Talk:Power dividers and directional couplers

Power dividers and directional couplers has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 14, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Electronics Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Low frequency directional couplers

I have the feeling that

Low frequency directional couplers

needs more text. But I am unsure where to start. The only sentence banging in my head is: Winding direction are not drawn, because the device will function anyways, you just have to test wich port is wich.--Arnero 13:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navy source

I removed this from the References section to comply with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references:

(When the original version of this article was created in June, 2006 it was nearly a copy of the "POWER DIVIDERS AND DIRECTIONAL COUPLERS" with changes to Wikipedia markup.)

Art LaPella 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think that was a self-reference, it is talking about the main reference for the article, not the Wikipedia article (you should have just deleted the "with changes to Wikipedia markup" bit). I cannot retrieve the original article to check, the link has gone dead, but if it really is copied this article is either a copyvio or should carry a note the the government document copied from is in the public domain. SpinningSpark 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Navy publication, and is therefore in the public domain. The article has changed a lot since the handbook was copied. I have found a new link and will update the footnote. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistive couplers/splitters

These should be included here. They are the simplest form of these devices.--ThrobbingTrousers (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistive voltage dividers and the so-called 6dB hybrid (actually a resistive bridge) are not power dividers. They are, in fact, power dissipators and do not really belong here. SpinningSpark 14:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fred6531

Modification on the formulae L2,1 and D3,4 Three performances of the coupler are defined as positive numbers : Coupling Factor, Isolation and Directivity. Because the device is a passive one, P3 < P1, so 1 - (P3/P1) < 1 ad finally log (1 - (P3/P1)) < 0. This is why I proposed to insert a negative sign at the beginning of the formula I would add the following formula P1 =~ P2 + P3 (neglecting P4).

For the directivity I would replace D3,4 by D4,3. The notation used for the other parameters imply that the first index corresponds to the output port, the second to the input port. This is not the case for the Directivity formula. D4,3 = I4,1 - C3,1

Fred6531 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for reverting you out of hand. Your edit was very similar to a previous IP edit which was just plain wrong and I assumed you were the same person without reading your edit too carefully. I agree the insertion loss should be positive, but note the source has missed out the minus sign as well as our article - probably an error, but we should find another source. SpinningSpark 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source

One of the major broadcast-equipment firms (I think Shively) has a nice set of white papers describing the design of large combiner systems based on hybrids and filter banks, and some of the significant design issues like group delay. 121a0012 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion loss formula

The ratio part of the insertion loss formula has recently been changed by a string of IPs from 1-P₃/P₁ to 1-P₂/P₁. I suspect they really intended to change it to P₂/P₁. Even this is wrong, the expresion is supposed to be for the ideal insertion loss caused by coupling off power P₃. The actual insertion loss in indeed P₂/P₁ but that is not what is required here. SpinningSpark 07:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from hybrid coupler

I have removed the proposed merge template. The editor who inserted it did not start a discussion so it is unclear what was intended to merge. The article is a one sentence stub that does little more than link to this article, essentially it is a soft redirect. There is already way more information in this article than in hybrid coupler - there is nothing to merge and the proposal is moot. Spinning Spark 11:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there is no need for the hybrid coupler page though. Should that page be deleted? DaffyBridge (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. It serves as an immediate answer for the person who knows about power dividers and directional couplers, and as a redirect for people who don't. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, we would not delete the page. If we did anything it would be to turn it into a redirect. It is already essentially a soft redirect. The page is capable of expansion into a much more substantial article if anyone cares to have a go. Spinning Spark 08:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some of these. I don't recall any methods that are only applicable to equal power division; my recollection is all the methods could just as well produce unequal power division by tweaking a few dimensions. So I don't see the benefit of expanding the "Hybrid coupler" article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and "coupler" in the article title implies just that. Redirect to hybrid coil might be more appropriate and should satisfy Jc3s5h's objection. The only additional useful thing that hybrid coupler has is a link to this article which could easily be transferred. Spinning Spark 16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid coil is not a suitable redirect for Hybrid coupler. See http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/hybridcouplers.cfm

