On 10 Jun 2005 23:06:10 -0700, wrote:

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong

Yes. DC by definition is zero frequency

Nice parse-job.....here's my original entire comment in context:

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong OR is it problematic because it is at odds with
conventional terminology and nomenclature

You conveinently left out the "OR...." part.

If we may plunge for a moment into basic boolean logic, the "OR" part
is no longer necessary once one part of the proposition is shown to be
true. Thus, not only was his omission convenient, it was proper.

You actually proved my
point that DC is DEFINED (i.e. by convention) as "zero frequency".
Is it that weird to posit that the superior concept with respect to
considering any signal as AC or DC, be the actual NET current flow? I
could see your point if signals were classified as either "ZF" ("zero
frequency") or "NZF" (non-zero frequency") but we are dealing with "DC"
or "AC"

If nothing else, your stubborn adherence to a flawed terminology and
lack of openness to furthering your understanding will make you look
like an idiot in a job interview, should you ever decide to pursue
career advancement in the electronics industry. Please note that I am
not saying you are an idiot, just that you will look like one in an
interview. The interviewers will assume you know very little about
the basics of the craft if you carry on like this, or at the very
least will see you as a detriment to teamwork. HTH.

--
Al Brennan

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9,
then you would have a key to the universe." Nicola Tesla