Talk:Distributed-element circuit

distributed element circuits include butterflies (pictured)?

Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Electronics Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

@Miniapolis: Thanks for taking this one on. I know it is difficult to copyedit technical articles.

There are a few things I want to undo unless you have some better wording;

• A phenomenon that is much used... to A common phenomenon...

  It is the use that is common, not the phenomenon itself

• ...with entirely incorrect results. to ...yielding incorrect results.

  This is too weak a statement to my mind. The results are worse than just inaccurate. At this wavelength the nature of componenents can completely change—capacitors appear to be inductors and open circuits suddenly look like short circuits.

• ...entirely characterised by its length and characteristic impedance. to ...characterised by its length and characteristic impedance.

  Dropping the word "entirely" has lost some information. For a complex shape like a wine glass, I need the entire geometry to calculate the note it will resonate at. For an organ pipe, I only need the length. For the wine glass, the note is characterised (in part) by its height, but not entirely so.

• Commensurate line circuits are important because they have an established design theory. to Commensurate line circuits are important here because of their design;...

  The change has resulted in bland statement with little information. The point is that commensurate line theory provides a procedure that will guarantee a circuit with the prescribed response. It is a synthesis from a requirement, rather than an analysis of something that might, or might not, do the job. The change also makes the following statement incorrect ...circuits consisting of arbitrary lengths of transmission line (or arbitrary shapes) are not. It's a design theory they lack, not importance.

• ...in order to benefit from the improved quality. Distributed element designs tend to have greater power handling capability. to ... to benefit from improved quality; distributed element designs tend to have greater power-handling capability.

  These are two entirely unrelated points and should not be run together. The improved quality referred to here is Q factor. I was trying (perhaps inadvisedly) to avoid the use of a technical term. Power handling is a different issue altogether.

• ...the signal frequencies used on these cables are lower... to ...its frequencies...

  It is the signal that possesses "frequency", not the cable.

• Coaxial line... to Coaxial cable... and the same change in the section heading.

  We should be talking about lines here rather than cables. Devices constructed with coaxial technology are usually solid objects. They are not made of flexible cable. Even plain interconnections between units were, when this technology was dominant, often made with rigid copper pipe structures rather than cable. I know the cable article is hidden behind a pipe, but there is no more suitable article to link to.

That list is longer than I thought it was going to be! Thanks again for your work so far. SpinningSpark 11:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the changes; you're more knowledgeable than I, and if the FA reviewers have issues with the prose they'll let you know. I'll ping you when I'm done. All the best, Miniapolis 14:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: Why have you removed the reference to "constructive interference", but left in "destructive interference". They are the complements of each other. SpinningSpark 21:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I didn't know that interference could be anything other than negative. Miniapolis 02:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The attempts to work in

into the lead have resulted in very ungainly wording. The current wording ...such as capacitors, inductors, and transformers, as implemented by the distributed element model is just a disaster. That sounds like capacitors etc (lumped elements) are implemented by the DE model. First of all, the DE model doesn't implement anything. Rather, it models an implementation, and it most certainly doesn't implement a capacitor, which is a lumped component.

I get the desire to have this in the lead, but really, there is no pressing need for a mention of modelling in the lead at all. It is not essential to helping the reader get a grip on what this article is about. Unless there is some better wording suggested, I intend to remove it. SpinningSpark 17:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am the guilty party and can stand by my intention, but must admit that my implementation is indeed poor, in particular my placing the matter too early in the article. Maybe eventually I can work out a better way; maybe not, but meanwhile feel free. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've rolled back the first paragraph to before the introduction of the link. It was first introduced by user:Sam-2727, but I don't like that version either. It said conventional components are difficult (or impossible) to implement if the distributed element model is not used. This is not correct for the same reasons. The model does not implement components, and it does not model conventional components – it models distributed components. SpinningSpark 10:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were a good way to work the link into the narrative, with correction of fact. If it cannot be done, then I am regretful but must accept it. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have used a book by Vitaliy Zhurbenko as a source in this article. The book is self-published, but Zhurbenko easily meets the requirements of

]

Similarly, I have used a paper by Ramadan et al in a book edited by Nasimuddin. Ramadan is previously published and so is Nasimuddin, who is also on the editorial board of an IEEE journal. SpinningSpark 16:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In references but not bibliography:
  • Gurdeep et al., pp. 178–179
  • Maloratsky (2009)
• In bibliography but not references:
  • Barrett, R M, "Etched sheets serve as microwave components", Electronics;
  • DuHamell, R; Isbell, D, "Broadband logarithmically periodic antenna structures", 1958;
  • Maloratsky, Leo G, Passive RF and Microwave Integrated Circuits, Elsevier, 2003
  • Mason, Warren P, "Wave transmission network", U.S. Patent 2,345,491, filed 25 November 1941, issued 28 March 1944
• Finally, if you care about consistency, there are some inconsistencies in the formatting of the refs. If you don't, then meh.
•  ♦ 
  Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Barrett and Mason are primary sources of works mentioned in the text but not used for verification purpose (that's why it's called Bibliography, not References). The rest I'll look into. Maloratsky looks like one or the other is just the wrong date. SpinningSpark 12:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They'll all be easy fixes. Cheers. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

DuHammel is also a primary convenience source. Maloratsky had the wrong date in both refs and bib. The right date is 2004 taken directly from the book itself. SpinningSpark 12:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Cheers. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]