In the nomenclature I'm familiar with, hybrid couplers are a ring built on a printed circuit board, where the trace on the board forms a transmission line that is one wavelength in circumference (so they are only practical for microwaves). Ports are attached at various points depending on the phase shift desired for the outputs. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term "hybrid" originally related to transformers but was then extended out to other kinds of couplers, initially only 90° couplers were included, but now the term is all-embracing. What everybody seems to agree on (including your own ref) is that only 3 dB couplers count as hybrids. Spinning Spark 18:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Power dividers and directional couplers/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nathan2055 (talk • contribs • count) 17:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chart

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Immediate problems in the section "Hybrid transformer". Please copyedit the section to fix problems. Fixed as of 19:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	While one section needs a copyedit (see above), it complies with the manual of style.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I spotted three citation neededs. Please source those statements. Fixed as of 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See 2a. Fixed as of 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC).
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I may not have good knowledge in engineering, but it read well enough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It looks great, just like a real encyclopedia article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	You really can't be biased with this kind of article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars seen.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images licensed with Commons-supported free licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Wow! Using figure numbers like in a "For Dummies" book was a great idea!
	7. Overall assessment.	~~One section needs copyediting (1a) and three statements need to be sourced (2a, 2b).~~ Passed! Great job, everyone! --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed an obvious typo in the hybrid transformer section, please be more specific if there is anything else you think needs addressing in the section.

The story with the {{cn}} tags is that I added these myself when I reviewed the article pre-GA but was reluctant to delete them outright as I am fairly sure (from professional knowledge of transmitters) that the statements are accurate. I will contact the editor who added them asking for a source. I have already attempted to source them myself but with only partial success. I will have another look at the weekend (right now I am on the road and do not have access to my library) but if nothing turns up I will remove or rewrite the unsourced parts. Spinning Spark 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have fixed the typo myself, but it was so bad I couldn't make out exactly what you meant. If you can source those three statements I'll pass the GA. --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and why didn't you merge those images to the Commons? I'm just curious, wouldn't that allow more people to access them? --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 19:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here Spinning Spark 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several new references and reworded or deleted the parts I could not source. I have left messages for the original contributors but have had no response. They are welcome to restore with sources anything I have deleted: I am sure it was all technically and factually correct. I have also made a couple of small additions to the lede: this was to address a comment in the previous GA review. I believe that all items have now been addressed. Spinning Spark 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Someone placed a use Dmy dates template-but I'm unable to find a problem. The article passes! Congratulations! --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power dividers and directional couplers in general

Power dividers and directional couplers are also used in integrated photonics but there is no mention of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.75.139 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sign

Just a comment (kind of important). The hybrid couplers when used as combiners should show +3dB, not -3dB. The math DOES show the addition, but the labels are not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.233.111.114 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a −3 dB coupler regardless of which way round it is connected. SpinningSpark 08:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph

The first paragraph could be more understandable to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Various ports are mentioned but without explanation of what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicknick5k (talk • contribs) 09:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that this paragraph would be opaque to the uninitiated. A few thoughts:

It should be stated that the device has 4 ports
The first use of port could perhaps be changed to port of the device
The terns input port, output port, coupled port and isolated port could be italicized to clarify that the ports are being given names.
The term output port should be changed to transmitted port for consistency with the rest of the article
The word couple[d]] is used a couple of times other than in the designation coupled port, which is surely confusing; coupled (diverted) perhaps?

catslash (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Catslash: Those all look like good improvements to me, except perhaps the last one. That just seems to be adding confusion to me. The use of the word coupled in a generic sense is unavoidable in this article and adding (diverted) as a disambiguator on every occurence is both clunky and not really solving the problem. SpinningSpark 08:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation in the Notation and symbols section is perhaps clearer than that in the lede. catslash (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]