Talk:Propagation constant

Phase constant

can anyone tell me how to find the phase constant?

It's the imaginary part of Propagation constant (gamma) Zebov 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

root ZY

It is also equal to the square root of Yl* Zl myclob 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you might need to define what you mean by Y1 and Z1. That is true of the transmission line if you mean the distributed series Z and shunt Y per metre but it is not true of circuits in general. Usually there will be a log, trig or hyperbolic trig function involved depending on exactly how you define everything. See for instance image impedance#Transfer function. SpinningSpark 14:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing merging into this article attenuation constant and phase constant. All three articles are likely to remain stubs as there is little more to say on any of them. They only stand a chance of being a decent article when taken together. There is also a very large number of alternative names for these quantities, it would be good if all the redirects where to point to the same place. SpinningSpark 14:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal wording change in Copper Lines

In the “Copper Lines” section,in the clause: there are some decidedly non-linear effects I would like to suggest changing the phrase some decidedly non-linear effects to frequency dependant effects. The reason is that non-linear often means that there is a non-linear interaction of the signals leading to harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion and I don't think that is what is meant. Constant314 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, the meaning is non-constant rather than non-linear. SpinningSpark 08:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to discuss propagation constant in three frequency ranges

I want to propose that the ‘’Copper lines’’ section be expanded to include a discussion of the propagation constant and characteristic impedance in the three frequency ranges. That would be high, intermediate and very low frequency including dc. High frequency is when ωC >> G and ωL >> R. Intermediate is when ωC >> G and R >> ωL. Low is when G >> ωC and R >> ωL. Constant314 (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to consider instead linking to Primary line constants#Special cases where this is already discussed. SpinningSpark 08:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not seen that article before. I did not see where it covered the dc case. There is considerable overlap with "telegrapher's equations" and "propagation constant". I would propose merging them, but it would be more than I would want to bite off. Constant314 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Attenuation constant, confusing language

it says "Losses in the dielectric depend on the loss tangent (tanδ) of the material, which depends inversely on the wavelength of the signal and is directly proportional to the frequency"

So, does the loss tangent depend inversely on the wavelength, which is what I think the language says and is wrong, I think,

or does the Losses in the dielectric depend inversely on the wavelength, which is what the following equation seems to say, and would be true if the loss tangent were more or less independent of frequency?Constant314 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

External links

I don't see a problem with the two external links that I placed in the article, and which have been removed. The links comply with WP:EL. The fact there are adds on the web site does not appear to be an impedement to adding these links. The adds do not dominate the linked pages. In fact it is the content of the article, which dominates each article. In fact, I did not even notice the advertisements on these pages. Also, the information presented is in a different manner compared to this article. These may actually give a clearer explanation. Also the focus of one is microwave frequencies, while the focus of the other article is optical frequencies. Based on the above I am restoring the links. Especially since they comply with WP:EL. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The first item in "links normally to be avoided" is Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In what way does another encyclopedia article comply with that requirement? We don't include links just because there is no reason not to, there needs to be some definite positive reason, and this should be one of the reasons given in WP:EL, none of which apply in this case as far as I can see. Wikipedia is about writing encyclopedia articles of our own, not linking to other encyclopedias' articles. If there is information missing or badly explained in our article, then the article should be improved - it is not the purpose of ELs to substitute for poor Wikipedia articles. On the question of ads, a site carrying ads might be tolerable if there was a strong case for the material but for sites like these that are really not justified in the first place it puts them entirely out of bounds in my view. SpinningSpark 01:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In the first place, I was addressing your arguments in the edit history (except for WP:EL. Second, I have no idea what information this article would contain if it reached FA status. Third, I don't consider this a poorly written article. The articles in the other encyclopedias approach the topic from a different view, in fact from a simplified view (imho).

Fourth, I would like to write some of this stuff into this article, but I am working on other articles at the moment. Also, I don't have time to add content to every science, technical, physics, or optics article that I come across. Fifth, there is nothing in WP:EL that says another encyclopedia article is unacceptable. Also, this is other, meaningful content that is copyrighted, and therefore has to be paraphrased to be written into this article.

Sixth, this Wikipedia article covers the topic with a broad stroke, which is what it is supposed to do. The other articles are somewhat narrower in scope.

Seventh, who determines a definite positive reason for placing the links. That is a subjective judgement. To me, I have presented definite positive reasons. In your view I have not. Common sense is part of this guideline - it is right there in the top of the article in the box. {This guideline] "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Further down it reads --- "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense." Finally, these other encyclopedia articles add to this article - they don't appear to diminish this article in anyway. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The point WP:EL is addressing about copyrighted material is things like the complete lyrics of a song, which of course are copyrighted and cannot be paraphrased. Material which could conceivably be included in our article is what WP:EL#1 is trying to exclude from the ELs. Anyway, I don't want to argue with you endlessly point by point, I can see that you are not going to be easily persuaded and this article is not very frequently visited so a consensus is going to be difficult. How do you feel about asking a third party to decide the issue? I nominate user:Materialscientist; he has a strong technical background and can grasp what the article is about, and as an administrator will have the necessary understanding of policy and guidelines. SpinningSpark 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I vote for the links. I think common sense dictates that the guideline WP:EL#1 should be applied with more and more vigor as an article gets better and better. Right now the article doesn't explain things very clearly (for example, it has no diagrams!), and is certainly missing some of the content in those links. As the article becomes clearer and more thorough eventually (hopefully), those external links can be gradually removed. --Steve (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Attenuation constant

In the alternative names for Attenuation constant, I have placed "attenuation" in front of "coefficient" since I intend to merge Attenuation coefficient into this page. At present Absorption coefficient is merged into Attenuation coefficient, which is wrong. I will unmerge that first. In general, Absorption does not equal Attenuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abmcdonald (talk • contribs) 10:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Following further investigations I no longer plan to merge Attenuation coefficient into this page. A B McDonald (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)