Talk:Shortwave radio

message: :"The Asia-Pacific Telecommunity estimates that there are approximately 600,000,000 shortwave radio receivers in use in 2002."
I know there are a lot about but the figure seems extremely high, especially if we're talking about receivers actually in use as opposed to the total number ever produced or something. This works out at about one shortwave radio for every ten people in the world. Can anyone confirm it? — Trilobite (Talk) 04:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of receivers 

message: Suggestion: Anyone think it's a good idea to include a section on PC-controlled shortwave receivers (and software)? (I am not the prospective author, as no experience with this setup.) I didn't find any reference to it in Wikipedia.--Kibbitzer 07:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Perhaps zealot will contribute. Also, this is the first I heard of DRM. Perhaps the Wikipedia article on that could be appropriately linked? Again, I am not qualified to know where to work it into the existing shortwave article.--Kibbitzer 06:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Section on PC-Controlled Receivers and Software? 

message: This page needs better descriptions of the meter bands.  For starters, I dispute the "not in the americas" label for the 41 meter band.  I have other descriptions for these bands but I believe it is under copyright (from radio manuals).  bneely 19:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better band descriptions? 

message: I was reading the article and this part was unclear to me:
Shortwave frequencies are capable of reaching the other side of the planet because they can be refracted by the ionosphere.
Are radio waves refracted (bent) or reflected? . User:Rjairam
: They are actually refracted since the waves enter the ionosphere and their direction of propagation is gradually changed by interaction with the free electrons therein.  However, for practical purposes, the interaction can be characterized as a reflection from a thin, conductive surface at a single virtual height above the earth. Jim, K7JEB 02:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ionosphere refraction? 

message: The shortwave and high frequency articles seem to be about the same subject:
* Shortwave radio operates between the frequencies of 3,000 kHz and 30 MHz (30,000 kHz) and came to be referred to as such in the early days of radio because the wavelengths associated with this frequency range were shorter than those commonly in use at that time. An alternate name is HF, or high frequency.
* High frequency (HF) radio frequencies are between 3 and 30 MHz. This range is often called shortwave.
Shouldn't these be merged?  If so, which title should be the "main" article title?  — Johan the Ghost seance 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making this a formal proposal.  Please comment at Talk:high frequency. — Johan the Ghost seance 10:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with High Frequency? 

message: This article fails. Lacks date when shortwave was invented and/or came into practical use. --68.190.117.179 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Improvement

message: The term "HF" is not misapplied; it's historical and has been in use for many, many decades -- particularly before VHF and UHF (which are no longer VERY or ULTRA) transmitting became commonplace. In fact the HF amateur radio bands were allocated to amateurs (like reservations were allocated to indians) precisely because it was once thought they would be of little use to broadcasting. Twang 02:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on HF 

message: I've added a globalize/USA tag to this article, since it is a particularly bad example of US-centric writing, especially in the first section. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good deal of the development of shortwave radio came from the United States first, especially in the 1920s. U.S. hams were the first to discover the ability of shortwave to reach long distances. GABaker (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize tag 

message: I have tagged :File:Modern_Short_Wave_Radio.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 10:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Modern_Short_Wave_Radio.jpg]] may be deleted 

message: Because of the larger bandwidth required, NBFM is much more commonly used for VHF communication.
I thought that NBFM had the same bandwidth as AM. 72.75.98.88 (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrow-band FM 

message: Some mention of this new technology http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8165928.stm would possibly fit here? 87.74.77.209 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power over Wireless 

message: Frustratingly, the first citation just doesn't support what is in the introductory paragraph of the article.  What is the range of shortwave frequencies?  Anyone know?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.230.224 (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wavelength 

