Talk:Traveling-wave tube

message: First, a spelling nit:  while "travelling" (two Ls) is acceptable, the more common spelling of this word is "traveling".  (It's listed first in most dictionaries, and is the spelling used by all major TWT manufacturers.)
Since this article is almost exclusively dedicated to a discussion of the traveling wave tube (and not the amplifiers designed around them), I'd have preferred to see it titled "Traveling Wave Tube" without the appended "Amplifier".  At least one other editor would seem to agree with me; refer to the usage note added earlier.
Anyone else care to weigh in?  Engineer Bob 05:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudy and John both spelled it with one L on their books, so let's leave it alone. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name and spelling

message: The merged article as it existed before today (covering both TWT and TWTA) had a major weakness. As we all know, a TWTA is a complex piece of electronic equipment while a TWT is the equally complex microwave tube used inside. The previous article had the TWTA title but was almost exclusively focused on TWTs. I moved the TWTA information to a separate article, allowing people to expand that article to address the finer points of EPCs and linearizers while keeping this article focused on the tube itself. Half an hour later, it's been nominated for a merge. I'm obviously not in favor; it makes about as much sense as merging the automobile and internal combustion engine articles. However, if a merge is deemed appropriate by the majority, then I believe the primary article should remain "Traveling wave tube" with a section on TWTAs. Other opinions? Engineer Bob 23:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge or not?

message: Does the diagram actually show a TWT with a 4 stage depressed collector? Do such TWT's exist - most I came across was two stage. Suppose we could do with a paragraph on why depressed collectors are used too (might get round to it :-). miterdale 14:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I've worked on several TWT based systems (airborne surveilance, ground based surveilance/fire control, naval ECM), so don't think we should make the 'particularly in airborne fire-control radar systems' statement. Maybe a statement of why high bandwidth is useful for radar/ECM (frequency agility, narrow pulses/chirped pulses, etc.)? miterdale 14:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses 

message: Is it possible to replace the attenuation by a ferrite that acts like an isolator (circulator) ? --Arnero 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backward waves 

message: I just read this article after eading the klystron article because I would like to familiarize my-self with those two types of RF amplifiers. I sit back with some open questions are reading them
# I have the impression that if you take a klystron and add a helix wire you have (conceptually) a TWT. Is that correct understood from a birds eye perspective? 
# The concept of the klystron (1939) was developed before the TWT (WWII). Would it be fair to consider a TWT as a refinement of the klystron? 
# The helix wire makes thwe RF signal propagate with the same speed as the electron beam along the tube. Is this what makes the TWT so widebanded? 
I do not know what the answers of these questions are, but I think it could be helpfull to add some comparative remarks to klystron (and possibly other types of RF amplifiers that I have yet to learn about) in this article as it helps the reader to navigate and relate the different kinds of amplifiers to each other. -- Slaunger 13:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness I should mention that reference is made to the klystron, but I think the some comparative remarks should be moved up in the more introductory text and perhaps be elaborated a little. -- Slaunger 07:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The difference between a klystron and a TWT 

message: 64.209.156.12 substantially removed the following:
:"A solenoid coil wrapped around the tube creates a magnetic field which focuses the electrons into a beam, which then passes down the middle of a wire helix that stretches the length of the tube, finally striking a collector at the other end. (In lower-power devices, the solenoid coil can be replaced by permanent magnets.)"
This was substantially replaced with:
:A magnetic containment field around the tube focuses the electrons into a beam, which then passes down the middle of a wire helix that stretches from the RF input to the RF output, The electron beam finally striking a collector at the other end. (rem, lower power is not an absolute value and is therefore meaningless)
I think the original was appropriate in the article. Nevertheless, the comment about low power being meaningless is a comment about the article which should have been put on the discussion page, not in the article itself. I removed it. Rsduhamel 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solenoid coil or permenant magnet 

message: In Nov. 2005, when there was a consensus to change title from traveling wave tube amplifier to traveling wave tube, Engineer Bob did that, but then also, without any prior suggestion or comment, took out the TWTA bits and made a new article that has remained unreferenced and nearly orphan.  I propose we merge it back in as a section or two. Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; improvements are invited. Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the delay; I haven't logged in here in several weeks. The re-merge was nicely done, and I concur with the end result.  -- Engineer Bob (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from TWTA into TWT 

