![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article does not mention the use of admittance in Geophysics. Verisimilus T 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
<tag removed>
Quote from section "Admittance in mechanics":
"... would have inputs of force and would have outputs such as position or velocity ..."
Is position really correct? In the article to impedance only velocity is mentioned. 160.85.104.90 ( talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How can you have a quantity that is the inverse of another quantity, and both quantities break up so that their real and imaginary components are also inverses? That makes no sense to me.
Using the math on the page to demonstrate my complaint, the page says that:
G = R / (R^2 + X^2)
But it also says that G is the conductance and R is resistance, and these are inverses, so we have:
1 / R = R / (R^2 + X^2)
cross-multiplying, we get:
R^2 = (R^2 + X^2)
therefore,
X^2 = 0
and so
X = 0.
Could someone please fix this? 72.177.12.71 ( talk) 06:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This could be expanded to explain also fluid admittance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.208.130 ( talk) 15:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Admittance&oldid=prev&diff=774996296
Conductance cannot both be defined as Re(1/Z) and 1/R.
These are only equivalent for non-reactant, purely-resistive impedances.
It is arbitrary which the phrase "conductance" is defined by, but uses of it must be consistent.
If Re(1/Z) is the definition, then I'll clarify that Conductance in the AC/general context is defined as Re(1/Z) on the page
conductance and is only 1/R in the DC context.
(edit: perhaps that's why 72.177.12.71 was confused?)
-- RProgrammer ( talk) 04:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article does not mention the use of admittance in Geophysics. Verisimilus T 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
<tag removed>
Quote from section "Admittance in mechanics":
"... would have inputs of force and would have outputs such as position or velocity ..."
Is position really correct? In the article to impedance only velocity is mentioned. 160.85.104.90 ( talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How can you have a quantity that is the inverse of another quantity, and both quantities break up so that their real and imaginary components are also inverses? That makes no sense to me.
Using the math on the page to demonstrate my complaint, the page says that:
G = R / (R^2 + X^2)
But it also says that G is the conductance and R is resistance, and these are inverses, so we have:
1 / R = R / (R^2 + X^2)
cross-multiplying, we get:
R^2 = (R^2 + X^2)
therefore,
X^2 = 0
and so
X = 0.
Could someone please fix this? 72.177.12.71 ( talk) 06:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This could be expanded to explain also fluid admittance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.208.130 ( talk) 15:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Admittance&oldid=prev&diff=774996296
Conductance cannot both be defined as Re(1/Z) and 1/R.
These are only equivalent for non-reactant, purely-resistive impedances.
It is arbitrary which the phrase "conductance" is defined by, but uses of it must be consistent.
If Re(1/Z) is the definition, then I'll clarify that Conductance in the AC/general context is defined as Re(1/Z) on the page
conductance and is only 1/R in the DC context.
(edit: perhaps that's why 72.177.12.71 was confused?)
-- RProgrammer ( talk) 04:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)