Talk:Wave impedance

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Electronics

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wave impedance

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.

Too technical

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)[reply]

Face lift

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

Bad stuff

There's some bad stuff on this page (sorry to be so critical!). I'm just going to delete the worst bit...

Designing a wave guide

In electrical engineering, the wave impedance is an important factor to consider when designing a waveguide. The parameters of the medium must match up such that the wave impedance will be the desired value. For example, coaxial cable used for TV signals has a designated wave impedance of 75 Ω. The desired wave impedance gives the wave of a particular range of frequecies a better propogation.

...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)[reply]

Some other stuff that needs addressing:

a ratio is dimensionless (OK - minor point)
we ought to say the transverse components of the electric and magnetic field (because it might not be a TEM wave)
the implication that the wave impedance is not an electrical impedance is surprising!
it's not clear how the wave impedance differs from the electromagnetic impedance - does it? (I've never heard of electromagnetic impedance).
presumably, dividing Z0 into the refractive index should be dividing Z0 by the refractive index --catslash 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either ratio is wrong and a ratio can have a dimension if the numerator and denominator have different dimensions, or this and a load of other pages need fixing, e.g. impedance,electrical impedance,mass-to-charge ratio. It may be correct to say that ratios never have dimensions in pure maths, but I think it's common enough in physics/engineering to use the term this way that it is indeed a minor issue.
Transverse - agree
I can't find the phrase not an electrical impendance. It is obviously related to electricity, however it is not the same as Electrical impedance to my knowlegde - since that applies to a finite object (e.g. a resistor or a capacitor) and wave impedance applies to a substance in general (e.g. air, water). This could arguably be worded better. I think the point that is supposed to be made is that you may find eta as well as Z used to symbolise wave impedance.
According to wikipedia, electromagnetic impedance is the same thing with the formula written wrong. These two pages should probably be merged, if indeed electromagnetic impedance exists. Google returns 704 results and the first page looks like a lot of duplicates and that same wikipedia entry. No idea.
Sounds right, I'm feeling too lazy to check it though.

217.44.114.250 03:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

This article confuses:

wave impedance
characteristic impedance
(characteristic) intrinsic impedance of a medium

~~I feel moved to start sorting this out.~~ --catslash 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would support Electromagnetic wave impedance. --Steve (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose (slightly) - on the grounds that the mechanical analogies (both the impedance and mobility analogies) could fit on this page as new sections without making the whole article excessively long. --catslash (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC). Which is the same as saying OK, this is now your general wave impedance page; go ahead and add your content on mechanical analogies. --catslash (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Frequency domain integration of wave impedance

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)[reply]