Don Bowey wrote:

How come? Do you object to the term "DC" - is monophasic acceptable to
you?

See also:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...com/global/our
_product/sp_Inverter/3_techno.html+%2B%22dc+sine+wave%22&hl=en&lr=lang_ en


Your posts have all the characteristics that indicate you are a troll. If
you aren't I suggest you quit being combative and learn from what the
posters are saying.


The person I was replying to was being unnecessarily difficult and
counter-productive....he knew what I meant (or should have known) as
many other posters have graciously corrected....see also this previous
thread where someone else uses the same terminology ("DC sine
wave")....

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...a075188ea87d6b

the replies were most considerate and productive and were not done in a
childish and smug manner. I suggest the real trolls here are people
who jump on the missue of conventional terminology (eventhough the
message is otherwise clearly understood) to engage in mental
masturbation with an "oh-so-witty"(not)8th grade, sophomoric "gotcha".

P.S.
I would challenge you to prove that the term "DC sine wave" is
objectionable because it is fundamentally wrong as opposed to being at
odds with conventional terminology and nomenclature.....Isn't a sine
wave that operates as all positive voltages always yielding currents
that operate in only one direction (i.e. "direct current")? Surely you
wouldn't call this AC, would you? Isn't "DC sine wave" a more concise
and readily (albeit only slightly more so) concept that an "AC sine
wave that has been fully DC offset"? Is it conceivable that
conventional terminology and nomenclature could have evolved such that
"DC sine wave" was acceptable? If not, why not? How is it
fundamentally wrong? (as opposed to being at odds with convention)