Talk:Intrinsic impedance

some mistyped formulas
I corrected some mistyped formulas. Unless you are in an anisotropic medium, indexes x and y are not needed in the definition, as E and H are always orthogonal. LPFR 08:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to Intrinsic impedance? (currently redirects to here)

 * The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th ed.) has never heard of electromagnetic impedance.


 * I've never heard of it.


 * Google has (nearly) never heard of it...



! Search term !! Google hits
 * "intrinsic impedance" || 39,500
 * "electromagnetic impedance" || 785
 * }
 * "electromagnetic impedance" || 785
 * }

...so I propose swapping Intrinsic impedance and Electromagnetic impedance --catslash 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey
Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * Support (see above) --catslash 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --Gabbec 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --Gabbec 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move



 * OK, I've done it, and without giving much opportunity for comment; but it's only a move/rename and easily reverted in the event of disagreement. --catslash 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between electromagnetic and electrical impedance
The article says Electromagnetic impedance is not to be confused with electrical impedance. This distinction is new to me, and I can't see that E/H is somehow different to V/I. ...Unless it means to say that the intrinsic impedance should not be confused with the resistivity of the medium, which might be considered a valid point. So if it means what it says, then I reckon it needs a citation, and otherwise it needs clarifying --catslash 10:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)