Talk:Velocity factor

message: Factor of 1000 left out. Charles Matthews 18:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The maths for this topic is known as Telegraphers equations. Added link. --Catskineater (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The maths on the page were both confusing and incorrect. I have fixed the transmission line equation per Telegraphers equations and added a clarifying equation for non-transmission line situations. 12.174.19.210 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I have incorrectly flipped the fraction. Reverted that equation. 12.174.19.210 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Factor of 1000

message: From what I can gather, this is simply 1/refractive index.  Should we merge to refractive index?  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No merge, please. Similarities can be seen in vacuum or in free air, but not for instance in electrical cables. Geof (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are cables a special case?  They're just EM waveguides.  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 13:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there's a lot things to be said about velocity of propagations in them. Group velocity, phase velocity, etc... What needs to be include here can be debated, but its certainly a distinct topic from refractive indices. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this article had a wider scope, then I could agree with you.  But as it stands, the examples you gave are already distinct articles, and not specific to EM in cables.  This article isn't attempting to cover such a wide range of ideas, but simply the relationship between v and εr, and gives that relationship a name.  This relationship is already implied by the first section of the Refractive index article.  As such, I feel that the relationship between the two concepts would be made much clearer and compact if we merged the relatively trivial amount of content here into that article.  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 16:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. The refractive index page does not adequately cover the topic of wave propagation speed. It lists no equations and gives no "common" velocities. An explanation of (v_{\mathrm {p}}), or propagation velocity is required for an understanding of refractive index but they are not the same. --kf4yfd (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Refractive index:            	Velocity of Propagation:
n = \frac{c}{v_{\mathrm {p}}}	v_{\mathrm {p}} = { \frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa}} } \
--kf4yfd (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that now the article title has changed, a merge may no longer be appropriate.  Under its original title "Velocity of propagation" it was rather too focused on the ratio, which (AFAIK) really was refractive index under a different name.  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: It sais: where c is the speed of light, L is ...
But there is no c in the formula, only C (the capacitance)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.182.66 (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because some anonymous dolt deleted the c without considering why it might be there, and no one caught it. I've reverted the change. 0x30114 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in formula 

message: There is some ambiguity present in the current definitions of "velocity of propagation".  The first definition (1/sqrt(K)) is unitless, i.e. a fraction relative to the speed of light.  The second definition (1/sqrt(LC)) is an actual velocity, in m/s.  Which is correct?  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the difference arose in the first place because of an inconsiderate anonymous edit, which I've reverted (see above section). But anyway, velocity factor seems like a much better term to me, although I don't know what's common among engineers. 0x30114 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: I downloadad ARRL Handbook.pdf  the 2010 --- i was unable to locate the Table in the file. The file is crappy so i was not able to search it, however chapter 19 begins on page 370, and does not contain such a table. The publication Year of  ARRL Handbook and the page of the Table yould be great.  ... or even other / better / free sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.215.113.163 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: A section of this article reads: "the dielectric constant of the material through which the signal passes". Does that wording even make sense? 
From what I understand the dielectric constant is a property of the "insulation" between the conductors of a cable. And the signal isn't "passing through" the insulation. But perhaps "material" here refers to the cable or medium as a whole?
The article may be correct but I have trouble parsing that sentence. I'm just a neophyte.  R4p70r (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dielectric Constant 

message: The equation VF = (LC)^0.5 is incorrect. Because L and C are inductance and capacitance of of unit length cable, the formula gives the propagation velocity in the cable. That must be divided by the velocity of light c to get the velocity factor. Thus the correct formula is 
VF = (LC)^-0.5 c^-1 .  Can somebody fix it? I can't edit wiki equations. Rubmum (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velocity factor formula is incorrect 

message: How do you find the VF for a copper wire where the relative permittivity is infinite? So if I have a 2m 14 guage AWG wire, how do I find how fast a 60Hz signal propagates through it?
Thanks
71.139.160.208 (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about in metals? 

message: Substituted at 09:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Is the "speed at which a wavefront passes through the medium" (cited in the lede) the same as the phase velocity? 178.39.122.125 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase speed 

message: Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design: Engineering, Mechanical  appears to be a copy of this. Widefox; talk 13:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  False positive source 

message: Older versions included sound waves  but this was partly dropped from the text. Either we want to properly discuss it (if the term is actually used with sound), or completely remove it if not. Widefox; talk 13:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: This article is inconsistent, leaving the reader confused about what the definition of velocity factor is.  The propagation velocity of a wavefront is the group velocity, whereas the inverse of the refractive index is the phase velocity.  In certain media of interest (cables and optical fibres), it sounds like the propagation delay of signals (and hence the group velocity) is likely the intended meaning.  There might be contexts in which the phase velocity is indeed meant, such as in optics, where refractive effects might be being described.  This article should clearly distinguish the definitions by context, depending on sourced usage.  Despite understanding the physics, I do not have access to the sources and the term hides in a sea of noise in a web search, so I cannot fix this.  (Besides, I'm not convinced that this deserves a WP article: it seems to be an uncommon term, its meaning may vary by source/domain, and would thus need to be defined pretty much wherever it is used.)  172.82.46.195 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing definition