User talk:Daegerte

Welcome!
Hi Daegerte! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Constant314 (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know how this talk page works so I just answer here once and then I let it be. I was trying to improve something, again, it just got reversed, again. I won't try anymore.
 * I know about the telegrapher equation as I am the lead electrical engineer for a large company developing monitoring equipment for HV submarine cable systems. Our project team just had major and long discussions with a large cable manufacturer who used the equations from your page. And they used it the wrong way. They did not read that sentence further down that input/output is reverted and overlooked the numbering. Only when they finally took me into the discussion, I could explain where the problem lies. Days of work have been lost because of your equations, I'm not joking here.
 * You don't have to explain to me the theory, I understand ABCD. The way you write the euqation, you calculate at a position with reference to the voltage and current at the end and not at the beginning of a line segment. Sorry but that's not intuitive, more people will get confused and make mistakes. Karakash even has the other equations (32) and (33), chapter 1.05, page 13.
 * I use to the book 'Electromagnetic Transients in Power Cables' by da Silva, 2013. Da Silva wrote his PhD on the subject in 2011. And he uses the equation with minus signs too. And I have so many papers at hand also citing the equations with minus signs.
 * If you want to stick to your version then at least add the other version further down and explain it just like Karakash did, because that's what's common. Daegerte (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a fallacious argument. Your vendor is attempting to shift the blame for their own lack of diligence to Wikipedia.  As you said, they literally failed to read one more sentence.  I am sorry that they were confused, however the variables were properly labeled.
 * There is a reason ABCD matrixes are defined with side 1 as a function of side 2 and that is when the transmission channel is made up of multiple cascaded elements, the overall matrix is just the individual matrixes multiplied in the order in which they appear. Using the equations, that you suggested, requires the individual matrixes to be multiplied in reverse order which is considered to be a great source of confusion.
 * The equations that you suggest are simply not the equations of an ABCD matrix. However, I agree that it makes little difference in you have only one transmission line element. Constant314 (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)