Talk:Electrical reactance

	; Archives (Index) ;
	Talk:Electrical reactance/Archive 1; Talk:Electrical reactance/Archive 2;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Error in lede

There seems to be a word omitted in the lede: "... but differs in that reactance does lead to dissipation of electrical energy as heat". I have inserted 'not', i.e. 'but differs in that reactance does not lead to dissipation of electrical energy as heat'. Please correct me if I'm wrong. PhilUK (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. A simple typo on my part. SpinningSpark 13:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty AC

@Em3rgent0rdr: Reactance only has meaning in respect of sine waves. Yes AC can be, and frequently is, non-sinusoidal, but that has no relevance to the definition of reactance. So I don't agree with your comment in your edit summary; guitar amps, triangular waves and dirty AC are all irrelevant to this issue. "Quarter-cycle" precisely defines for the reader how long the energy is stored. "Temporarily stored" is just vague to the point of meaningless. Energy can be temporarily stored in inductors and capacitors, in principle, for an indefinite period. But not when they are driven by a sinusoidal source. SpinningSpark 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark well what I *want* to say is a quarter cycle of the frequency. I seem unable to fit that in. I don't like saying "cycle" without having any definition of what cycle means. If can shift some wording around, like maybe saying "a quarter-cycle of the sinusoidal AC" then I think that would better. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a wikilink for cycle (unit) which is used in the cycles per second page. That might address your issue. SpinningSpark 11:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great...I think I can be happy with that. I went back to the earlier wording, though also with "momentarily".

Instead, energy is momentarily stored in the reactance, and a quarter-cycle later returned to the circuit, whereas a resistance continuously loses energy. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's good for me. SpinningSpark 13:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Heaviside

Why does this article not mention Oliver Heaviside? According to the Oliver Heaviside article, he was the guy that brought complex numbers to circuit analysis. Why does this whole article not even mention his name? K00la1dx (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be ridiculously repetitive to mention Heaviside in every article that touched on complex impedance. Besides which, Heaviside did not introduce the concept of complex impedance (that was Kenneliy), nor did he coin the term reactance (that was Hospitalier). SpinningSpark 22:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a look at the Oliver Heaviside article? Do you really think he coined all the other terms but just so happen someone else coined the term reactance? Please. Anyways, in the article it says "Oliver Heaviside was an English self-taught mathematician and physicist who brought complex numbers to circuit analysis." So there should be a section in this article regarding the history of complex impedance. Is this how the English remember their fallen heroes? K00la1dx (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at it, and I've put a citation needed tag on it. The claim is contradicted by sources. Please stop ranting and instead look for sources on this. Meanwhile you might want to read what Heaviside himself says on the coining of reactance – "The term 'reactance' was lately proposed in France, and seems to me to be a practical word.", Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory, vol. 1, p. 439, 1893. SpinningSpark 13:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling for a section of this article to be about how these the mathematical techniques came about. Oliver Heaviside was very generous citing where he got his ideas from. This article should follow the same respect. Heaviside made popular many mathematical techniques where were not well not known. Take the Laplace transform. It was Heaviside that made it popular. In this article it should be known that Heaviside made the concept of Electrical reactance popular. K00la1dx (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference that says "Heaviside made the concept of Electrical reactance popular" ? Constant314 (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering. I took a class, "systems theory." It is all based on Heaviside. (even though Heaviside is not mentioned at all) Just take a look at SpinningSpark's reference, Electromagnetic Theory vol. 1 p 439 1893. Heaviside popularized the term 'reactance' which was coined in France. K00la1dx (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your credentials are not relevant. I do not doubt you, but we have been burned by incompetent editors that also claimed excellent credentials. The mere fact that Heaviside mentioned a term in one of his works does not mean that he "popularized" it. You need a reliable source, not Heaviside, that says explicitly that Heaviside popularized the term 'reactance'. If you can find that, then we can discuss the issue of notability. The originator of the term reactance is probably notable in an article on reactance, a person that merely parroted it probably is not. Constant314 (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the article: Oliver Heaviside. "Heaviside was an English self-taught mathematician and physicist who brought complex numbers to circuit analysis."

Are you saying that article is wrong?

This is not a good faith arrangement that my post got deleted. You have no post in the article about the history of reactance. It reads like a dry textbook.

Why do I have to defend myself?

How are you in good faith?

K00la1dx (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is a well-established principle. You might review WP:RS. Constant314 (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/history/pioneers/oliver-heaviside-biography.php

This website accredits Heaviside to Reactance:

"Also during his latter years, Heaviside introduced the concept of reactance. He further postulated the concept of an ionised layer above the Earth that reflected or refracted radio signals. Although this is now known as the ionosphere, the regions in the ionosphere were for many years known as the Heaviside layers or the Heaviside-Kennelly Layers because Kennelly also proposed the idea of the layers."

