Talk:Coupling coefficient of resonators

Is it an appropriate tittle ?

Coupling coefficients can be defined regardless of resonance when they only involve mutual and self inductances or capacitances. So I suggest a more appropriate tittle for this content: coupling coefficients in the electrical network frame .Henri BONDAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC) After some thought, the title is appropriate if coupling is defined through frequency measurements. In case of capacitive or inductive couplings a coupling coefficient could be obtained without any relation to frequency. So may be a link should be provided to the capacitive coupling and inductive coupling pages to avoid redundant explanations.Henri BONDAR (talk)

We already have a page Coupling coefficient that redirects to the mutual inductance section of inductance. This page is explicitly about coupling of resonators so I don't really see what the problem is with the name. SpinningSpark 00:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, don't misunderstand me, I find this article well written and may be I am just nitpicking. I am not comfortable with the tittle (and not the ideas behind) just because coupling is not generally related to resonance even if the frequency behavior is a nice way to define and measure it. For instance in Wireless Power Transfer, resonance combined to large Q-factors, is only a way to decrease losses inside components and has no-effect on the coupling coefficient that can be derived from other physical considerations. So, as the term "evanescent coupling" suggest that some kind of "mystic" waves are involved, the "Coupling coefficient of resonators" might suggest that resonance is a kind of underlying principle that increases the coupling. We have used in a WPT situation, formula (8) and frequency response measurements to study mixed coupling situations where two nearby coils are interacting through both electrical and magnetic fields (and the results surprisingly show that in many cases the capacitive coupling dominates the inductive one). So I am just watching to avoid that some "evanescent" interpretations pervades the quasi-static domain. By the way, what about the idea of introducing the coupling index kQ ? this could be a nice way to illustrate how resonance and Q-factor are combined to provide an "apparent" increase in coupling. This idea can be traced back to the start of the last century. Henri BONDAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Another simple thing that can add clarity to the page is to use for the capacitive coupling $k={\frac {Cm}{\sqrt {C1C2}}}$. Formula(5) is obtained in what is sometimes called Maxwell formalism, however the capacitive matrix description Qi=CijVj is easier to grasp and simplifies the formula. Besides it leads to treat capacitive and inductive coupling on equal footing.--Henri BONDAR (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this article? The coupling of the resonator which resonates and couples is nothing different from the conventional magnetic coupling. It is only necessary to add the concept of resonance. When I saw the draft of the beginning of the Article, I saw the description of the combination of the two resonators. Probably the article for this purpose will collapse. Because the minimum unit of the WPT is able to be consistsed of one drive coil and the resonator of the secondary side. It is because that there is no new physical phenomenon between the two resonators and it will be understood that the resonator on the primary side is only working as a | passive extender. The hypothesis that a special evanescent coupling causes between the two resonators was first proposed by MIT's Marin Soljačić, but nobody supports or bleave it now. It is overstated, but it is obvious that its hypothesis is in doubt. If this article is to be described in the minimum unit of the primary side drive coil and the secondary side resonator it will be possible to grow up while consolidating with conservative knowledge.--Discharger1016 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)