Article View: sci.physics
Article #1184Re: Snarfy's reply to McIrvin (erratum: reactance-->impedance)
From: Mcirvin
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 03:35
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 03:35
13 lines
1074 bytes
1074 bytes
It does appear that part of my brain is disengaged today. In my long posting replying to Jim Ostrowski's reply to my query about his ideas, everywhere the word "reactance" appears it should be replaced with "impedance." The impedance could of course involve a resistance as well as a reactance; otherwise you get no conversion to heat. Sorry if this caused any confusion. Two wording errors in one day... I'm on a roll. Matt -- Matt McIrvin, professional gradgrind, amateur Usenet drifter
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Aug11.233521.14647@husc3.harvard.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc8.harvard.edu!mcirvinShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc8.harvard.edu!mcirvin From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Snarfy's reply to McIrvin (erratum: reactance-->impedance) Summary: Ack! Keywords: Ohm, Maxwell, impedance, reactance Message-ID: <1992Aug11.233521.14647@husc3.harvard.edu> Date: 12 Aug 92 03:35:21 GMT Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug11.233521.14647 Distribution: world Organization: Harvard University Science Center Lines: 13 Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu