Talk:Smith chart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the heck is 'Rafay's Chart'? I can't find any evidence of anything with this name ever exisiting.

Could we see an example with some data filled in? --Phil | Talk 11:42, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

A Smith Chart is more specifically a nomogram than a graph. The nomogram page can let people know that a nomogram is a kind of graph.

I'd like to put back to old picture of the smith chart. the current one does not have enough numbers to be useful. Does anyone oppose reverting back to the old one?

I would like to see the old one. At the very least any diagram of a Smith Chart will do. A picture tells a thousand words. Piercetp 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
There's already a picture in the article. Afonso Silva 08:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Must be new then. There was no one when I checked last time. Piercetp 23:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Substantial Additions

I have added quite a bit plus some examples. I hope everything is relevant but there may be some repetition to tidy up. I think it could benefit some constant gain/NF circles and even some screen dumps from actual VNA measurements. I just can't get the equations visually consistent for some reason, they come out in all shapes and sizes and sometimes with little tags on the ends, I will study the math help a bit more and improve if nobody else does.

Also the following might be useful additions

Examples of Test Results Displayed on Smith Chart Formats Smith Charts region greater than unity (amplifier stability etc.) Noise Figure Circles, constant gain circles ChrisAngove 09:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

Just a few points:

  • Headings should only have the first word capitalized (unless there is a proper noun of course). See WP:MOS
  • The lead section could perhaps be expanded to two paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
  • Don't have wikilinks in titles. (WP:MOS again :))
  • A lot more references are needed for criterion 2b.

And also:

  • Try to enforce the math either being in png format for consistency. (\, at the end of each <math> should be what's needed). It makes it nicer to read really.
  • Some of those redlinks might actually be mistyped wikilinks to other pages.

Otherwise it's a good article, although technical! CloudNine 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Möbius transform

Mathematically speaking, the transform z\mapsto \frac{z-1}{z+1} as applied in the Smith chart is a special case of a Möbius Transformation. There should be a reference somewhere. Troelspedersen 14:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improved equations

I have just added lots of 'force .png' tags to the TeX markup and they are more consistent at least. Also some improvements in the text flow, removal of excessive words etc.ChrisAngove 12:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1st time questions

  1. distributed component = distributed element = is discussed in distributed element model?
  2. The Smith Chart is used with one frequency at a time so the temporal part of the phase (\exp(\omega t)\,) is fixed.[...] Why not \exp(j \omega t)\,?
  3. As someone seeing the Smith chart the first time, it was quite hard to figure out where these points and regions are: center of the Smith chart (z_T = 1 \pm j0\,), z_T = \infty \pm j\infty\, and the unitary circumference circle.

Thank you for any help. --Abdull (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Has anyone ever noticed that the lines you draw on a Smith Chart seem to consistently conform to Imperial units: inches and grains?! I presume it's because Americans like using English traditional units in electronics as well. I just wondered whether this was by design or just a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.12 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)