It consumes reactive power as opposed to a resistor that consumes active power. So, it was probably also natural to call it a reactor.
Why, then, isn't a capacitor also called a reactor? Because it was named after its ability to store (its capacity) electric charge. Nomenclature isn't always symmetrical or logical. It has evolved for a couple of hundred years and is not very consistent across different languages.
For example, a reactor is called a 'self' in French. The French borrowed the English words 'Self Inductance' and skipped the last part. There are loads of other examples in loads of other languages.
A reactor consumes reactive current. My old text books referred to inductive reactance and capacitive reactance.
Inductive reactance opposes a change in current.
Capacitive reactance opposes a change in voltage.
With AC, the voltage and current are continually changing and as a result, reactance causes a phase shift.
Although reactance may be inductive or capacitive, the term reactor generally refers to an inductive device.
Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
And then there are "Chokes". To me a reactor is a 3 phase AC inductor operated at 50/60hz. A choke is a DC device. And an inductor encompasses these 2 items and everything else that adheres to the equation V=L*di/dt. But that's just my terminology.
For another monkey wrench, I've also seen the value of reactors specified in KVAR. Capacitors are sometimes specified by KVAR
