Talk:Power dividers and directional couplers

message: 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)
thread_title: Low frequency directional couplers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Navy source

message: These should be included here. They are the simplest form of these devices.--ThrobbingTrousers (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Resistive couplers/splitters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comment by Fred6531

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Insertion loss formula 

message: 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. SpinningSpark 11:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. SpinningSpark 08:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. SpinningSpark 16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

text: 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  couplers count as hybrids. SpinningSpark 18:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[hybrid coupler]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Power dividers and directional couplers in general 

message: :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)
replies: text: It's still a −3 dB coupler regardless of which way round it is connected. SpinningSpark 08:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign