From: unruh@invalid.ca   
      
   On 2012-06-25, Moe Trin  wrote:   
   > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in   
   article   
   >, unruh wrote:   
   >   
   > [Quoting fixed]   
   >   
   >>> Adam wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> Jim Beard wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>> Adam wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>> I checked, and infrared is in the 1-400 THz range.  Visible   
   >>>>>> light is ~405-790 THz.  Does that mean RF transmissions in that   
   >>>>>> range would be visible?   
   >   
   >>>>> RF transmissions in those ranges are infrared and visible light.   
   >>>>> They are photons if described as corpuscular particles, waves if   
   >>>>> described using Maxwell's equations.   
   >   
   >>Since by definition, RF is Radio Frequency which is defned as below   
   >>about 1GHz, at which point youget microwaves.   
   >   
   > By whose definition?   The International Telecommunications Union seems   
   > to want to define/regulate everything above 9 KHz to 275 GHz as   
   > radio frequencies and provides "guidance" for several bands above that   
   > (to 381 GHz).  Here in the US, the "Manual Of Regulations and   
   > Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management" (from the "National   
   > Telecommunications and Information Administration" - a part of the   
   > Department of Commerce) covers that plus the range from 275 to 400 GHz.   
   > If you're speaking about colloquial terms, "ultra high frequencies" are   
   > taken as the range from 300 to 3000 MHz, and the next term above that   
   > is for "super high frequencies" (3 to 30 GHz) and above that are   
   > "extremely high frequencies (30 to 300 GHz).   
      
   Well, I would call above 1GHz microwave, but if you want to call it RF,   
   be my guest. In any case I do not know of anyond that calls optical   
   frequencies RF which was the point of the discussion.   
      
   >   
   >>>>  I've forgotten what I learned in college "freshman physics",   
   >>>> mainly because the course was horrible.  It was one factor in my   
   >>>> decision to leave that university, even though I wasn't a physics   
   >>>> major.   
   >   
   >>Too bad you gave up the chance to learn because of a bad experience.   
   >>I hope you replaced it with some other means.   
   >   
   > Not fair, Bill - you're biased in favor of physics   ;-)   
      
   My comment was not limited to Physics. He gave up all university because he had   
   a bad physics course. He gave up a huge opportinity to learn because of   
   one bad experience in one particular area. As I said, I hope he replaced that   
   with other ways   
   of learning.   
      
   >   
   >         Old guy   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)