Talk:Power gain

Merging?
Maybe this article should be merged with Gain? Silivrenion 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be right, but power gain is a broad topic. I'm planning on adding more sections to this article to elaborate on the types of power gain, and likely stuff on unilateral gain, stability factors, maximum available gain, etc. The current article on gain is rather simplistic though, and I don't think this material would fit in. I was also hoping someone would step in and help me out :) Roger 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Two-port networks
I'm breaking this out into a new section. This has nothing to do with the merge discussion. SpinningSpark 10:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rogerbrent I see three subsections on two-port networks. How about a subsection on single-port networks -- specifically about the starvation of single-port networks inducing a reversal of current within such networks since its current has nowhere else to exit other than through its inlet port? This reversal has the property of increasing the differences among its voltages (rather than the diminishment) since voltage differences are no longer equalizing under these considerations since current is no longer flowing forwards (relative to voltage). In other words, the phase of current is shifted 180 degrees from its phase of voltage. -- Vinyasi (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rogerbrent Oops! I just received an education of terms from reading about a Two-port network. What I should have asked for is a subsection on half-port networks of a single terminal. Sorry; my mistake. -- Vinyasi (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are talking about. As far as I know there is no such thing as a "half-port network".  A port is an indivisible elemental concept in network theory.  Can you point to a reliable source that uses this terminology? SpinningSpark 10:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Spinningspark Last time I did a visual check of antennas (aerials), they seemed to possess merely one terminal and, thus, would constitute a half-port network in and of themselves. As for a reliable source apart from a primary source of judgment, I don't know. I thought what is obvious would be sufficient. Maybe an antenna is not considered a network, but merely is attached to it? Yet, if this be the convention, then this attachment is a subnetwork worthy of its own descriptor. -- Vinyasi (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, antennas are one-ports. A dipole antenna explicitly has two connections for instance.  A monopole antenna has a second connection to an actual ground plane or a virtual ground plane.  Any situation in which the current is not returned is not a port by definition.  Even for single-wire transmission lines there is still a return current in existence somewhere, it is just not being transmitted to the far end of the line.  The port concept can be extended to energy transfer that does not involve electrical conductors at all; see port (circuit theory), but the key thing is that energy is transferred through a defined space.  This cannot be the case when only a single conductor is known or defined.  Part of the energy is being transferred in another conductor (or conductors, it might not all be transferred to the same place).  The concept of port is thus meaningless in connection with a single conductor. SpinningSpark 11:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)