Talk:Admittance: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:51, 12 December 2009

Physics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is the math wrong?

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)[reply]

EXPAND: Geophysical interpretation

This article does not mention the use of admittance in Geophysics. Verisimilus T 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and tag removed. But I think that this should have an article of its own, along with mechanical admittance, rather than being tacked on to this article. Although the mechanical and electrical concepts are clearly strongly analogous, they are still not the same thing. SpinningSpark 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

context needed

69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and tag removed. I have firstly, moved all the equation stuff (and added one that was missing) to a sub-heading. The equations are really about how to convert to and from impedance and do not really add anything to the understanding of the concept. The sub-heading will now alert the casual reader that there is no need to go into it if not desired. Secondly, I have added a paragraph trying expand on what the quantity represents. However, IMHO the first line says it all, it is the inverse of Z. That's all there is to it really. SpinningSpark 23:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to "Admittance in mechanics": relation of position to force?

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)[reply]

Maybe mechanical science does not define these terms so strictly as electrical science. The impedance article states that mobility is also the inverse of impedance. Unfortunately, there is no mechanical mobility article and I don't know their definition, but in electronics, mobility of a charge is defined as velocity/electric field (electric field is force per charge). I am only guessing, but possibly mobility is the preferred term where velocity is the output and admittance where distance is the output. We need some good references here really. SpinningSpark 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]