Talk:Electrical reactance/Archive 2

For the sake of accuracy and overlooking conventional idealism, shouldn't equivalent series resistance (ESR) be included in capacitive and inductive reactance formulae?

Referencing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_series_resistance

Regarding... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Capacitive_reactance

For the sake of accuracy over idealism, shouldn't these equations for capacitive reactance...

$X_{C}=-{\frac {1}{\omega C}}=-{\frac {1}{2\pi fC}}$

$X_{C}={\frac {1}{\omega C}}={\frac {1}{2\pi fC}}$

Be rewritten as...

$X_{C}=-{\frac {1}{\omega C}}=-{\frac {1}{2\pi fCR}}$

$X_{C}={\frac {1}{\omega C}}={\frac {1}{2\pi fCR}}$

And regarding... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Inductive_reactance

For the sake of accuracy over idealism, shouldn't this equation for inductive reactance...

$X_{L}=\omega L=2\pi fL$

And those which follow of a similar composition, be rewritten as...

$X_{L}=\omega L=2\pi fLR$

And should not something be mentioned of the significance of these changes regarding their impact on determining the nature of resistance in these reactances? Specifically, the negative resistance of capacitive reactance and the positive resistance of inductive reactance? And how these distinctions contribute to the behavior of a circuit which includes these attributes? In other words, how raising the equivalent series resistance by choosing among various dielectric materials will have an impact upon a capacitor's ability to act as a current source at the expense of that capacitor's lifespan due to its overheating? And, how raising the series resistance of an inductor by merely selecting among various wire gauges can affect its resistance in contradistinction to its inductive resistance with consequential back EMF?68.101.175.127 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

But these proposed changes aren't right. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

another junk article about a phantom topic

They appear as fast as I an kill them. Sbalfour (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sbalfour: What the fuck are you talking about? This is a valid article about an important concept in physics, [1] which is, granted, somewhat related to other concepts, but deserves an article on its own. And it's been around since 2002. [2] No such user (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I get a real chuckle from reading your complaint. Phantom topic? Well I suppose some people who refuse to learn about reactance might just assume that effects from reactance were actually the work of ghosts.

Any way if you have any suggestions on how to improve the article, please chime in with specifics.

Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)