Talk:Susceptance

In this page it has the line:

Note: The susceptance is not the inverse of the reactance.

whereas the reactance page says that it is (it calls it the reciprocal, but that means the same thing (I even checked!)), in the 'See Also' section. Which is right? I think this one probably is, but that's just from a glance - I haven't studied complex numbers in much detail yet. --Smin0 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also have trouble believing this. Can the original contributer explain? Orrcam 13:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not the original contributer, but I can help clear things up. The susceptance is not directly the inverse of the reactance. That is, simply taking the reactance and inverting the value would yield an invalid result. These are complex numbers and so the inverse must be applied to the whole complex number. Once applied, the resulting imaginary portion of the complex number would be the susceptance. 70.80.201.172 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so something with impedance of 3-4j &Omega; has reactance of -4&Omega;. It has admittance of 0.12+0.16j S, and so susceptance of 0.16S which is not the reciprocal of -4.  Does this mean the sign also changes, i.e. that capacitors have positive susceptance? --Rumping (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't -X/(R^2 + X^2)be -X/|Z^2| rather than -X/|Z|? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.92.244 (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. It looks like the page has been updated to reflect that -X/(R^2 + X^2) = -X/(|Z|^2) TimSmit (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)