Talk:Microwave cavity

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microwave cavity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

}}

Clarity[edit]

This page is somewhat unclearly written, as it is hard to tell when it is talking about microwave cavities and when it is talking about resonant circuits made with inductors and capacitors. This is primarily in the first portion of the article, but it is rather confusing. I think I've figured it out, but don't know enough about the subject to be confident in rewriting some of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.225.92 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we be clear about whether the units in this article are SI or CGS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.6 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

This page is as fundamental in microwaves as coaxial cable is in low frequency electronics. It would be nice if a volunteer could dig up the necessary online references which I did not have time to do.

More Comments[edit]

it will be nice if it is more clear I am active in the field, and agree with the article. What is written in the article is the knowledge that most engineers active in the field, just know from years of reading different books and atricles and knowledge transferred by collegues.

I do disagree about that oxide will make deteriorate the Q, I added a comment for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.155.39 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved here from the article page[edit]

Comment: I disagree with the note about oxides destroying the Q of the resonator. The currents will flow under the oxide layer. The problem is if the oxide layer becomes resistive. Silver will oxidize and this does not destroy the Q. I do not know how copper oxide behaves. The above comment was left by 71.141.114.116 at 01:45, on 8 January 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.116.201 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article reformat[edit]

In my attempt to fix the article I changed the formatting, provided references and links and cleaned it up a bit. It still needs work, but it should be in a much better shape now. I still need to add a section about cylindrical cavity resonators and clarify analogies to LC circuits and losses. It would be nice if someone else could take a second look at it and make sure everything makes sense. HTii (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, if terse. It would be nice to have some material about the field distributions in the various shaped cavities. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Patent list?[edit]

Wonder if this patent list could be included in the article.

Numbered

U.S. patent 2,199,045 -- Electromagnetic resonator -- W. Dallenbach
U.S. patent 2,611,094 -- Inductance-capacitance resonance circuit -- H. B. Rex
U.S. patent 2,444,152 -- Cavity resonator circuit -- P. S. Carter (Radio Corporation of America)
U.S. patent 2,372,228 -- Ultra short wave radio system -- S. A. Schelkunoff (Bell Laboratories)
U.S. patent 2,357,314 -- Cavity resonator circuit -- P. S. Carter
U.S. patent 2,357,313 -- High frequency resonator and circuit therefor -- P. S. Carter
U.S. patent 2,315,313 -- Cavity resonator -- H. Bushholz (General Electric Company)
U.S. patent 2,235,506 -- High frequency tanks and resonant cavities -- S. A. Schelkunoff
U.S. patent 2,262,020 -- Frequency stabilization at ultra high frequencies -- F. B. Llewellyn
U.S. patent 2,250,096 -- Resonant system for ultra short waves -- Willi Engbert
U.S. patent 2,199,045 -- Electromagnetic resonator -- W. Dallenbach
U.S. patent 2,106,769 -- Transmission of guided waves -- G. C. Southworth
U.S. patent 2,044,413 -- Transmitter and receiver for electromagnertic waves -- R. Weyrich
U.S. patent 2,030,180 -- Electrical circuit arrangement -- R. K. Potter
U.S. patent 2,030,179 -- Electrical circuit arrangement -- R. K. Potter
U.S. patent 2,030,178 -- Electrical circuit arrangement -- R. K. Potter

Reissued

U.S. patent RE23534 -- High-power high-frequency electron discharge apparatus -- R. H. Varian
U.S. patent RE23019 -- High efficiency resonate circuit -- W. W. Hansen
U.S. patent RE22990 -- Modulation system -- W. W. Hansen

Daytonian Historian (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to do that? It is not normal to include a list of patents in articles. We might refer to a particular patent in the text if it is of some importance to the development of the subject, but journal articles are usually more appropriate as references and are generally considered more reliable. SpinningSpark 15:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to LC circuits wrong ?[edit]

After research, I didn't find the formula given in the article for the equivalent LC circuits in the reference. If someone can proof that these formula are corrects otherwise, we should maybe remove them. 147.173.51.148 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did your "research" include looking in the cited source? I'm seeing very similar expressions on page 221. SpinningSpark 10:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I looked in the reference 3... I spent a lot of time reading several chapter of this reference. However, I just saw that my version is originated from 1948... I looked page 221 as you suggested and I didn't find anything close to what it is discussed in the article. I will try to find a newer version of the book and come back with what I will find. 147.173.51.148 (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are completely right. For people who are interested, the reference is available on Google book. The part answering my interrogation begins page 218 to finish page 221. The formula are then corrects. Thanks Spinningspark for your help. 147.173.51.148 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric interpretation[edit]

It's better to have geometric rather than a mathematic explanation of the working principle. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cavity length[edit]

The statement "Because of these boundary conditions that must be satisfied at resonance (tangential electric fields must be zero at cavity walls), it follows that cavity length must be an integer multiple of half-wavelength at resonance" is correct for a particular mode but is not generally true. For example, a TM010 mode cavity can be very short in length, a small fraction of a wavelength.

In addition, there a a large class of loaded cavities (most simple one is a reentrant cavity) which have a more complex dependance on dimensions.

I volunteer to undertake a revision of this page and add an article on loaded cavities, if the people involved accept. I am relatively new to Wiki editing, but experienced in cavity resonators. Accelerator-physicist (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reflex Klystron[edit]

I happened to notice that the link [[reflex klystron]] on this page redirects to [[Klystron#Reflex_klystron]]. The main article on reflex klystrons is at [[Sutton tube]]. Is there any reason I shouldn't edit the Redirect page "reflex klystron" to point to "Sutton tube"? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-de-Nivelle: Yeah, that ought to use the redirect link to reflex klystron for Sutton tube. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done.Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]