Talk:Double-tuned amplifier

Possible broader extension
I think that the core of this article is more the double tuned circuit than the amplifiers that were used in the first historical application of coupled resonant circuits: selective RF amplifiers. In this article the electronic amplifiers are only in the background and do not really appear in the description and computation. On the other side as Witricity has reintroduced the concept of double tuned circuits for wireless power transfer, it could be a good idea to present the subject in an unified manner. Besides some articles now consider the importance of the coupling index (the original name for kQ) for both capacitive and inductive resonant power transfer (see for instance: akshi, Uday A.; Godse, Atul P., Electronic Circuit Analysis, Technical Publications, 2009. It could be a way to clear the mess of the awful pictures introduced in Wikipedia content Resonant inductive coupling that falsely suggest that at resonance field lines are somehow concentrated (fields distribution depends only on charges and currents distributions and are not frequency dependent, at least around sharp resonances). I suggest that links to this page and references to kQ importance should be added to all pages concerning couplings combined to the resonance amplification mechanism.--Henri BONDAR (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description
I am copying this over from my talk page to get a consensus on the change. After this, I am leaving the conversation. Thanks.--Akrasia25 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

- This is the third time you have added an unacceptable short description to this article, and the second time you have added exactly the same thing. Please don't edit war over this. SpinningSpark 20:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t remember that I had already tried to put in a short description to this article. Can you put one one in since I obviously don’t know what it is? The article is a GA and we are trying to put in a SD for every article and this one keeps coming up in the list. Someone else is likely to come along and attempt it too. Akrasia25 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I did (and a shorter one than yours), but it immediately got overwritten with the same inane stuff by somebody else. I'm not saying it is not a tuned amplifier.  It is.  I'm saying that is worthless as a short description.  The article title already tells you that. SpinningSpark 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem. Your SD edit is not actually being published (?!). So it still shows up as being empty and I come along with my list and see an empty SD. I can publish it for you but "tuned amplifier with transformer coupling between the amplifier stages" is 70 characters long and SD should be less than 40 characters. What would you like it to say?--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That "somebody else" was me, and you're right, it was rather inane now that I think about it. However, your proposal "Amplifier tuned on both sides of the stage coupling transformers" at 64 characters wasn't any better than the one originally inserted by Akrasia25. The solution here is to insert " ". Some articles simply don't need one when their title is self-explanatory. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well "none" is better than the useless "tuned amplifier" from my point of view. In point of fact, my replacement was six bytes shorter than the 70-byte oringinal so was better even if still not acceptable.  I can get that down to "Amplifier tuned both sides of coupling transformers" which is 51 bytes.  That's about as short as it gets and still saying something meaningful.  I'd also point out that the 40-bytes is not a firm rule and that when truncated you will be left with "Amplifier tuned both sides of coupling t..." which might be just enough to give the reader the idea. SpinningSpark 13:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)