Active discussions
Radar is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 29, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 7, 2006Featured article reviewKept
August 10, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Merger proposal

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)

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)
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 {{Details}} 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)

UK's vs US' contributions

There was a claim on the Manhattan Project page that radar was invented at MIT. I thought it was at least partly a British invention. Anybody got more details? --Robert Merkel

The key individual role (most such inventions are collaborative even if those responsible for the individual contributions never met each other) is credited to Robert Watson-Watt (1892-1973) of Brechin, Angus, Scotland. Moving from the Royal Aircraft Factory (Farnborough, Hampshire) to the Radio Research Station (later part of the National Physical Laboratory) in Slough, (then in Buckinghamshire, but now now part of Berkshire) and then to a new NPL site at Teddington (then in Middlesex, but now in Surrey), he was asked by the Air Ministry to investigate a counterpart to an alleged German aircraft-killing "death ray".
Concluding that the power needed made it impractical to fry bombers out of the sky, instead on 26 February 1935 he demonstrated the future radar by using the BBC's Daventry (Northamptonshire) short-wave radio transmitter and a receiver and oscilloscpe (housed in a former ambulance in a field seven miles away) to detect a Handley Page Heyford bomber at 27 km. Subsequently head of the Bawdsey research station in Felixstowe (Suffolk), Watson-Watt helped to develop the ring of radar stations established in 1938. He was knighted in 1942.
MIT's role came shortly afterward (1938-1940), developing in collaboration with Canadian researchers a fighter-borne system (the first British airborne experiment had been in September 1937, but still needed development). David Parker

Being taught a history of RADAR in the military - I think the US contribution in the main article is accurate but thinly spread around in this section and it makes it appear like they had a larger contribution than they actually did. The British invented Radar, independently, as we know it today; made several advancements and currently build and operate one of the best radar sets in the world (Sampson Radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAMPSON) - so your right it was partly a British invention, not because of the US though, but because it took many discoveries to develop it. Although it could be argued it is a British invention seeing as we got it working properly first. There are many things that people believe are US inventions that are actually British - some of the projects are only just starting to become declassified, so you may hear more in the near future. Its just a result of our very close military alliance (UK-US)and where the money normally came from, not where or who made it because that was top-secret.

MIT Rad Lab & I. I. Rabi

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)

The MIT Radiation Lab. and the British Telecommunications Research Establishment (TRE) cooperated during WW II to develop radar (and indeed, made tremendous advances in electronic engineering). Their work was mostly (maybe entirely) declassified at the end of WW II and documented in an encyclopedia-like set of books called the MIT Radiation Laboratory Series, of about 28 or so volumes, published probably in 1946 by McGraw-Hill. These have been converted into a CD-ROM (probably still) for sale by Artech house, although it did cost about \$350 US. Thus series was credited with starting the postwar electronics industry, no less. These books were the lifetime inspiration for this editor, and solidified his choice of career. They make very interesting reading. Nikevich (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

What is that with the preoccupation of militairy applications !!!!????? There is a huge naval-navigation and safety application, and this is not mentioned at all! I would like to someone with th focus on peacefull applications and not guns and killing machines

Thanks Hans(NL)

16:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)~~

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)

French early contributions

I should verify but according to some sources the French engineers of the CFS had active research on the radar before ww II, they gave their technology to the British in 1939. Ericd

There a PD article at http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz1.html you can cut and paste as you want. Ericd

Chain home; RDF1 book; WWII Proximity fuse

One of the big achievements of the British WWII radar system was in developing the handling of the information from the radar stations. They started work on this before the system was working fully. Chain Home might have been primitive in many ways but was in use right through WWII and was providing valuable information on V2 launches towards the end of the war.

I quite agree that Robert Budari's book on the Rad Lab gives a good overall picture of radar in WWII. The best book that I have found on the British ground based radar system is ...

It follows the story in chronological order.

By the way, the WWII Proximity Fuse was not a true radar (i.e. pulse) device. It used a continuous carrier and the doppler effect to detect its proximity to an aircraft or the ground.

British (+German?) bias?

The article as it is written is very biased to British (and some German) radar work. As discussed in this article, technological advances seem to end about 1950. This simply isn't true.

