Talk:Waveguide (optics)

"Rejects"? The caption of the figure says "Light rejects at a dielectric interface" - is this a typo? Should it be "light refracts"? --Discostu5 (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here, but I am curious what the criteria for merging pages is. I see no reason why the optical waveguide and electromagnetic waveguides shouldn't be merged. While different materials may be used, both have applications in the hardware of communication systems.

I am also thinking that a discussion of waveguide modes, including the bessel function solution of Maxwell's equations could help further improve the article. I can do this once I get my hand on some of my old textbooks if no one objects.

They were previously all one article, Waveguide, but they got split up when I made a stupid suggestion. I suggested, if the main article were written to include not just electromagnetic waveguides, but also acoustic waveguides, etc., it could be split up this way. Another editor split it all up, leaving a bunch of stubs. See the discussion at Talk:Waveguide. So far, nothing useful has been written about acoustic waveguides, or other types.

I would recommend if write an explanation of waveguides from the p.o.v. of Maxwell's equations, the best place for it is Waveguide (electromagnetism). If your explanation covers dielectric rod waveguides (as are common in optics), then I'd put it here. If you explain both together, I'd recommend merging Waveguide (optics) into Waveguide (electromagnetism), with an explanation that optical waves are em waves at very high frequencies. -- The Photon 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking of perhaps explaining waveguides from the POV of Maxwell's equations and merging the too. A question though: is there a way to create a "some segments of this article are technical" warning? I've seen it before in several articles on DSP. Fred138

I only know about the templates at WP:TEMP. Those mostly are for flagging "problems" with an article. There is one of those about "not understandable for a nontechnical reader" or something like that. If you've seen one you like, you could copy the code from that page. -- The Photon 01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to merge, the similaritys far outweigh the differences, and optic frequencies are just a particular frequency range of the EM spectrum, hence would be valid in the Waveguide (electromagnetism) article anyway. --Ozhiker 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on this is also happening at Talk:Waveguide (electromagnetism).

I oppose a merger, or at least advise careful consideration. Hollow metal microwave guides are sufficiently different from dielectric optical waveguides to merit two articles, and there is plenty to say about each. Whether one makes the break by wavelength or by hollow metal vs. dielectric is a matter for discussion.--Srleffler 08:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merger. It makes sense because the analysis for waveguides is identical. I feel that there is enoughs support from both discussion pages to do the merge. The electromagnetics article is the superior one and unique information in this article should be put inside of the that articles. The first ambitious person with time should just do it. Maybe me.Gfutia 00:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing between Optical, RF, EM and "Dielectric" vs "Pipe" WGs

Hi all. I'm just here disambiguating "Beam" and this isn't my field but the WG article TITLEs are a little muddled. Might I suggest that:

"Waveguide (optics)" be retitled "Waveguide (dielectric)" or similar
"Waveguide (electromagnetism)" be retitled "Waveguide (hollow metal pipe :-)" or similar.

Reasons:

It's all EM
EM in fibers is often not visible
Optical is also a general term refering to any EM bouncing around, e.g. GO, PO and BWGs (which don't even have a reference in WP!?)

I've drop this in Waveguide, WG(em) and WG(opt) as there doesn't seem to be much overlap between the "talkers". Enjoy, Saintrain 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonlinear effects section removed. Copyvio.

I removed the nonlinear effects section, since it looks like a copyright violation. The section on parametric nonlinearities seems to have been copied from RP Photonics. I didn't find obvious sources for the other sections, but they reference figures that don't exist and the math is typeset as if formatting was lost when it was copy/pasted from some other source. Section was added by an anon with no other edit history. --Srleffler (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]