In the question Why is UHF so much more popular than other frequencies for radio? the problem was supposed to be solved by applying basic physics, even though it was inspired by electrical engineering. I don't understand why the question was closed. What are the exact boundaries of engineering on Physics SE?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
7
-
4$\begingroup$ That question looks on the edge of on-topicness to me. Questions that ask "why was this set of tradeoffs chosen instead of this other one?" are not really our purview, but "what are the advantages of X vs Y?" often has a home here. The question is currently phrased closer to the former, but it can probably be rephrased to get closer to the latter (which is the actual core of the question). Feel free to edit it, and see what happens in the review queue. $\endgroup$– Emilio PisantyCommented Feb 3, 2016 at 12:43
-
1$\begingroup$ Re boundaries: It's murky at best and you can follow all the conversations in that link about where the community may/may not draw the line. $\endgroup$– tpg2114Commented Feb 3, 2016 at 12:44
-
1$\begingroup$ Related: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6135, meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/6501 and links therein $\endgroup$– Kyle KanosCommented Feb 3, 2016 at 12:44
-
3$\begingroup$ I've voted to reopen this question. Sadly we seem to be seeing good questions closed by "the usual suspects" for no good reason. $\endgroup$– John DuffieldCommented Feb 3, 2016 at 13:21
-
7$\begingroup$ Actually, @JohnDuffield, there are very good reasons to close questions, it is just that you disagree with those reasons. $\endgroup$– Kyle KanosCommented Feb 3, 2016 at 16:54
-
2$\begingroup$ @Kyle Kanos : not always. The thing is, every time I see a good question that's been closed for no good reason. your name is in the list of people who voted to close it. $\endgroup$– John DuffieldCommented Feb 4, 2016 at 14:29
-
1$\begingroup$ @JohnDuffield: Yes, there always are good reasons to close a question (topicality, broadness, etc); you (among others) just don't agree with the practice and policy of closing questions. And I have no problem admitting that I've participated in almost 9,000 close reviews, so I'm not sure the point you're making there. $\endgroup$– Kyle KanosCommented Feb 4, 2016 at 14:45
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
The question is around the borderline between physics and engineering. I didn't vote to close, but neither am I dismayed it got closed.
If you revisit your answer you'll find it does not address any basic physics. You make points like:
a smaller antenna is able to transmit/receive the signals due to the low wavelength of such waves
operating using high frequency supports a greater bandwidth as compared to the low frequency operation
the noise levels are much reduced in this domain as compared to the other
all of which are perfectly true and good answers. However you don't explain the physical principles behind the three points. This type of answer is symptomatic of a question that is engineering rather than physics. Explaining the fundamental reasons for how the voltage induced in an aerial is related to the geometry and wavelength, why bandwidth can be increased at high frequencies and why noise levels are lower would expand the answer into an essay, so you are forced to give a general answer that will not satisfy any research physicists.
There is a broader issue of where the focus of this site should be, though whether this is the venue to debate the issue is questionable. The fact is that most of the prolific answerers are professional (ex-professional in my case) scientists whose interest is in fundamentals of physics.
Right now we are experiencing a flood of general and poor quality questions and the site is perceptibly moving away from the vision of an authoritative source of information on physics. On my own part this makes me less tolerant of questions that are very general, show little attempt at research or are poorly thought through. I can't speak for the other site members but I suspect my views are not unique.
answered Feb 4, 2016 at 8:33
-
1$\begingroup$ if you intention is to get "an authoritative source of information on physics", you have a lot of work to do on some ( dozens , hundreds ? ) q/a that are merely not relevant for a great compilation of knowledge ... It's a well know issue with sites driven by free members ... $\endgroup$– user46925Commented Feb 8, 2016 at 14:34
-
2$\begingroup$ @igael: the quality of the information on this site is far, far superior to any other physics site I've seen in the nearly 25 years I've been using the Internet (not including arxiv.org I suppose :-). There is dross on this site, but the downvotes and comments the dross attracts makes it very clear to budding young physicists which answers are good and which aren't. The site will never be perfect, but that shouldn't stop us striving to make it better. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 8, 2016 at 17:10
-
$\begingroup$ I understand your opinion $\endgroup$– user46925Commented Feb 8, 2016 at 17:20