Talk:Dissipation factor

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Dynamical systems.

Mechanical example

A mechanical example could also be placed here using a spring, mass, and damper.

LSTech (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q (quality) factor

How is the dissipation factor related to the Q factor?

They are completely unrelated. Google it.

D.F is not constant over temperature, especially ceramic capacitors can have huge variation. So, if Q of an RLC circuit is determined by the loss-making R in the capacitor, the Q of the RLC will be changing with the changing losses in the dielectric. In supply filtering of high power logic chips, this is used as a vital anti-resonance feature. "completely unrelated", my donkey. 90.64.48.197 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In expression

What does R mean?

Something wrong

There is something wrong with this. According to other litterature I have studied the DF is R/X and not X/R

Exactly, you are correct. DF should be R/X —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnhetian (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs massive editing. The definition on the front page is clearly no general. For interdigitated capacitors, coplanar waveguides, and microstrips this is just wrong. Loss tangent in these cases is G/wC.

Loss tangent is defined as the ratio of the imaginary to the real part of the dielectric constant(or permittivity). Traditionally, it is a tensor where the diagonal components are the ratio of the imaginary part to the real part.

something wrong

loss tangent in the case of capacitors can be modeled as ${\frac {G_{p}}{\omega C}}={\frac {1}{\omega R_{p}C}}$ , where $R_{p}$ is the insulation resistance, which might be as large as 10,000 $M\Omega$ , thus has little effect on ESR. ESR might be as small as 0.3 $\Omega$ and can be approximated by $R_{s}$ . ESR and Quality Factor are directly related by $Q={\frac {1}{\omega R_{s}C}}$ . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.7.227 (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio

Isn't it correct to say that the DF is the ratio of energy dissipated to energy retained per cycle of an oscillation? The lede currently has "a measure of loss-rate of power" which is more vague (and therefore less useful but more likely to be true!).IanOfNorwich (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The verbal construction a measure of is not the same as definition of. The metre is a measure of distance, but distance is not the definition of the metre. SpinningSpark 17:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong model

The Series resistor has not to do with DF. In a real cap ESR exist but even an parallel resistance and DF is a measure of power in that resistance and not in ESR. ESR doesn't make any power loss in term of DF due to DFs definition. Def from Coombs ed.6th p.8.13 "The ratio of the total power loss in the material to the product of the voltage and current in a capacitor in which the material is a dielectric." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.240.172.121 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But KEMET (capacitor manufacturer) says specifically that DF=ESR/Xc https://ec.kemet.com/terms/df Which means that you are confused. All the serial resistances and ionic losses in a capacitor can be expressed as a single parameter of ESR or a series resistance. The rule of model equivalence is still valid, no matter how complicated the inner workings are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.48.197 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"serial resistances and ionic losses"?? ... Did you mean series resistance and dielectric losses? "Can be expressed" does not mean "is accurately expressed" when there are high conduction losses. Lots of people on this article are confused. This article should be relegated to incoherent starter status.Wikibearwithme (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissipation factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822191220/http://www.cartage.org.lb:80/en/themes/sciences/physics/electromagnetism/electrostatics/Capacitors/Applications/BasicConsiderations/BasicConsiderations.htm to http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/physics/electromagnetism/electrostatics/Capacitors/Applications/BasicConsiderations/BasicConsiderations.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does it apply to core loss in coils and ferrite beads?

This description is too specific. It should be rewritten to also apply to core loss in cores of inductors, or other dissipative impedances. Morycm (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]