Talk:Frequency selective surface

August 2014
I wanted to create a page on the subject of frequency selective surfaces, with the intent of starting things out with a discussion of the spectral domain method (which I've personally used since the 1980's) and then open the discussion up to anyone versed in the subject who might like to add text, photos, references or whatever, to flesh out the article.

Craig Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.230.156 (talk)  18:55, August 13, 2014

TOO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS!!!
This page used far too many capital letters in violation of WP:MOS. There were many cases of capitalizing an initial letter merely because it's in a section heading or because it's the initial letter of a link. I've cleaned that up somewhat. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Hardy: You should have said, "Too Many Capital Letters!!!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.170.146 (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

"Expert Needed"
The criticisms leveled in the "expert needed" template (i.e., overly technical, overly detailed, insufficient context, essay-like, underlinked, non-standard reference format, non-standard captions) will not be remedied by an expert on the subject of frequency selective surfaces, but rather by an expert on wikipedia policies. The template should be revised to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EM-Editor (talk • contribs) 2017-12-27T19:47:36 (UTC)

COI and cleanup
As noted above, the main contributor to this article is one of the authors cited in the article. As I stated in a related AFD discussion, WP:SELFCITE applies. If this editor wishes to continue contributing to this article, they need to read and understand WP:PSCOI. There have been several things that have gone on that need to change: If you continue to edit on accounts without a clearly acknowledging a COI, you may be blocked.
 * Please give a less ambiguous declaration of COI.
 * Please choose a single account, and clearly note any connected accounts.
 * Please use edit summaries.
 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes.

Cleanup
As far as the article goes, it needs a lot of cleanup. Lots of jargon to be spelled out, a depreciated citation style, overlong section headings, overly weighted towards theory, duplicate information (the merge didn't help, I know) This is not my area of expertise, so someone else may find it easier to edit, but I encourage anyone coming across this page to be WP:BOLD and make big changes to the layout/prose. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 04:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

COI
I am not an expert on this, but I would argue that giving a close look to the section "Bloch wave Mom method" which was coming from the other deleted page and "Analysis first principle MoM method". A part from the intimidating mathematical jargon most of the equations and mathematical procedures looks the same, spectral decomposition with green functions, integral equation, and even pretty standard techniques to the extent of EM calculations. So is also question for me whether the contributions on "bloch's wave mom method" are original research contributions at all or just yet another variant of previous / standard stuff.

Namely to the extent of Bloch's Theorem the fact that is 2D expansion vs 3D expansion it does not really matter, i.e. Bloch theorem can be a derivation of the translation group in N dimension or even extended to non translation groups. And also as described in Bloch's theorem page in the boxes about group theory, the single 1D translation groups can be commuted. I.e. there is no special effect in the equations whether is 2D or 3D or ND given the plus in the exponential can be interchanged and can have 1 extra term for each dimension added. In other terms is not such a big deal to change the number of dimensions in a Fourier transform because equations don't really change. For comparison the 2D vs 3D "innovation" it may be regarded significant in a quantum case where the equations can change (e.g. in the case of graphene hex crystal on 2D means a Dirac equation instead of a 3D crystal where this would be a plain Schroedinger equation).

Therefore I would go for a radical approach to remove the sectiodn "Bloch Wave mom method" and merge it (for the stuff that maybe different) with the other "analysis first principle - mom method" with a small ref to the COI, in a paragraph like "this method was applied in a 3D case by Author ... to 3D photonic crystals with ref ..." to do it would be worth while to go through the computations and the papers in details.

There are a few other potential claims about a 3D model as different and better than 2D that needs analysis.

I went through the photonic crystals wikipedia article and what may be relevant in the distinction between 2D and 3D is the fact that the first is usually for electronic metal surfaces i.e. FSS, the latter is for photonic crystals, in the case of photonic crystals, the photonic bandgap behave differently according to dimension numbers. 3D photonic crystals are a separate research topic due to fabrication techniques and not to so claimed special math modeling that are stated in this article here. Therefore the sub-section about photonic band gaps maybe more significant than all the rest of the math in the block wave - mom section. In such case, this sub-section may belong to photonic crystals more than here. In the same article of photonic crystals there is a reference to quantum models for 3D crystals, to computational methods for 3D photonic crystals, a plane wave expansion, and some speed up techniques, which looks similar to some claimed innovations here.