disagrees with it.
So, can any of the people more knowledgable on the topic of radio physics comment on this? Thanks!
Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this helps: Over-the-horizon_radar#Alternate OTH approaches. Regards Snaily (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wrote that section :-) I'm referring to S-band, not ultra-low-frequencies. And strictly line of sight. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long range implies long wavelength? 

message: Why is it radar instead of RADAR, it is an acronym for RAdio Detection And Ranging, so the title should be RADAR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 23 August 2014‎
:I think that you will find that this question has come up many times over the years if you care to review the page history.  Two things drive the usage in the article:
:* Type radar or RADAR into a search engine and all the hits will call it radar.
:* This is a word a bit like Hoover; that was a product that became a verb, RADAR was an Acronym, but has now slipped into common usage.''
:--Terry C (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Language evolves over time. "Radar" has become a word in common usage. It is no longer necessary or typical to treat it as an acronym.--Srleffler (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. And at one point this article provided the link that explains this (part of the article on acronyms), but it was removed. The reason for removal, I believe, was that the name for such words, anacronyms, is not widely used and was considered a distraction in the lede of this article. But given that some readers want to know this information, I will provide the link, this time with just a pipe link of existing text, leaving the lede unencumbered. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RADAR 

message: The introduction needs amending to incorporate the fact that mm wave radar (35GHz & 76GHz typically) are used to detect much smaller objects than vehicles - often used to detect and track people for security systems for example, and that these systems use frequency modulation continuous wave (FMCW), rather than pulsed radio wave output. These system work at ranges of up to 1400M currently, and will be working at close to 2kM in the future. It is also worth pointing out that this technology will be used in vehicles to assist with driver safety, and on the roadside for the same purpose, and traffic management. I know this because I work for a company producing such radar (Navtech Radar), but I do not feel well enough qualified to edit this document. --11:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proliferation of mm wave radar 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Radar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150426081748/http://www.patent.gov.uk/media/pressrelease/2001/1009.htm to http://www.patent.gov.uk/media/pressrelease/2001/1009.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This sentence is not clear:
Wilkins made an extensive study of available units before selecting a model from the General Post Office.
Please make it clear. I can't understand it's concept.At Last ... (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is perfectly clear when one reads the previous sentence: "As part of ongoing experiments, he asked the "new boy", Arnold Frederic Wilkins, to find a receiver suitable for use with shortwave transmissions." The term units refer clearly to the types of receivers available on the market at that moment. Pierre cb (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

text: A model of receiver suitable for the needs of that organization. Pierre cb (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Redut is the model nickname of the RUS-2 radar. Pierre cb (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But I see (Redoute/Pegmatit) as nickname in it's "wiki page" not Redut?!At Last ... (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

text: A surface-to-surface radar is a radar used to scan the horizon for ships (the radar is at the surface of the Earth and the targets too). It was used to guide the searchlight of coastal defenses toward ennemy ships. Pierre cb (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Really helpful, But what's battery search exactly mean?At Last ... (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Artillery battery. This is my last intervention. Please use a dictionnary in the future.Pierre cb (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You helped more than normal, thank you so much, but u told it search for ship not for gun or mortar!!??
I know what is resonance, But I can't understand "When the two length scales are comparable, there may be resonances", I can't understand the concept, What's meaning large wavelength radar can depend on resonance?At Last ... (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification 

message: is adding information biased toward British in this and other articles. He is using Scotthish refrecences to overstate the importance of Robert Watson-Watt in the development of radar while others from France, Germany, USSR and United States have been critical to the development of this device. When I tried to bring a more neutral language, he reversed me. Could someone be the juge in this situation? Pierre cb (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are repeating yourself on too many talk pages. Best keep it in one. In responding to your comment, it was you that put forward your own personal viewpoint that the "Germans had a much better device", which I responded with a statement from the American physicists at the American Physical Society. So a viewpoint from you, or a statement from American physicists? Another personal viewpoint from Pierre is "Watson-Watt is not THE father of radar". No-one said he was. You again are letting your own viewpoint distort what was stated. He was, what the BBC states, a pioneer. Neutral language? You mean moving away from what is said in the sources toward your own personal viewpoint. Edward Highgate (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I never added text about the German, or any other nation for that matter, in this discussion or in the article. I just point out your bias toward the British in the history section which is now British centered in text and photos. Pierre cb (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not making any sense. You stated the Germans had a "much better device". You are therefore arguing with American physicists at the American Physical Society (it's also further expanded on the BBC source, but then you'd question them also). Edward Highgate (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop referring to personal discussion pages out of context. This has no bearing to what has been edited in this article. Pierre cb (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it's the sources you are arguing with, not me. Is Time magazine wrong also? Did you or did you not state the Germans had "a much better device"? Edward Highgate (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are out of bound talking about personal discussion pages here that has nothing to bear with the editions made to this article which only involve your British bias and no other nation. Pierre cb (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britsh-centered additions 