Can you please update the article? (as the website seems credible)

I would do it myself, but as I keep getting deleted, can you do it for me?

Please

K00la1dx (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We know that "Heaviside introduced the concept of reactance" is incorrect since Heaviside himself attributed to French origin. However, I will look at the web site. I know that this is nuanced, but Heaviside's publication is not a reliable source for "Heaviside popularized the concept of reactance," but it is a reliable source for Heaviside's own words. Constant314 (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the website electronics-notes. Sorry, it is not a reliable source. It is just a blog attached to a commercial web site. Not everything on the internet is reliable, even if it seems to be so. Constant314 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be real? Can't you see that Heaviside invented the term Reactance and was ridiculed by the mathematics community. Why would the French invent Reactance? It is not even a French word. It is obviously a joke in Heaviside's book. Heaviside must have been really upset to put something so funny in his book.

"Also during his latter years, Heaviside introduced the concept of reactance. " K00la1dx (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm real and diligent. I'm pretty sure that @Spinningspark: is real and diligent also. I cannot see that Heaviside invented the term Reactance.
I can see that Heaviside was treated poorly and ignored by many of his contemporaries. It probably took then 10 to 20 years to catchup. That was their tragedy. However, that fact is not evidence for anything that Heaviside did do. We are not citing any of his detractors, so that fact is also irrelevant.
The French word is réactance. I suppose they invented it because they needed a useful word and were pretty clever.
Sometimes, we do try to determine an author's real intentions, but only a reason to exclude material. If we have an otherwise reliable source, but we suspect that the source is for some reason being deceptive, that is a reason to not use that source as a reference for material that is in the Wikipedia article. It is not a reason to assert the opposite.

This discussion is getting tedious and repetitive. By his own words, Heaviside affirms that he did not coin the term reactance. That fact will always prevail over any argument to the contrary. I am not inclined to continue this discussion. Constant314 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful here to distinguish the coining of the term and the recognition of the concept. We should treat with extreme caution sources that credit Heaviside with either of these unless written by a recognised historian of science. Just as 19th century sources frequently incorrectly credit Morse with the invention of the telegraph, Heaviside is frequently credited with being the first for things he was not. I recommend reading Ronald R. Kline, Steinmetz: Engineer and Socialist, section "Electricity from the square root of minus one" which shows quite clearly that Heaviside was not the first to use complex numbers in circuit analysis, and even after recognising that impedance was a complex number, did not actually use that fact much until quite late. I'm intending to use that source to write something better in the electrical impedance article on hte history of this. SpinningSpark 19:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just want to bash Heaviside because your not English. Regardless of who was the first to coin the term Reactance, and who was first to use impedance as a complex number, I assure you, the techniques discussed in this article were primarily a product of Heaviside. K00la1dx (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know Steinmetz' greatest influence was Oliver Heaviside? K00la1dx (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

capacitors?

Ideal capacitors do not have zero resistance! Gah4 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Constant314 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual model for an inductor is an ideal inductor in series with an ideal resistor. For a capacitor, and ideal capacitor in parallel with an ideal resistor. Ideal capacitors have infinite resistance, or zero conductance. Dielectrics have permittivity and conductivity. Gah4 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they had nonzero conductance, then they would not be ideal. An ideal capacitor is the same as a pure capacitor. No other shunt terms and no other series terms. Constant314 (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Telegrapher's equations, there is a inductor resistance term and capacitance conductance term. Not the other two. Seems to me that an ideal capacitor has no leads, so no possibility of series resistance. Similarly, an ideal inductor has no material for shunt resistance. A not so ideal one can have both of those, though usually so low as not to measure. On the other hand, inductance of capacitor leads, and capacitance of inductor windings can be, and often are, important. Gah4 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Constant314: Ideal inductors have zero series resistance, (and therefore infinite series conductance). Ideal capacitors have zero conductance, (and therefore infinite resistance. That's what the word "respectively" was supposed to mean.
If you think it's unclear, go recast the sentence, but you cannot remove only the word "respectively". Nothing can have "zero resistance and conductance" at the same time by definition, and stating so only introduces confusion.
If you're thinking about "parasitic" impedances, e.g. shunt conductance due to imperfect inductor insulation, those are second-level effects, and should not be considered in the introductory section. As Gah4 suggested, your edits to a long-standing material only introduce apparent contradictions, rather than clarifying matters. Thank you. No such user (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]