Battle of Honey Springs

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Radio High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Telecommunications High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wintersfire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

are not there any problems or issues and their solutions about wireless?

Yes there are.

The term "wireless" includes an ever-growing field of topics. We need to respect the impact that wireless is having on the global community (surpassing landline circuits in late 2000, eclipsing 2.5 billion subs in latter 2006, and the fundamental impact to the evolution of our daily lives) and begin sub-segmenting the sector into more managable topics.

Rayksharma 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Ray Sharma[reply]

Agreed: See also Talk:Wireless... --mlewis000 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"wireless" being an old-fashioned term is a joke. it's used constantly in industry and academia

harm of frequencies

Note: For the paranoid, Microwave signals (that cook food) are in the 2.45GHZ range. Cell phones, wireless networking, and other similar tools are in the 2.4 GHZ range. This is why proximity to microwaves can disrupt wireless communications [taken out of the history - JDR 18:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Shouldn't WiBro be part of the list of the standards?

Mel B 13:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the introductory paragraph and tried to be as neutral and general as possible as there are over 500 other articles that link to this article covering a variety of topics. --mlewis000 00:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there should be two articles, one for wireless and one for wireless communication, since there are other uses of the term "wireless" besides those that are connected to communications - e.g., historically, or at least in my experience, the term "wireless" is used to refer to any operation that is performed without the use of wires (see first paragraph of wireless). Therefore, the term is also used to refer to operations which are better categorized as "wireless remote control" not "wireless communication". While it could be argued that "wireless remote control" involves "wireless communication", it is unlikely that any of these basically non-communications related wireless topics would ever be covered if the articles were merged under the title of "wireless communications" and then the use of WikiPedia as a reference for this topic would be unnecessarily limited.

In short, the term "wirless" literally means "without wires" and there are examples of these types of usages of the term (see the examples section of the current article) which should be included in the article that probably would not fit in an article on "wireless communication". Of course these examples could possibly be forced to fit into an article titled "wireless communication" by over-rationalizing them as a type of communication but this would be overlooking the original intent of the invention of many of these types of wireless devices, which is to remotely control something without the use of wires. Therefore, I think that the article on "wireless" should cover all uses of the term in a broad sense and then there should be other articles that go into more detail, such as wireless communication, wireless remote control, etc. This type of structure makes information more accurate, complete, and readily found, since information about one subject, such as wireless remote control, is not "buried" in another article that (from its title) is supposed to be about "wireless communication". --mlewis000 00:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support retention of "wireless" due to its use as a term throughout the early years of radio for radio communication. Although "wireless" is often used today as a synonym for cellular telephony, some information should remain available here. For instance, schoolkids could read about the history of Titanic and misinterpret the radio officer's "wireless" as a cell phone. Robogun 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a merge. A merged article with the title "Wireless" could explain both concepts and all these aspects, including any old meaning of wireless. (However, wireless still normally implies radio based, so I don't see how the meaning has changed.) The houndreds of articles linkint to "wireless" as well as "wireless communication" would gain from a common article. Mange01 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against a merge of the articles, I'm in favor picking one article, and making it the major article. The 2 terms are used differentlhy in different countires. I support Mobile as the dominant category, and article, with wireless as a child category, and article. Mathiastck (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the specific issues? Please list individual points. J. D. Redding 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article or section attention from an expert?

What are the specific issues? Please list individual points. J. D. Redding 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article or section does not cite any references or sources?