When we look at the history, we certainly need to include in the early years - 1901 (I think) - Tesla delivers a paper before the Institution of Radio Engineers proposing, for the first time, radar. Maxwell developed the theory, Hertz was the first to show reflections of radio waves at UHF, and Tesla was the first to propose radar. The telemobiloscope of Hulsmeyer is not properly mentioned, and the shortcomings of the telemobiloscope that caused its economic and technical failure are not discussed. It is surely worthy of note that there were no real amplifiers until deForrest developed them and no good power sources for microwaves. The development of the first pulsed radar at the Naval Research Labs in 1924 to measure the height of the ionosphere is also quite worthy of note.

Developments in the early 1930s were not only done in Britain and Germany. The SCR-270 was in place and detected the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. US PBY Catalina aircraft detected the Bismarck for the British fleet, and it was this detection that allowed the sinking of the Bismarck. The Bismarck itself had an impressive targeting radar. By the early 1930s, there were excellent researchers in the United States, France, Italy, Russia, Britain, and Germany all working on radar. All achieved impressive results. The development of the SCR-584, which was the first modern anti-aircraft radar, in 1943, revolutionized aerial attacks. The SCR-584 at Anzio had, it is reported, a 70% probability of kill, eliminating German air attacks.

The airborne ground mapping radars, which reached their WWII height with the H2S and the H2X, should also be a part of this history. This is true not just because they were the first radars to show ground maps or because of their effectiveness, but because the whole idea of ground mapping from air or space is essentially overlooked in the article. The beginnings of ECM and ESM are also a critical development for radar.

After World War II, technology did not stop. Doppler radars came about in the 1960s, medium PRF in the 1970s, and the electronically scanned antenna mostly in the 1980s, a trend still going on today. Ground penetrating radars are another specialty area in which there has been considerable development. Vehicle navigation and anti-collision radars are worth a mention in the article. These are getting to be a big market. There are many CW radars in this subarea, and they do measure range with FM.

Well, that's just a few items. I would suggest that someone develop a credible outline for radar, then start fleshing it out. The current article looks like it was written by someone who does not understand the technical material, but has read a British history on the subject.

--Anonymous No.II

I agree with the previous post. I did some research on radar history, which has been documented in http://ghj-associates.co.uk/radar_history.html. To summerize my research, radar technology started with Karl Ferdinand Braun around 1897 when he invented oscilloscope tube and improved range of wireless. Marconi tried to steal Braun's patent and in the end Nobel prize for inventing wireless was awarded to both of them. In 1904 Christian Hulsmeyer filed a patent for radar. In 1929 German Navy, Reichsmarine started work on what we know today as sonar. This effort lead to the first magnetron build by Philips and establishing of GEMA, Gesellschaft für Elektroakustische und Mechanische a firm dedicated to radar research.
For the lack of proof of several important dates I do not feel competent to rewrite anglocentered propaganda of radar history page in Wikipedia, but it would be nice to have somebody with a better knowledge of the subject to present a true story of this fascinating device.
--Anonymous No.III
Seriously, add or edit a paragraph. It's easy to edit the Wiki one paragraph at a time. You've presented a good bit of information here, why not put SOME of that into the REAL page instead of the talk page. Rick Boatright 19:21, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"US PBY Catalina aircraft detected the Bismarck for the British fleet""
Just to clarify things, it was a RAF Coastal Command Catalina with a USN pilot that detected the Bismarck. I don't think the Catalinas were supplied with radar fitted, that was probably done when they went to Saunders Roe at Beaumaris for preparation for RAF use. --jmb 17:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The USA radar developing starting 1937 (the SCR 270 is copied German Freya Radar! ;) The first airborne radar's came from Great Britain. The multisegment magnetron inveted by Randall and Boot, Great Britain. --80.226.205.207 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry that there are so many americans upset for the U.S. were not the inventors of radar. If you see an important invention, maybe you think "american first", time to forget it.

Without a stolen copy of the German Freya, americans today would still poke helpless in the fog. --95.119.131.154 (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The History section trails off with the statement that the war stimulated further development. Most of the German work is ignored. I look for historical reference to microwave, klystron, magnetron, airborne, the German hand steered dishes made by Zeppelin, and later rotating dishes. I am just a reader looking for a complete historical summary.Reg nim (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is an article entirely devoted to the History of radar. The History section in the Radar article is just an introduction that points out that many have contributed to the radar development and refers to the history article for further details. It should not rewrite the whole thing ! As for the History of radar article, it is as good as the contributors have inputted informations. Pierre cb (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Frequency range(s) wanted

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)

Thanks, Heron! :-) --Wernher 02:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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."
4. 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)

How to shorten the article since it's well above the 32k limit?

