This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wave impedance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some changes made:
The largest change is I added the full formula for wave impedance in a material that has conductivity, and mentioned that in this case the wave impedance is complex, rather than a simple real number.
I don't think 1/36pi is the correct value for the permittivity of free space. It is normally given as 8.854 x 10^-12.
The link to electric permittivity now points to the permittivity page (it used to be an empty page).
The "medium" link at the end used to point to a page explaining that medium means in between large and small. This is obviously not the right kind of medium, so it now points to medium (bearer), which is not highly relevant but is closer to the intended meaning.
Also noted that eta is used by many engineers for wave impedance to avoid confusion with electrical impedance.
This page needs a layperson-friendly explanation of what, exactly, wave-impedance is. Most non-physicists have no intuitive understanding of what the ratio of the different components of an electromagnetic wave actually means. Someone who knows give a decent example - and perhaps elaborate with what happens/changes when a wave hits a surface between two materials with different impedances (say, air and glass)? MskKrieger ( talk) 14:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Most this atricle has been pulled from the cited source (Copy and Paste.) I think I'm going to rewrite it so it's more like a Wiki article and not a government documnet. -eaglescout1984 21 Nov 2006 4:20 GMT
There's some bad stuff on this page (sorry to be so critical!). I'm just going to delete the worst bit...
...that's better. The main problem with this section is that it confuses the characteristic impedance of a line (which is V/I) with the wave impedance in the cross-section of the line (which is E/H). Also it doesn't make much sense.
No, 1/36π isn't the correct value for the permittivity of free space. -- catslash 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Some other stuff that needs addressing:
This article confuses:
I feel moved to start sorting this out. --
catslash 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Wave impedance → EM wave impedance –
The current title "wave impedance" is too broad since the content only covers EM waves and not other types of wave (acoustic / seismic etc). Changing the title would aid clarity, avoid confusion and leave space for a general "wave impedance" page. 79.71.99.171 ( talk) 20:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Does such a thing exist? The integral of wave impedance with respect to the frequency domain would have units of inverse electrical permittivity. Conversely, the integral of electrical permittivity with respect to the frequency domain would have units of inverse wave impedance. How deep is this connection?
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk 09:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wave impedance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some changes made:
The largest change is I added the full formula for wave impedance in a material that has conductivity, and mentioned that in this case the wave impedance is complex, rather than a simple real number.
I don't think 1/36pi is the correct value for the permittivity of free space. It is normally given as 8.854 x 10^-12.
The link to electric permittivity now points to the permittivity page (it used to be an empty page).
The "medium" link at the end used to point to a page explaining that medium means in between large and small. This is obviously not the right kind of medium, so it now points to medium (bearer), which is not highly relevant but is closer to the intended meaning.
Also noted that eta is used by many engineers for wave impedance to avoid confusion with electrical impedance.
This page needs a layperson-friendly explanation of what, exactly, wave-impedance is. Most non-physicists have no intuitive understanding of what the ratio of the different components of an electromagnetic wave actually means. Someone who knows give a decent example - and perhaps elaborate with what happens/changes when a wave hits a surface between two materials with different impedances (say, air and glass)? MskKrieger ( talk) 14:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Most this atricle has been pulled from the cited source (Copy and Paste.) I think I'm going to rewrite it so it's more like a Wiki article and not a government documnet. -eaglescout1984 21 Nov 2006 4:20 GMT
There's some bad stuff on this page (sorry to be so critical!). I'm just going to delete the worst bit...
...that's better. The main problem with this section is that it confuses the characteristic impedance of a line (which is V/I) with the wave impedance in the cross-section of the line (which is E/H). Also it doesn't make much sense.
No, 1/36π isn't the correct value for the permittivity of free space. -- catslash 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Some other stuff that needs addressing:
This article confuses:
I feel moved to start sorting this out. --
catslash 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Wave impedance → EM wave impedance –
The current title "wave impedance" is too broad since the content only covers EM waves and not other types of wave (acoustic / seismic etc). Changing the title would aid clarity, avoid confusion and leave space for a general "wave impedance" page. 79.71.99.171 ( talk) 20:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Does such a thing exist? The integral of wave impedance with respect to the frequency domain would have units of inverse electrical permittivity. Conversely, the integral of electrical permittivity with respect to the frequency domain would have units of inverse wave impedance. How deep is this connection?
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk 09:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)