reactance
> is a property ONLY associated to AC. I can mathmatically
> prove this, and have many times. Xl=2(pi)Fl
> XC=1/2(pi)Fc
>
> Again frequency in both cases in DC is Zero which essentially
> makes the above formuli invalid as no component of this equation
>can equal zero in order for it to give the corret answer.
>
>
>
>warman proove me wrong
>be sure to
>SHOW THE MATH
>
>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Calculus is beyond both of us.... Complete the circuit or the ignition
>coil... current starts to flow and a magnetic field builds.... as the lines
>of magnetic foce expand across the cunductor coil, back emf is induced and
>we experience reactance. Is it intended? No.... Does it happen? Yes..... Is
>this an AC circuit? No, polarity has not changed, it is indeed a DC
>circuit - a pulsating DC circuit, but a DC circuit none-the-less. And the
>only formulae you can come up with are cut and paste from electronic web >sites....
>
>Reactance can be associated with a moving magnetic field..... it is
>impedance without resistance. You need to be able to think in terms of cause >and effect.
>
>The modern automobile has many instances of frequency without polarity
>change.... but then you knw that and merely forgot for a few moments, right? >
>Surprisingly, blissful ignorance shouldn't be thought of as brilliance. You
>constantly assert that I have something to prove to you and you avoid, time
>and again, ever offering up any proof that you have the foggiest idea what
>it is you are talking about. I suggest that you might lead a more
>fullfilling life if you were the least bit helpful.
>
>And that's Mr. Warman to you, cretin.
>
look at this blubbering fool you claim it exists but dont have a formula
on the other hand like i said
just caculate xi and xc
DO THE MATH
CASE CLOSED
perhaps u should spend more time learning simple electricity before you shoot your mouth off lmfao