What are the specific issues? Please list individual points. J. D. Redding 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sentence that stated that without the FCC's regulatory control over the airwaves chaos would ensue. It fails to mention alternative arrangements such as private property rights in the airwaves. --Bouchacha 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The External Links section has only one, marginally notable, link, and the section is a constant magnet for spam. I suggest the section be deleted.--Mumia-w-18 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links is tough here. w3c and GSM standards, and perhaps CTIA make good external links. Mathiastck (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion to merge one wireless category into another. I'd prefer all wireless categories to be children of the Mobile category. This seems to be the palce to discuss. Mathiastck (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps the best known example of wireless technology is the cellular telephone" - really? - I would have thought a broadcast radio receiver or television are more ubiquitous. After all we probably spend more time listening to, and watching those than we do on our phones... Phooto (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bmayuresh (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Hi, It would be really nice if some one could add in the History section that Jagdish Chandra Bose ^[1] was the first to use semiconductor junctions to detect radio signals Bmayuresh (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Be bold and all that but part of the problem is that we have overlapping articles at wireless, radio, history of radio, invention of radio,timeline of radio and probably more that I haven't found yet. Some of these mention Bose. I like to divide things like this into "pre-commercial" and "commercial" - there's always dispute as to what isolated experimenter first did something, but usually there's good agreement on who was first to make money with an invention. Bose was, from what I've read so far, not interested in commercial exploitation of radio. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am sorry but Tesla has not implemented any practical solution of wireless that is known to mankind, unless it has not been published, the wireless telegraph was Edison's baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.72.46 (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although advances in wireless communication transfer are primarily due to Edison, Tesla should be credited for most advances in wireless energy transfer. Although practical applications in this field were rare 5-10 years ago, there are becoming more common. A major example, and one which is already available at the retail level, is Powermat Wireless charging, which allows any Powermat enabled gadget or device to be charged simply by placing it on a Powermat surface. Some other examples include: Duracell MyGrid and PureEnergy Wild Charge --Powermatassistant (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is infuriating that some halfwit keeps vandalising the entry on David E. Hughes. Hughes experiments DID NOT use INDUCTION. The problem was that Maxwell had not yet published his seminal work on Electromagnetism so Hughes contemporaries dismissed his work as "Induction", but clearly they were wrong. With the benefit of hind-sight he could not have transmitted over hundreds of meters using only Induction (and small antennas). He did not use Morse. His transmitter merely send regular pulses which were keyed by clockwork. It wasn't a "clockwork transmitter" (what ever that is!). I will edit it again, but it is probably a pointless exercise. Gutta Percha (talk)

In the U.K. we are allowed to use wireless (2.4ghz) units to control a Freeview or Satellite receiver from another room in the house. If we want to watch T.V. in bed, we can install these 2.4ghz transceivers and watch / switch channels etc. from there. We caanot do this with just a conventional remote that uses as visual (I.R.) system. This type of system converts I.R. signals to R.F. and back again at the room where the Freeview / Satellite box is located. Should this be in the article? Francis E Williams (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't dwell on it here; perhaps in an article about remote controls or home automation? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be tempted to write it up, if I could just tear myself away from these very entertaining talk pages. You know, I might even take up editing here sometime soon. Francis E Williams (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless#Wireless_services

In the above section, I propose changing the line The term "wireless" has become a generic term describing the use of radio or light instead of wires to carry signals. to The term "wireless" has become a generic term describing the use of waves instead of wires to carry signals. These waves are usually, but not always, Electromagnetic waves, examples of which include radio or light.

I had earlier made an edit on a similar vein, but it was changed, and I feel, oversimplified by Wtshymanski. The ensuing discussion can be found here. Please suggest what entry you find more proper, or whether anyone would like a variant or entirely different sentence in it's place. The edits in question are [1] and [[2]] --Kknundy (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Titanic carried wireless communications capability. This article is lacking in the history of "wireless", such as the spectral evolution from HF, VHF, UHF, and the role of telegraphy, SSB, etc.--173.69.135.105 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lede (lead) section already mentions spectrum usage, why include it a few lines below again?Francis E Williams (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it isn't really a repitition of the lead section. Reasons :

- Lead introduces the scope of the term, but doesn't consider the nature of the medium or manner of transmission.

- It has more to do with the use of wireless, i.e. without wires part, while the services section has more to do with the channel part, i.e. what the communication part is using.