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)

Spun lots material out to more appropiate seperate pages. Dan100 13:14, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see more about the use of radar as intrusion detection devices. I have been researching them as I am a Security Consultant and the literature that is out there is either slim or very old and out-dated. I have been trying to find the frequency range of a paticular device that is used as a short range, low crawl detector. It is a Doppler short-beam radar. The specs do not give a frequency, they give a range of 32 feet and a delay of .5 to 2 seconds. I'm a security specialist, not an engineer.

If I happened to have missed this within the pages of this article, forgive me. If not, please guide me....

ALWAYS LEARNING

i don't see the small square

"Several types of radars on the frigate Duquesne, notably a navigation radar (small square) and the big radome which protects the DRBI 23 air sentry radar." - Omegatron 17:14, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

As the picture became 'missing', I've removed it. Dan100 13:18, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

There appear to be planty of examples of acronyms written in lower case documented in Wikipedia. --SC 20:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)

Originally "RADAR" was an acronym. It's acknowledged as a word in its own right, now, so lower case is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.244.86 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

K band useless?

In the article it says that K-band is useless because of its absorbtion by water vapor. When I went into my friend's car, which has a radar detector, it has a feature that allows the detection of radar detectors in the K-band. I know my knowledge is limited, but nowhere in the article does it mention police radar guns, and these should be placed somewhere in the article.

To be correct, K-band is not useless but is strongly attenuated by water vapor in long range target detection. The attenuation is greater than 0.2 dB/km centered mostly about 1.3 cm wavelength. So short range use is still usable for specific or meteorological applications. It should be noted that the permanent magnetic dipole moment of the oxygen molecule coupled with the electric dipole moment of water has a greater attenuation effect on radio frequency waves in the 0.5 cm or mm-band, than the water vapor does in the K-band. Greater than 10 dB/km. --13:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)radarguy
Actually, it would not hurt to mention that the "old" WWII K-band was split into three bands, Ku, K, Ka specifically to address this problem. -- Larks 27 March 2008

History

Shouldn't there be at least a short section on the history of radar in this article? I realize there is a seperate article, but it is in dreadful shape, would be nice to see a crisp paragraph or two outlining the history.

I second that. Would be nice to start with a short history section as most tech articles do.
I third that. I came here looking for info on the Anglo-American Radar partnership and missed having a History section.

civilan radar I belive just picks up other radar military detects an object Dudtz 8/25/05 6:47 PM EST

neologism?

Can we really still consider a word so well established in the English language to be a neologism 65 years after it was coined? Every word was a neologism once; when it is no longer neo? --Kgf0 17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As I see it "RADAR" was a neologism. "Radar", as it is used today, is a good ole plain word. Since for informational purposes the first line uses "RADAR", it seems only fit to note how it came to be (by describing a pre-existing technology). I suppose you could modify it to say "originally a neologism", but by your own omission, all words were once neologisms - so it'd be redundant. ¦ Reisio 18:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree! Just do a search on laser which is a much newer neologism and there is not even a discussion about it being a word or an acronym. This is my daily work and I edit and review military technical documents all the time and radar is simply a word in common usage. --radarguy 13:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Band designations

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)

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)

I believe they were changed about 25 yrs ago!--Light current 21:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The old (US) designations are still widely used, but please when people want to look up stuff in an encyclopedia, how to convert between new and old designations is really important. It's like going to a discussion on temperature scale and only being told about Fahrenheit. Tlsmith5a 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have never heard that the band letters (S,L,C,X,K,etc) actually mean anything, e.g., "Long", "Short" or "Compromise"; they were adopted during WW2 simply as code words to help confuse the enemy should they come across them, just as "Manhattan Engineer District" didn't mean that the atomic bomb was being developed in Manhattan. Does anyone have a cite for the statement that the letters actually stand for anything? Karn (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Etymology

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)
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)
Well, there are four references in the text that say this IP is wrong. Pierre cb (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In letters written from 1941, my mother who worked as a member of the WAAF (453616 ACW/2 Shaw M) refers to what was to become Radar as Radio Location - RADAR being an American term that came into use later on during WW2. ix 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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: [2]. It mentions article from 1935 [3] and lists website about early radars [4]. Pavel Vozenilek 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

LIDAR and RADAR interfering with one another

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 (talkcontribs) .

