Talk:Impedance matching

Short description Dec 2022
Hi @Spinningspark: what's the issue with "Practice in electronics" as a Short description? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mostly, because it tells the reader nothing. Morning tea breaks were a practice in electronics when I was still working.  I first reverted it because I saw that description transcluded in to a see also section - along with many similar ones.  That's just unnecessarily cluttering up the section and making it less clear to the reader which articles they might want click through to.  You need to be telling the reader why they might want to read the article, or at least convince them that they have found the right place.  If you can't write anything sensible, don't write anything and leave it to someone who can. SpinningSpark 09:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note that there was already a discussion open on this on this page and you have now created a duplicate heading. SpinningSpark 09:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Spinningspark,
 * Sorry, I changed the title.
 * I don't understand what you mean by "I saw that description transcluded in to a see also section": for me it appears just below the title as it should be.
 * Anyway: what would be a correct short description? (if we assume, per WP:SDNONE, that "All articles should have a short description", but I don't know the value of this information page...) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The transclusions are being done by Annotated link.  This is a terrible practice imo, but since there is nothing I can do to stop it happening, we should at least have sds that are actually helpful.
 * I'm not a fan of sds themselves either, so I don't generally go around writing them. But since you asked nicely, "Matching loads to power sources in engineering" works for me.  Engineering because this is a concept that goes beyond electronics, or even beyond electrical engineering generally.  And before you ask, no, I can't cut that down to under 40 characters and still be meaningful in all contexts it might be used.  If it does get truncated, there is still enough of the final word left to get the meaning. SpinningSpark 10:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah OK I see. What about "Matching loads to power sources in a circuit" (44)? Otherwise we could add yours to avoid someone else clicking on "Import" and automatically adding "practice in electronics" from Wikidata. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * God, even Twitter allows more than this. Your text implies the article is limited to "circuits".  Hard to see how that concept applies to the explosives example in the article.  You are saying to the reader that the article is limited to the electrical field, which isn't true and may not be what they are looking for so they don't click through.  It also truncates to "...in a cir" which is pretty hard to guess what the missing word is, whereas  "...in engin" has far fewer alternatives. SpinningSpark 11:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha yes yours is probably better: should we add it then? Or add Otherwise I'm afraid someone else will make the same mistake and import the SD from Wikidata as I did. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is the mechanical impedance matching dubious?
It is described in its relevant section and corresponds with the concept. It also applies to acoustics (as likewise described). JohlBrownTFYQAbiz (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The concept of mechanical impedance matching is not dubious. The assertion in the article that the examples are examples of impedance matching may be dubious. <b style="color: #4400bb;">Constant314</b> (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Impedance is the opposition to the flow of energy
"Impedance is the opposition by a system to the flow of energy from a source"

This line is incorrect. Impedance describes the ratio of voltage to current, pressure to flow rate, force to velocity, etc. It's the ratio of the two complentary variables in any energy domain, and certainly not an opposition to the transfer of energy (high impedance systems can transfer energy just as efficiently as low impedance). I'm not sure how to phrase this succinctly - any suggestions?

Also, apologies if I've missed any Wikipedia etiquette; this is my first time 47.218.186.231 (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with you but don't know how to fix it either. A load with zero impedance would not accept any energy.  It is more of a coupling parameter.  It couples the current through a device to the voltage across the device. <b style="color: #4400bb;">Constant314</b> (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)