The whole article appears use a very loose philosophical definition of "impedance". As a mechanical engineer, none of the mechanical examples are correct either when there are real-world examples that actually meet the more strict technical definition of impedance matching, mass-damper systems in skyscrapers is immediate example that comes to mind.

I just find this an interesting comment. Having an electrical engineers education, there is this interesting repetition of formula which is unmistakable.

First you learn the physical equations, mostly applied to sound interestingly. Then at some point you learn about transmission line theory and maximum power transfer theory. Lastly, you get introduced to Maxwells equations, and how they produce the phenomena you’ve been learning about for years.

Unfortunately that is where my learning stopped, and I never got an answer to how quantum theory resolves with Maxwells equations, and how it interacts with standard model and special/general relativity.

Honestly I’d love an explanation of the standard model that wasn’t covered with mystery and math. It makes the idea of understanding particle physics impossible.

It's just the transformer example does not sit correctly inside the EE domain definition of impede. Once you understand that word is not locked up to the EE domain, everything is fine (except in the EE world of course).

Anything from a funnel to a reduction gear on a ship is an example.

Does low verbalization imply that a concept isn't widely known?

Or is this blog post, itself, an example of impedance matching?

Just read this article as well and thought the same. Quite a bit disappointed.