From: unruh@invalid.ca   
      
   On 2012-06-25, Adam  wrote:   
   > unruh wrote:   
   >> Since by definition, RF is Radio Frequency which is defined as below   
   >> about 1GHz, at which point you get microwaves. But if you mean "is   
   >> electromagnetic transmission in those ranges infrared or visible light"   
   >> then yes. And just as radio oscillators produce radio waves, laser   
   >> oscillators produce IR and visible light. Same thing, different   
   >> frequencies.   
   >   
   > Thank you for a clear explanation that answers my question!  I gather   
   > the term I should have been using is "electromagnetic radiation" or EMR   
   > because RF implies a specific range of frequencies.   
      
   Most laser transmission uses AM. Do not know if FM has been done with   
   lasers.   
      
      
   >   
   >>>> Which I suppose excludes them as RF transmission ranges, unless light is   
   >>>> allowable.  Would frequencies significantly higher than those be usable?   
   >>   
   >> Useable for what? Xrays are used by your doctor all the time.   
   >   
   > My apologies for my unclear wording.  What I meant was whether they're   
   > usable for transmitting data in the same way that MHz frequencies are   
   > used, either in theory or in any "real world" application.  X-rays are   
   > indeed useful but not what I was thinking of.   
      
   Sure Optical/IR lasers are used all over the place, They tend not to br   
   used for broadcast over the air, but along fibre opyical cables, or   
   sometimes point to point through the air.   
      
   >   
   >>>>   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.   
   >   
   > I understand why you're saying that and I'm in sympathy with you.  I   
   > didn't give up on education; I just concluded that a large research   
   > university is not the best place for an undergraduate.   
   >   
   > Next I went to a well-known liberal arts college (where the faculty were   
   > there because they wanted to teach undergrads) and earned a B.A. there   
   > (well, technically an A.B.).  That was followed by an unsuccessful   
   > attempt at grad school (wrong field for me, also personal problems), and   
   > then earning an M.S. from a local college which IMHO wasn't up to   
   > offering graduate degrees but at that point I was more interested in the   
   > degree (and career prospects) than in learning.  For the past few years,   
   > I've been a non-matriculated student at the local community (public   
   > junior) college, taking one three-credit course most semesters (for   
   > credit and a grade) in whatever looks interesting at the time, no degree   
   > plans there.   
   >   
   > That's about 25 semesters (2 incomplete) spent (or started) in   
   > post-secondary education so far, and the next one starts in two months.   
   >:-)  I can name the schools (all in the U.S.) if you're curious, but I   
   > think my feelings about the "bad" university and the "good" liberal arts   
   > college would apply to many other comparable institutions.   
      
   iExcellent. Yes, for some the college route can definitely be a better   
   way to go. It is easy to get lost at a large place. Some research U can   
   also be good, since some are not large.The state U tend to be large not   
   because of research, but becase their mandate from the state is to be   
   large. And I suspect it was the "large" that was the problem, not the   
   "university".   
      
      
      
   >   
   > Adam   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)