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)

Functions and roles; civilian situation awareness systems missing

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)

Continuous Wave, it can or can not measure distance?

Continuous wave is listed as not being able to measure distance, however the radar altimeter is described as continuous wave device since it does not pulse its output. There is an inconsistency here since the altimeter measures distance! Is continuous wave meant to be "unmodulated"? How are the two systems handled / termed in citable publications?

Note: My quick searches indicate that an altimeter is considered a modulated continuous wave device, so I don't think this is resolved by simply redefining the radar altimeter. - Davandron | Talk 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most Radalts works by frequency modulating with a sawtooth the carrier and then comparing the frequency of the returned signal to the frequency of the transmitted signal at that time. If the modulation rate and the height are compatible, (eg the aircraft doesn't fly too high (the time it takes for the signal to return is less than the modulation period)), then the difference is proportional to frequency. By tradition, if nothing else, continuous wave refers to pure sinusoidal carriers. Terry C 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've done a bit more research. None of the books in my possession have any references to CW radar, (FM or otherwise), so I cannot cite any references. A search on the Internet seems to classify CW radar in exactly the same way as the Wikipedia article Continuous wave radar, that is the use of frequency modulation is mentioned under the general heading, but discriminated by the term FMCW. I personally would also prefer to see the section clarified, but without more proof I'll wait and see what others might think. BTW I've always been careful to talk about radio altimeter when referring to FM Radalts and radar altimeter when referring to pulsed Radalts (as I recall, the APN/171 was an example of this). Terry C 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is from Chuck Bradley. I wanted to provide a reference that might be of use to the experts that change this article, but my comments seem to have butted into a more detailed discussion. Sorry about that. I am not a radar expert. There seems to be a lack of agreement about the history of radar. A book entitled "Tuxedo Park" contains some information about American work and the transfer of British work to U.S. I do not know how accurate it is. The book is about five years old and is more a biography of Alfred Loomis than a history.

Note: Since now there are surface movement radars (SMR) that uses CW to detect objects in an A-SMGCS environment, it is clear that they can measure distance. AENA (responsible for the air traffic control in Spain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aena) has bought at least one of them to give service in the Palma de Mallorca Airport.

Some additional information about CW development can be found here (summaries are writen in english, full text in spanish) http://w3.iec.csic.es/ursi/articulos_oviedo_2006/articulos/sesionRAD-II-14small.pdf.

I cannot read Spanish, but the summaries seem to refer to FMCW systems, which have already been discussed above and mentioned in the article. Perhaps there is more information elsewhere in English? The point of this discussion is that returns from a true CW trabsmitter cannot yield sufficient information to derive distance; some form of modulation is needed for that.
You are totally right. This systems should be CW-FM, because modulation is needed to measure distance! As that comment induces some mistakes, maybe it should be deleted? With a CW radar, delay in the echo response can't be used to measure distances since the radar is always transmiting.217.127.201.198 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Would these surface movement radars be using Doppler? Clearly, distance could be derived from velocity, but this has problems due to angular errors. --Terry C 07:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Doppler (which can be easily obtained from a pure-tone CW transmitter) will indeed give you velocity (or rather its projection along your line of sight), which is also the rate of change of distance. While you can in principle use this to keep track of how distance to a scatterer changes, you will not know what it changed from! (I.e. you know that something is approaching at 100 m/s, so it comes 100 m closer every second. It is 6 km closer than a minute ago, but that does not tell you how far away it is.) --Togr 08:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I wasn't thinking when I wrote that :-) --Terry C 20:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Without knowing exactly what is meant by CW in every context, I can assure you that unless your transmitted signal is modulated in some way, there is no way of measuring distance. There is simply nothing that distinguishes any piece of the transmission from any other. Without any context or further qualification, I would take 'CW Radar' to mean one with a pure carrier wave transmitter (i.e. no modulation), and such an instrument would clearly be incapable of measuring distance. In some contexts, however (e.g. if making a distinction between pulsed and continuous-transmission radars), 'CW' would simply mean 'not pulsed' or 'continuous transmission', and I have even used the term in that way myself! (abstract and proceedings paper from URSI general assembly a few years back.) In this application, the signal would certainly be modulated, such that range information would be available. --Togr 08:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Automated Review

