The term was coined by Charles Proteus Steinmetz in a May 1894 paper. In some sourcesOliver Heaviside is given credit for coining the term, or with introducing the concept under the name permittance. This claim is mistaken according to Steinmetz's biographer, Ronald R. Kline. The term susceptance does not appear anywhere in Heaviside's collected works, and he used the term permittance to mean capacitance, not susceptance.
Formula
The general equation defining admittance is given by where, The admittance is the reciprocal of the impedance, if the impedance is not zero: and where The susceptance is the imaginary part of the admittance. The magnitude of admittance is given by: And similar formulas transform admittance into impedance, hence susceptance into reactance : hence The reactance and susceptance are only reciprocals in the absence of either resistance or conductance.
Relation to capacitance
In electronic and semiconductor devices, transient or frequency-dependent current between terminals contains both conduction and displacement components. Conduction current is related to moving charge carriers, while displacement current is caused by time-varying electric field. Carrier transport is affected by electric field and by a number of physical phenomena, such as carrier drift and diffusion, trapping, injection, contact-related effects, and impact ionization. As a result, device admittance is frequency-dependent, and the simple electrostatic formula for capacitance, is not applicable. A more general definition of capacitance, encompassing electrostatic formula, is: where is the device admittance, evaluated at the angular frequency in question, and is the angular frequency. It is common for electrical components to have slightly reduced capacitances at extreme frequencies, due to slight inductance of conductors used to make capacitors, and permittivity changes in insulating materials with frequency: is very nearly, but not quite a constant.
Relationship to reactance
is defined as the imaginary part of electrical impedance, and is analogous but not generally equal to the reciprocal of the susceptance. However, for purely-reactive impedances, the susceptance is equal to negative the inverse of the reactance. In mathematical notation: The negation is not present in the relationship between electrical resistance and the analogue of conductance G, which equals. If the imaginary unit is included, we get for the resistance-free case since,