message: I'm pretty sure that the bit about being able to detect the number of HF listeners via the EM of the circuits is not feasible. Haven't found any mention online or in any other source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.139.238 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know this is quite feasible, because it was this emission that led n to the discovery of the Superheterodyne receiver. CodeCat (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I doubt they can detect the "number of HF listeners" over long distances, but they can certainly drive down your street with a monitoring antenna and pick up the signal emitted from your radio.  I think CodeCat is essentially right, because the way a Superhet receiver works is that a "local oscillator" (LO) radiates EM radio waves at a frequency that equals the tuning frequency plus (or minus) the "intermediate frequency" (IF).  I've seen a first-hand demonstration this sort of spying done on an FM radio on the 88-108 MHz band.  Knowing that the intermediate frequency of most FM radios is 10.7 MHz, if they detect a signal in the vicinity of your radio at 118.7 MHz (or 97.3 MHz, I forget whether the LO is offset above or below), then they know you're tuned in to 108 MHz.  This technique relies on some standardization of the IF, e.g. 10.7 MHz in North America.  
It also might be possible to spy on people by detecting the IF signal, which unlike the LO, contains the broadcast data.  This signal can then be matched up to all the possible stations that you could be listening to.  
To minimize this radiated signal would require shielding the LO and IF stages by wrapping them in conductive foil and grounding the foil, and possibly using additional filtering, both of which would make it more similar to a direct conversion receiver.  
--Mikiemike (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages 

message: may i point your interest to this photo? i took it today for the german article about shortwave. maybe you find it suitable for the opening section. i wanted to focus on shortwave, not on a universal radio receiver like the one in the intro of this article. Maximilian (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a properly focused photo is better than the blurry one in the article now. Perhaps you could take another photo with a centimetre scale in it so people will know how big it is? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  new photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shortwave radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091130112737/http://www.arrl.org:80/news/features/1998/1102/2/?nc=1 to http://www.arrl.org/news/features/1998/1102/2/?nc=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050210001613/http://www.aptsec.org:80/meetings/2002/apg2003-4/(56)ABU.doc to http://www.aptsec.org/meetings/2002/apg2003-4/(56)ABU.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111218173001/http://www.thethe.com/sections/radio.php to http://www.thethe.com/sections/radio.php
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 14:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shortwave radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150320053915/http://www.porthcurno.org.uk/page.php?id=104 to http://www.porthcurno.org.uk/page.php?id=104
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi folks, I notice the longwave article is called that but the shortwave instead of Shortwave radio. Is that right. scope_creepTalk 00:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because a majority of the references refer to it as “shortwave radio” since the connected words are commonly used to connote that part of the spectrum. Whereas the term “longwave radio” isn’t a commonly used term either in references or in casual use. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature

message: I'm curious as to why most references to frequencies in shortwave use kilohertz, despite being well into the megahertz range. Is this just the way its always been done? If someone knows the history could just write a quick blurb mentioning the convention it would be very helpful. Thanks Strangerpete (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen any sources discussing the history of how shortwave listening frequencies are given, except to say, "below 30 MHz this is customarily expressed in kilohertz" . Most how-to books about shortwave listening note something to the effect of, "all shortwave frequencies are given in kilohertz". My guess is that giving shortwave frequencies in kilohertz was a custom that became formalized over time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kilohertz/Megahertz 

message: I'm surprised that the many private and commercial (two-way) operators on Shortwave are not mentioned. eg In Australia the "Flying Doctor" service was an essential part of outback life, and these days there are many 4WD clubs which maintain Shortwave (eg HF) networks for outback travelers. Likewise police, military, trucking firms, marine operators, aircraft, and others rely on shortwave communications for their daily operations and safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  180.150.22.107  (talk • contribs) 04:14, 6 September 2021 UTC (UTC)
: I agree, but per WP:V, we need a citation to a reliable source for that. In the case of the Flying Doctors, it appears the use of HF (shortwave) radio has diminished to only a small percentage of users .- LuckyLouie (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found some sources, so I added a paragraph on two-way SW users, with mention of historical use by Flying Doctors . - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users 

message: The Advantages and Disadvantages sections, supposedly illustrating how shortwave radio differs from "newer technology" consist mainly of questionable interpretations (e.g. Gorbachev was able to stay informed during a coup, battery-operation is better than hand crank, etc). None of these opinions are cited, which is a typical feature of unsourced WP:OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages/Disadvantages