Talk:Half-power point

message: I think this article is wrong, a 3dB drop in voltage doesn't correspond to half power.  A 3dB drop in power is half power.  But I'm not changing the article because I don't consider myself an expert in this area.  It already looks like someone came along to try to "clarify" the matter and ended up changing what was being said.
Also, a search of the net for "half power point" finds many references regarding filters and none (that I noticed in the first few pages of search results) regarding amplifiers.  Maybe that's just how the search results happened to come out - I realize that this term could be used in describing the bandwidth of an amplifier, but it seems to me that it isn't the normal usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.68.185 (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: 'A high pass amplifier stage will have only the lower half power point.'
There's no such thing as an amplifier with infinite bandwidth, so the above cant possibly be true
82.31.66.207 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite bandwidth? 

message: After numerous edits, this article would still serve better as an example of incompetent communication than as an engineering reference.  If not deleted, it needs a complete re-write. - Mike Shepherd (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with an earlier comment that this should be merged/superseded by the article on cutoff frequency, which doesn't refer to this article, and is already much more comprehensive and refined; however it seems too technical. I will tag this article for merging, and tag cutoff frequency for already-discussed excessive technical info. Also, the "mathematical coincidence," while a seemingly good teaching analogy, it probably doesn't belong here, especially without a source. ChrstphrChvz (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked at links to this article and find that there are references not related to frequency. Also the Cutoff frequency is typically the Half-power point but not always so changing some of these links to a merged Cutoff frequency article would introduce some confusion. I'm interested in more discussion but, right now, I am opposed to the proposed merge. ~Kvng (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree.  It's a simple concept and should have a simple article that answers the question of a reader looking it up.  It's a common complaint from readers that Wikipedia articles often go way beyond what they are trying to find out making the whole experience difficult. SpinningSpark 17:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the merge is not a good idea, but rather that the current Half-power point point article needs a simple rewrite. I'll also strip back the text from an unreferenced ramble to an unreferenced definition; improvements should follow more easily from there. Klbrain (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you were a bit too bold with your edits. I have restored some material that you cut. The antenna discussion is particularly crucial as there as several article that link here for this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reasonable. Any chance of referencing the antenna comments that you've restored? Klbrain (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  ~Kvng (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor quality 

message: Shouldn't the definition be more general so that it doesn't just refer to the half power point in the frequency domain? The half power point could be of interest e.g. as a function of angle for a directional antenna. Clenchedteeth (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency