John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:00:23 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
My point still stands, that if the current is changing, it is by
definition AC, and current not changing is DC. Trying to look
at it as DC is all in one direction and anything else is AC,
doesn't work.
---
Your point is flawed. Alternating Current, by definition, causes
electrons to move in one direction for a time, and then to reverse
direction for a time.
That isn't true.
The sinusoidally varying unipolar voltage under consideration _always_
forces electrons to move in one direction only.
A non-sequitor.
Since the voltage varies, the current will also, but the _direction_
in which the electrons are travelling will never change.
If it varies, it's AC.
That means that the signal is DC. A varying DC, but DC nonetheless.
If there is such a think as "varying DC", connect a load to
it... through a capacitor. Now, how do you describe the effect
that load has on your "varying DC". The load see's *only* AC,
even according to your definition. That AC came from somewhere,
and it certainly was not generated by the capacitor.
That's because AC is *not* defined by any change in direction,
but only by a rate of movement change.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)