 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
transmission line theory edit
- Electromagnetic Shielding
- By Kenneth L. Kaiser
- Published by CRC Press, 2005
- ISBN 0849363721, ISBN 9780849363726
- 336 pages
Stumbled over this book in Google scholar investigating transmission line theory. Middle section contains a lot of math analyzing nested concentric-conductor coax configurations. Dispersion (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
cross-section pictures edit
Please add cable cross-section pictures and diagrams. -71.174.178.251 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Terminology? edit
I'm inclined to add that this term - though common - is a misnomer when used to describe three-conductor coaxial cable. "Tri-axial" implies three axes (similar to "twin-axial"), and would be better applied to three core mains lead or similar. Anyone have any strong feelings about this? InelegantSolution (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I was about to write about that, even though I have known about this cable for about 40 years. It is commonly used with the Keithley electrometers. I even used to know how to attach the connectors on, and even made cables with connectors on both ends. It is, however, the WP:COMMONNAME of the cable. Even so, I suspect that the article could mention the misnomer. Gah4 (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Only if you can cite that to an RS. It is not Wikipedia's job to right great wrongs, or to protect the English language from abuse. Many words and terms have meaning that are entirely at odds with their etymology. This is really getting into dictionary territory. SpinningSpark 09:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well it really isn't an English language question. Triaxial means three axes, as biaxial means two. (Though biaxial is probably better described as shielded twisted pair, but that is a different question. Maybe it isn't twisted.) Cocoaxial might have worked, but that might run into English language problems. In any case, yes, someone did it (wrong) a long time ago, and now we are stuck with it. I might have a Keithley manual around, to see how they explain it. Gah4 (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Only if you can cite that to an RS. It is not Wikipedia's job to right great wrongs, or to protect the English language from abuse. Many words and terms have meaning that are entirely at odds with their etymology. This is really getting into dictionary territory. SpinningSpark 09:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)