On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:24:24 -0700, jackbruce9999 wrote:

I concede my terminology is anti-convention, and "wrong" (with respect
to convention) BUT I disagree with you he

but do not try to communicate with anybody, because they will misunderstand you

If you were given a sheet of paper a week ago, with only the phrase "a
fully DC sine wave" on it, and you were asked to come up with as many
realistic possible meanings, I have to believe that you could have only
come up with one (and rather quickly)

If true, then your statement:

But because of the convention we keep up with the old definition to allow a communication with others.

would hold true about "a fully DC sine wave" with respect to
convention/"old definition" but not with respect to "communication" or
ambiguity....while not "pure" or conventionally correct, is there
really any other possible interpretation of "a fully DC sine wave" and
therefore wouldn't you agree that being a "hyper-stickler" on this
point is really not justifiable?

Again, isn't there more ambiguity (poorer communication) in your
description:

The signal would be said to have a DC-component (of the average value) and an AC-component
(of the rms value minus the DC)

versus:

a "fully DC sine wave" versus "a partially DC-offset AC sine wave"

Ban and others are trying to educate you. You are resisting fiercely.

As I said elsewhere, DC and AC have become (or perhaps always
were) misnomers. In electrical engineering circles, the terms can be
applied to ANY signal, even if there is no current at all.

DC can be thought of as the average value of a waveform, or the zero
frequency component, or the offset, in case of a sinewave.

Your term "DC sine wave" makes you sound ignorant of engineering
terminology. If that is not a good enough reason for you to drop it, then
maybe you should avoid future posts to sci.electronics.design, where many
or most of the posters are electrical engineers.

--Mac