There is repetition in terms of scope, I agree, but the deletion of the statement removes from the article the mention of a common misconception that EM is the only form of wireless comm. possible. Maybe we could reach a consensus on where to suitably include the same. --Kknundy (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to have replied on the Talk:Wireless page. Maybe we could decide where to add the missing stuff? Any suggestions? --Kknundy (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What stuff do you think is missing from the article?, what do you think the reader needs to know about using light as a transfer medium in communication?, why do broadcasters use R.F. E.M.R. instead of light?, under what circumstances is light the preferred medium, and why? If a suitable answer can be found then perhaps more emphasis for its use can be entered into the lead section. There appears no reason to include transfer mediums into the services section.Francis E Williams (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article would be enhanced by using the ISM band as an example given the number of technologies that use it - microwave, wifi, wireless sensors, home automation, bluetooth, DECT, zigbee etc. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same could also be said for RFID, which is a significant wireless application that is emerging in the 21st century. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A team of Japanese researchers just doubled the all-time record for wireless data transmission using terahertz radition.[3] The T-ray article is already updated, but is it also worth mentioning here? Wasn't sure where to work it in... Khazar2 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please rewrite the lists into text? Please. Articles should not just be a sequence of bulleted lists, but rather should be running text. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not the best with editing. I do what I can, but I am much batter at finding grammar problems than I am with fixing them. I have added some inline comments with what needs to be done that I can't. Thanks for making Wikipedia even better than it was yesterday! Hungryce (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that this article should be renamed to Wireless communication. 75.139.254.117 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Wireless technology", given that energy transfer is included, but the human voice and other animal sounds are apparently excluded? ghouston (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with this article, even if we rename it Wireless communication or "Wireless technology", is its a redundant version of Telecommunication. The lead even points out that Wireless is a synonym for Telecommunication. The lead first paragraph has things (loosely) grouped by what they are called by, not what they are. The second lead paragraph defines word usage. The WP:DICDEF and a lead pointing out this is a redundant term looks more like a case for merger/deletion to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunication includes communication over wires, though, and telecommunications doens't include energy transfer. Not that you can't transfer energy over wires. ghouston (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, are these yet in this article? ....... frequency_modulation amplitude_modulation

wireless

I have now been informed that there is the word photophone, which is something that is unexpected.

Thank You,

Dhsert (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have huge problems with this section due to a lot of claims not backed up by refs. The article says: "The core component of this revolution is the MOSFET (metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor, or MOS transistor)", I can't carify it. Srivastava in [[4]] does not say the core component is MOSFET, and Baliga [[5]] does not say it either.

"The MOSFET is the basic building block of modern wireless networks, including mobile networks such as 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G.[19][14]", again neither Baliga nor Saad books says this, check it out.

The claim that " Power MOSFETs such as LDMOS (lateral-diffused MOS) are used in RF power amplifiers to boost RF signals to a level that enables long-distance wireless network access for consumers,[14] while RF CMOS (radio frequency CMOS) circuits are used in radio transceivers to transmit and receive wireless signals at low cost and with low power consumption.[17][18][16] ". Again I can't verify it. If somebody can, your are welcome to show it. By the way this source(18) [[6]] says that it was Integrated Circuit that brought wireless revolution, and not MOSFET: "through advanced circuit, architectural and processing technologies, ICs have helped bring about the wireless revolution by enabling highly sophisticated, low cost and portable end user terminals".

The article says "By the early 1990s, the MOSFET had replaced the BJT as the core component of RF technology, leading to a revolution in wireless technology" citing Baliga [[7]]. But baliga does not say that replacing BJT leads to revolution in wireless technology!

I am going to remove most of this section. If somebody can write about it more reliably, that would be great. DMKR2005 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Radios in the UK that were not portable continued to be referred to as wireless sets into the 1960s." is dubious on two counts:

1. Portable radios were so called. Younger people might call them "trannies", but the older generation tended to use "wireless".
2. The term wireless was commonly used by an older generation until the end of the century: "turn on the wireless".

If I had a convenient citation I'd be WP:BOLD and change this, but I suspect it reflects an younger (possibly US) view. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]