message: Why the removal of the Gilmour reference and the removal of the reference to the IEEE journal search engine from the TWT article on July 3, 2008?  The Gilmour reference is not spam.  It is very likely the best selling TWT book of the last 20 years (for what that's worth, though I cannot verify that--I suppose I could contact the author and ask how many he has sold).  It is on the shelf of a significant number of TWT engineers (though I can only really vouch for U.S. engineers).  As for the IEEE, it is the publisher of the proceedings of the annual International Vacuum Electronics Conference (IVEC), which is where most members of the TWT community publish their latest research, so it should be mentioned as the leading repository of modern TWT journal articles.  By putting these references with Pierce and Kompfner, I'm trying to give the key modern references for TWTs to contrast to the 50-year old works of the inventors.  Willus (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It said "In 1994, A.S. Gilmour wrote a modern TWT book[5] which is widely used by U.S. TWT engineers today, and research publications about TWTs are frequently published by the IEEE."  The book and author were being promoted, not used as a ref; it work be great to say something supported by the book, and cite it.  As for the IEEE search engine citation, that is basis of the "original research" claim which is probably not otherwise supportable.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Using a search result to back up an interpretation is WP:Original research.  If you find an actually WP:RS that says that there are still lots of TWT pubs, you could say that, but to search the IEEE and infer it, you can't do.  They're well known as a good source for electronics articles already, so don't worry about; reference a paper or two if you find some interesting content there. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Spam 

message: (moved from my talk page July 9, 2008)  Discussion of using just "References" footnoting (status quo) or changing to reference style where books are separated out.
I reverted your major edit because it completely changed the reference style to a more awkward style. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, more awkward in my opinion; but in general, you don't change an existing ref style (see Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_styles).  If you really need to point to different pages specifically you can list a book more than once.  Or just list the book without pages, or with a range of pages.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: So I reverted it again.  Make you content improvements, but respect the exisiting citation style. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't see what problem you're trying to solve.  Is it just that one of the books is cited on two different pages? Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd say it's not broke; so don't fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I prefer the style that we have, and the general policy is to not change it.  You don't have to put a ref in twice to use it twice; just use a name as in <ref name=x>. Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  :Template:Rp allows unique page numbers.  — Athaenara  ✉  10:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not my impression that the reference style will prevent growth.  If you run into problems with citations, propose a change at that time and see if others agree. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Style

message: Near the beginning of the article is stated "The bandwidth of a broadband TWT can be as high as three octaves". Near the end is stated "The bandwidth of a broadband TWTA can be as high as one octave". Which is it? --Dan Griscom (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The bandwidth of a broadband TWT can be as high as three/one octaves"? 

message: Rudolf Kompfner or "Nils Lindenblad of the Radio Corporation of America", re this edit. Is there any  controversy about this? I reverted as no new reference was given.-☢-220.101 talk\Contribs 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That one line is the point.  The company was listed as an early producer of TWTs, and this source seems like it provides reasonable support for that, no?  Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely there is something better around? (I tried looking but for some reason I am having trouble with accessing Google at the moment!) What about the previous question about the inventor of the TWT. Is there real debate about who was 'first' ie. Nils Lindenblad not Rudolf Kompfner as the editor I reverted suggested? - 220.101 talk\Contribs 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main reason Lindenblad isn't credited for inventing the TWT is that his patent didn't use the term "traveling-wave tube."  That's essentially what it was, but Lindenblad called it an "Electron Discharge Device System."  It was amazingly advanced for a TWT--it had periodic magnetic focusing, a multi-stage collector, and a tapered helix--all features of modern day versions.  But Kompfner, I believe, coined the term TWT, hence he gets most of the credit.  I'd have to check this in some of Kompfner's original work to be sure.  Willus (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inventor of TWT 

message: This reference has been in the article since at least July 2008, but seems largely promotional ie. lots of contact info, but only one line is relevant as a reference to when TWTs were manufactured by English Electric Valve Company Ltd (now E2V).-☢-220.101 talk\Contribs 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That one line is the point.  The company was listed as an early producer of TWTs, and this source seems like it provides reasonable support for that, no?  Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely there is something better around? (I tried looking but for some reason I am having trouble with accessing Google at the moment!) What about the previous question about the inventor of the TWT. Is there real debate about who was 'first' ie. Nils Lindenblad not Rudolf Kompfner as the editor I reverted suggested? - 220.101 talk\Contribs 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main reason Lindenblad isn't credited for inventing the TWT is that his patent didn't use the term "traveling-wave tube."  That's essentially what it was, but Lindenblad called it an "Electron Discharge Device System."  It was amazingly advanced for a TWT--it had periodic magnetic focusing, a multi-stage collector, and a tapered helix--all features of modern day versions.  But Kompfner, I believe, coined the term TWT, hence he gets most of the credit.  I'd have to check this in some of Kompfner's original work to be sure.  Willus (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Direct Website 

message: At the end of the introductory section both of these abbreviations are used, the second one without explanation. Are both of them used and is there a distinction between them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  TWAT and TWTA 

message: The article says that more than 50% of microwave tubes are TWTs.  Does that include all the magnetrons in microwave ovens? Gah4 (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  50%