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 - &nbsp; 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&nbsp;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)

?

whats the acronym for radar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.58.215 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"RAdio Detection And Ranging" - it's in the first paragraph of the article. Bistromathic 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sea Clutter

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

Confused text

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)

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)

• I agree. Go for it. Eve Hall (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• I never even knew that article existed. I also agree. --Terry C (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah merge it. The radar article needs to be changed into subarticle format more though, it's a little long right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, both with the merging and with restructuring the whole thing following WP:SUMMARY. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the matching/overlapping content must be merged. However I am afraid you are a bit mistaken on how wikipedia works: huge articles are split into smaller ones, not vice versa. Please read wikipedia:Summary style. "Radar" is already about 60kb, which is way above the recommended size. Accordingly,
• the contents section Radar#Radar functions and roles, which is rather sketchy, must be merged with Types and uses of radar and placed into a separate article under a good name. Both current titles ("functions and roles" and "types and uses") sound a bit sloppy to me, each with its own drawbacks.
• The section itself must be written as a brief summary of the applications or radar, with {{main}} pointing to the main article.
• I would also consider the idea of the article Radar classification, if there any serious publications which explicitly deal with their classifications in various ways: by application, by functionality, etc.
• Furthermore, I see the article with rather nonstandard title: "Radar engineering details". It should be Radar engineering, and each detail, whenever it makes sense, be in a separate page with a meaningful title. And again, Radar engineering must be introduced via {{main}} in section Radar#Radar engineering, with the section being a reasonable summary.
• Please consider redesign of other parts of Radar article per guidelines Wikipedia:Summary style.
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)
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)
I would agree with that approach.--Terry C (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Interferometry

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)

Request for Help - Maximum Unambiguous Range

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)

Semi-protection ?

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)

According to "The Services Textbook of Radio, Vol 7 Radiolocation Techniques", 1960,

I understand that in the UK, "radiolocation" was the original term for systems that became known as "radar". I will try to find a citation. GilesW (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The original UK term used was Radio Direction Finding (RDF) and the title was deliberately intended to mislead, as it made no mention of the fact that the equipment was also able to determine range, altitude, numbers of targets, etc.
So you will find all early UK radar systems will be referred-to as RDF sets/stations.
UK wartime radar installed in aircraft will have an Air Ministry ARI No. - Airborne Radio Installation number. This applies to night fighter Airborne Interception (AI) radars as well as to maritime Air-to-Surface Vessel (ASV) and the Bomber Command devices such as H2S, Oboe, and GEE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Useful for emergencies (floods, landslides, fire, ...), hostage_crisis, ...

History

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)
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)
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)

"The term RADAR was coined in 1940 by the United States Navy"

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)

Tesla's roll?

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)

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)
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)
When you start digging into reliable sources, the answer is the latter. Tesla's 1900 remarks[5] 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[6], 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)
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)

Long range implies long wavelength?

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)

Perhaps this helps: Over-the-horizon_radar#Alternate OTH approaches. Regards Snaily (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)
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)

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)89.197.3.186 (talk) Richard Avery

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Radar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

clarification

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)

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)

Exactly what's meaning: selecting a model from the General Post Office ????At Last ... (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Thanks, what about "Redut" in content meaning of, I can't find it on dictionary??isn't that redoubt?At Last ... (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Also I can't understand "surface-to-surface radar" & "coastal battery search lights at night" ?At Last ... (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

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)
Really helpful, But what's battery search exactly mean?At Last ... (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Artillery battery. This is my last intervention. Please use a dictionnary in the future.Pierre cb (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
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)

Edward Highgate 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Hans Dominik was another Radar inventor

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)

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 16:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 23:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 19:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The lede fails to make clear that Germany had radar before Britain did. (86.135.242.99 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC))

Does it need it? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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))
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)

is this the equation for radar

${\displaystyle f=\left({\frac {c\pm v_{\text{r}}}{c}}\right)}$ ×${\displaystyle \left({\frac {c}{c\pm v_{\text{s}}}}\right)f_{0}}$  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:4201:D70:E15B:E727:6A15:56BD (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)