Quote: "At resonance, the reactances cancel out".
Strictly speaking, yes, that is incorrect. But make a small amendment to that sentence: "At resonance, the resultant effect of the reactances is to cancel each other out", then I cannot see why that should be objected to.
The subtle difference is that in the original statement an electrical property is referred to; in the amendment, it is the effect of that property that is referred to. But, overall, I consider that the author is hair-splitting and being pedantic. As I stated in an earlier post, it is all a question of phase.
Al. / June 12, 2013 //
Strictly speaking, yes, that is incorrect. But make a small amendment to that sentence: "At resonance, the resultant effect of the reactances is to cancel each other out", then I cannot see why that should be objected to.
The subtle difference is that in the original statement an electrical property is referred to; in the amendment, it is the effect of that property that is referred to. But, overall, I consider that the author is hair-splitting and being pedantic. As I stated in an earlier post, it is all a question of phase.
Al. / June 12, 2013 //