message: He built a device in 1915..1916 and made a demo for the German marine. It was too late for the first world war. Schily (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hans Dominik]] was another Radar inventor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Radar. 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/20090116093441/http://www.radar-france.fr/brevet%20radar1934.htm to http://www.radar-france.fr/brevet%20radar1934.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030803115343/http://privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3/radarhistorybuderi.html to http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3/radarhistorybuderi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Radar. 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/20110710144447/http://www.doramusic.com/Radar.htm to http://www.doramusic.com/Radar.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110824221707/http://www.aticourses.com/fundamentals_radar_tracking.htm to http://www.aticourses.com/fundamentals_radar_tracking.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey all - would it be a bad idea to place the nomenclature for radar in the leading sentence for ease of access to the precise definition of radar in the article? That is, a swap from - 
"Radar is an object-detection system that uses radio waves to determine the range, angle, or velocity of objects."
To - 
"Radar (RAdio Detection And Ranging) is an object-detection system that uses radio waves to determine the range, angle, or velocity of objects."
I'm open for any thoughts! Bryan C. W. (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading Sentence and Acronym Info 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Radar. 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/20150620161506/http://kret.com/en/news/3657/ to http://kret.com/en/news/3657/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922174712/http://www.mit.edu/~lrv/cornell/publications/Ground%20Surveillance%20Radars%20and%20Military%20Intelligence.pdf to http://www.mit.edu/~lrv/cornell/publications/Ground%20Surveillance%20Radars%20and%20Military%20Intelligence.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The lede fails to make clear that Germany had radar before Britain did. (86.135.242.99 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it need it? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because there is an urban myth that persists to this day that Germany lost the Battle of Britain due to radar. (86.131.66.221 (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Having radar and losing because the British had radar is not a mutually exclusive statement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany had radar first 

message: :f = \left ( \frac {c \pm v_\text{r}}{c} \right ) × \left ( \frac {c}{c \pm v_\text{s}} \right ) f_0  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:4201:D70:E15B:E727:6A15:56BD (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: is this the equation for radar

message: I think that doppler effect formulas are wrong or are explained wrong. In the actual state, if Vr is 0, Fd is 0. It should be Fd=Ft or it should be more clear that Fd is the shift and not the shifted frequency. What do you think? Francesco.dallacqua (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doppler effect formulas 

message: First, I want to say that I have nothing to do with the the text that was removed, I just reinstated it as the reason for deleting it seems to me invalid. Why was it removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radar&oldid=prev&diff=1064850227) as it comes from a peer reviewed article in a renown IEEE journal. Why this is not good enough to be in Wikipedia? As far as this reasoning goes, the original articles by Einstein on Relativity would not be enough for an article on Relativity?
Pierre cb (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:PST re: interpretation of a primary source, such as if its notable, requires a secondary source for that interpretation (Einstein on Relativity has many secondary sources to interpret his primary source). Please also do not single out other editors, this was removed by someone else for COI reasons and, yeah, added by SPA account Mo398 who only adds papers by Mohamad Forouzanfar. So seems valid as well. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Complete explanation like this for the reasoning has to be in the Resume, otherwise this leads to misunderstanding. Although I don't agree with the rejection of a peer review reference, I understand the promotional aspect. 16:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text 

message: The description for the early radar (US Naval Research Laboratory, Anacostia, D. C) says it was from the late 1930s, but when you click on it it says the image is from October 1945. I would change this but I'm new and don't want to mess anything up, I also don't know which one is correct so if someone else that knew more about it that would be great. Sorry if this is a known issue.GrandmaEater24 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no error with the legend of :File:Early radar antenna - US Naval Research Laboratory Anacostia.jpg in the article as the description on the image in Commons reads: "Closeup of the antenna of the first complete radar, installed "topside" of a building at the Naval Research Laboratory, Anacostia, D. C. in the late 1930s." The picture might have been taken in October 1945, it really shows a late 1930's US radar device. To clarify, I added the date the photo was taken in the legend. Pierre cb (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: oh thanks, sorry it was a waste of time GrandmaEater24 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect image description 

message: Alexander Popov died on 13 January 1906, so how could he have noticed what it says in the article in 1907?! 24.135.17.222 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong reading by IP, the text says 1897. Pierre cb (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Popov 

message: wide overlap fgnievinski (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposition closed as nobody responded to it. Pierre cb (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Reopeining (WP:NODEADLINES). Radar engineering details appears to be an unusual article. I don't see what justifies its existence. ~Kvng (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So advertise the proposed merge. So far nobody seems interested in the discussion, one way or the other. This seems to be a moot subject. Pierre cb (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

text: See additional discussion at Talk:Radar_engineering_details#"...details"_is_a_highly_unusual_name_for_a_Wikipedia_article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the discussion there is stale and inconclusive. Klbrain (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Radar engineering details]] into [[Radar]] 

message: It doesn't even have the same units on both sides. Should probably be AtAr.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.79.211.189 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: False, The IP do not know how to interpret. See reference équation 10.6 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/radar-equation). Pierre cb (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed that sigma has area units, so I am wrong here. 104.187.53.82 (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RADAR Equation is wrong 

message: The article lacks any mention of applications in search and rescue. I added a section header but it was reverted by  who presumably does not consider the subtopic relevant, but did not say why, so I open this for discussion, as I think it is relevant, and could be useful to the reader. Radar has important applications in maritime search and rescue, so there should be at minimum some mention and a link to an article covering it in more detail, and preferably a summary section or paragraph, but I do not have any verifiable information to add myself. 
I also could not find any mention of target acquisition or radar guided weapons, which seems a bit odd as those are significant applications too. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did say why (Remove empty useless section). It is not because I don't think it is relevant to talk about those subjects but you cannot put an empty section in an article. You must to at least put a paragraph describing what you are talking about. On the other hand, what you just wrote above does not need a separate section, just adding a paragraph in the section Radar#Applications is well enough. Pierre cb (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application in search and rescue 

message: In the Wikipedia article on 'laser', it is explicitly mentioned that 'laser' is an anacronym. 'radar' is also an anacronym, and this phenomenon is spelled out, but the term 'anacronym' is not explicitly cited, but it ought to be. Kontribuanto (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is mention in the 3rd paragraph of the introduction: "The term RADAR was coined in 1940 by the United States Navy as an acronym for "radio detection and ranging".The term radar has since entered English and other languages as a common noun, losing all capitalization." But I have added the term to the sentence. Pierre cb (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing categorization: anacronym