Talk:Power dividers and directional couplers

Low frequency directional couplers
I have the feeling that

Low frequency directional couplers

needs more text. But I am unsure where to start. The only sentence banging in my head is: Winding direction are not drawn, because the device will function anyways, you just have to test wich port is wich.--Arnero 13:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Navy source
I removed this from the References section to comply with Avoid self-references:

(When the original version of this article was created in June, 2006 it was nearly a copy of the "POWER DIVIDERS AND DIRECTIONAL COUPLERS" with changes to Wikipedia markup.)

Art LaPella 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think that was a self-reference, it is talking about the main reference for the article, not the Wikipedia article (you should have just deleted the "with changes to Wikipedia markup" bit). I cannot retrieve the original article to check, the link has gone dead, but if it really is copied this article is either a copyvio or should carry a note the the government document copied from is in the public domain.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a Navy publication, and is therefore in the public domain. The article has changed a lot since the handbook was copied. I have found a new link and will update the footnote. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Resistive couplers/splitters
These should be included here. They are the simplest form of these devices.--ThrobbingTrousers (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Resistive voltage dividers and the so-called 6dB hybrid (actually a resistive bridge) are not power dividers. They are, in fact, power dissipators and do not really belong here.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  14:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Fred6531
Modification on the formulae L2,1 and D3,4 Three performances of the coupler are defined as positive numbers : Coupling Factor, Isolation and Directivity. Because the device is a passive one, P3 < P1, so 1 - (P3/P1) < 1 ad finally log (1 - (P3/P1)) < 0. This is why I proposed to insert a negative sign at the beginning of the formula I would add the following formula P1 =~ P2 + P3 (neglecting P4).

For the directivity I would replace D3,4 by D4,3. The notation used for the other parameters imply that the first index corresponds to the output port, the second to the input port. This is not the case for the Directivity formula. D4,3 = I4,1 - C3,1

Fred6531 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies for reverting you out of hand. Your edit was very similar to a previous IP edit which was just plain wrong and I assumed you were the same person without reading your edit too carefully.  I agree the insertion loss should be positive, but note the source has missed out the minus sign as well as our article - probably an error, but we should find another source.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional source
One of the major broadcast-equipment firms (I think Shively) has a nice set of white papers describing the design of large combiner systems based on hybrids and filter banks, and some of the significant design issues like group delay. 121a0012 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Insertion loss formula
The ratio part of the insertion loss formula has recently been changed by a string of IPs from 1-P3/P1 to 1-P2/P1. I suspect they really intended to change it to P2/P1. Even this is wrong, the expresion is supposed to be for the ideal insertion loss caused by coupling off power P3. The actual insertion loss in indeed P2/P1 but that is not what is required here.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  07:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge from hybrid coupler
I have removed the proposed merge template. The editor who inserted it did not start a discussion so it is unclear what was intended to merge. The article is a one sentence stub that does little more than link to this article, essentially it is a soft redirect. There is already way more information in this article than in hybrid coupler - there is nothing to merge and the proposal is moot.  Spinning Spark  11:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems like there is no need for the hybrid coupler page though. Should that page be deleted? DaffyBridge (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. It serves as an immediate answer for the person who knows about power dividers and directional couplers, and as a redirect for people who don't. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, we would not delete the page. If we did anything it would be to turn it into a redirect.  It is already essentially a soft redirect.  The page is capable of expansion into a much more substantial article if anyone cares to have a go.  Spinning  Spark  08:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made some of these. I don't recall any methods that are only applicable to equal power division; my recollection is all the methods could just as well produce unequal power division by tweaking a few dimensions. So I don't see the benefit of expanding the "Hybrid coupler" article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and "coupler" in the article title implies just that. Redirect to hybrid coil might be more appropriate and should satisfy Jc3s5h's objection.  The only additional useful thing that hybrid coupler has is a link to this article which could easily be transferred.  Spinning  Spark  16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hybrid coil is not a suitable redirect for Hybrid coupler. See http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/hybridcouplers.cfm

In the nomenclature I'm familiar with, hybrid couplers are a ring built on a printed circuit board, where the trace on the board forms a transmission line that is one wavelength in circumference (so they are only practical for microwaves). Ports are attached at various points depending on the phase shift desired for the outputs. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the term "hybrid" originally related to transformers but was then extended out to other kinds of couplers, initially only 90° couplers were included, but now the term is all-embracing. What everybody seems to agree on (including your own ref) is that only 3 dB couplers count as hybrids.  Spinning  Spark  18:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Power dividers and directional couplers in general
Power dividers and directional couplers are also used in integrated photonics but there is no mention of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.75.139 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sign

 * Just a comment (kind of important). The hybrid couplers when used as combiners should show +3dB, not -3dB.  The math DOES show the addition, but the labels are not correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.233.111.114 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still a −3 dB coupler regardless of which way round it is connected. SpinningSpark 08:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

First Paragraph
The first paragraph could be more understandable to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Various ports are mentioned but without explanation of what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicknick5k (talk • contribs) 09:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems likely that this paragraph would be opaque to the uninitiated. A few thoughts:
 * It should be stated that the device has 4 ports
 * The first use of port could perhaps be changed to port of the device
 * The terns input port, output port, coupled port and isolated port could be italicized to clarify that the ports are being given names.
 * The term output port should be changed to transmitted port for consistency with the rest of the article
 * The word couple[d]] is used a couple of times other than in the designation coupled port, which is surely confusing; coupled (diverted) perhaps?
 * catslash (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Those all look like good improvements to me, except perhaps the last one. That just seems to be adding confusion to me.  The use of the word coupled in a generic sense is unavoidable in this article and adding (diverted) as a disambiguator on every occurence is both clunky and not really solving the problem. SpinningSpark 08:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The explanation in the Notation and symbols section is perhaps clearer than that in the lede. catslash (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)