Re: Losses

Subject:      Re: Losses
       Date:  Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:45:15 +1200
       From:  "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
Organization:  Wellington Polytechnic, NZ
         To:   tesla-at-pupman-dot-com

         Losses are resistive, period. I don't know of a single text 
where a reactance is classed as a loss.

> BTW a comment to all and not directed to anyone specificaly. Far too
> often on this list people are using specific terms in vauge and 
> generalized ways like calling dialectric losses and hysteresis losses
> resistance losses! Each of these terms has a specific meaning and if 
> we blurr these definitions our work will cease to have any scientific 
> value. Lets try not to over simplify for convience, and stick with 
> the official definitions.

Precisely what I am trying to do. Perhaps all the electrical theory 
that has served me so well over the last 30 years is completely wrong 
and I should throw my books away. The simple fact is that some 
resistive losses do not come into play until AC is present. Skin 
effect is a classic example as are dielectric losses in a capacitor
(beyond leakage).