Talk:Impedance mismatch

Untitled

This is a bit odd ... shouldn't there be a disambiguation page and a treatment of the electrical engineering (original) meaning of the term that's longer than a sentence? I'd write it but I don't know enough about it! --James 20:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly second this. - xnk

I third this, but I'm too new a contributor to really know how to go about making it fit the overall quality and style of the body of the Wikipedia. I think it very important that this page deal with Electrical Impedance mismatches (and, possibly, how to fix them) as well as mentioning other 'cognitive' forms of paradigm mismatching, all of which seem to have borrowed the term from the original electrical context. PaulWay 04:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree this is a bit odd. I've only ever understood the term 'impedance mismatch' to mean, well, a mismatch of impedance. As in electronic circuits, EM waves, accoustics, or something involving wave transmission. Yeah, it could be generalised as the article suggests, but I don't think it is. Deletion? - Arthur

I would go along with James and say that this article should be about Electrical Impedance Mismatch (possibly titled Impedance mismatch (electricity)) and the rest of the material (if substantiated with references should be on a disambiguation page with the present title. --mlewis000 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I found this article to support a point. (Business group had a project idea they presented to IT. Result was an inability of IT to accept the ideas in the form presented. Perhaps a strained analogy, but imho not the first time it's been used in this, or other organizational contexts.)--151.151.73.167 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Impedance Mismatch

Another prevalent impedance mismatch (though I've never heard it referred to as such) in today's computing realm would be that between the DOM (Document Object Model) and HTTP. Anybody who's programmed any form validation with Javascript knows what I'm talking about ;)

Actually no.

I really like how this is evolving and I appreciate all the input (both style and content) But it is late and I need to get a few other things in order right now. I will revist and make another edit pass in a day or so. Ckuelzow

The Aether

I thought it was Michelson-Morley_experiment - by some guy named Michelson in cooperation with Morley - that aether did not exist. Yet, the article states:

"So to be efficient the antenna’s properties must be adjusted to match the impedance of the aether."

Any new scientific progresses I missed or any lack of my language skills? --LostJedi 11:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's aether as in free space. It has an impedance (377Ω), so EM folks tend to talk about it as if there is something there, but they just mean a vacuum. - Arthur

As it stands, Aether links to a disambiguation page. The relevant section thereof (Luminiferous_aether) doesn't really state that it is in colloquial use today as stated above. Regardless, it does seem rather colloquial (and perchance confusing to anyone not up on their 19th century science - heh), and therefore, I'm going to change it.

Article revived as disambiguation page

Although mindful of the deletion discussion two years ago, I have revived this page as a disambiguation page. Impedance mismatch is a term that is quite widely used in software engineering (try a google search - the top hits are about software, not about electrical engineering). I think it a disservice to users wanting to research the software term that they are taken to Impedance matching without any reference anywhere to the software concept.

I find it interesting that the top Google hit for "Impedance mismatch" is Object-relational impedance mismatch rather than Impedance matching Canthusus (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)