Talk:Return loss

message: The equation for return loss has a typing error. Z5 in the denominator should read Z2.Iqbal Syed 13:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I moved the  discussion out of the "See Also" section to this discussion page 

message: (Moved from top)
The first equation has an error. The coefficient in front of the log term should be 10 rather than 20. 
You're right, fixed. Edgepedia (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: A "loss" figure in dB must indeed be stated as a positive number when it is reported and described as loss in a wordy context, e.g. in specifications or in any list of discrete data items. In a calculation it must be used with a negative or positive depending on the context. An output _level_ calculation is normally approached as a gain calculation. Any loss factor in such an addictive (logarithmic) gain calculation is in fact a negative figure.  What would be a proper expression to clarify this?
Spamhog (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably, if it is being treated as a gain, it should be called "return gain" rather than "return loss".  However, it is unarguably true that most published papers will graph return loss as a negative number.  In fact, some journals insist on this as a matter of house style.  Wikipedia reports the world, it is does not correct its mistakes.  The practice probably arises from s-parameters or some similar function to avoid having to include a minus sign in the matrix definition. SpinningSpark 17:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure "sign" is worded correctly. 

message: Reference (1) is a broken link.  Need new link or delete reference. Jpt61 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: References with broken links should not be deleted, they remain the source of the information even if they cannot currently be accessed.  Sometimes sites are only temporarily down, and often an archive copy of the page can be found at places such as The Internet Archive or WebCite.  Even if the link cannot be immediately repaired, it should be left in place as it gives a clue to later editors who might be able to trace it.  In this particular case it is almost certain that the paper is available at IEEE Explore, although I haven't looked. SpinningSpark 12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken reference 

message: Can someone fix in the "Sign"  paragraph :  "...return loss is the difference in dB between the incident power sent towards the Device Under Test (DUT) and the power reflected..."  ? ----> The formula below that text is a ratio, not a difference. MB75.227.120.151 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't.  The formula is 10log of a ratio.  Which is the difference of two 10log quantities.  Which is the difference in dBs. SpinningSpark 18:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong...

message: This recent edit expresses reflection coefficient (RC) in terms of 'impedance towards the load' and 'impedance towards the source', whereas the Wikki entry on RC uses the termination impedance (which can be taken to be 'the impedance towards the load') and the characteristic impedance of the line.  I am not convinced that in the context of transmission lines, the former expression is more useful than the latter, and propose that this paragraph be replaced with one which uses the expression for RC given in the Wikki entry on Reflection Coefficient.
"When the source and load impedances are known values, the reflection coefficient is given by
{\displaystyle {\mathit {\Gamma }}={{Z_{\mathrm {L} }-{\bar {Z}}_{\mathrm {S} }} \over {Z_{\mathrm {L} }+Z_{\mathrm {S} }}}}{\displaystyle {\mathit {\Gamma }}={{Z_{\mathrm {L} }-{\bar {Z}}_{\mathrm {S} }} \over {Z_{\mathrm {L} }+Z_{\mathrm {S} }}}}
where ZS is the impedance toward the source and ZL is the impedance toward the load. Note that this formulation for \Gamma is inconsistent with the formulation expressed in reflection coefficient."
I have now deleted the passage quoted above.  It refers to the calculation of reflection coefficient, and is not needed here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4oep (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electical