On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:47:51 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:28:16 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"operator jay" wrote:

It is not changing polarity. I would hesitate to call it alternating
current. On the "dc sine wave" issue, I wouldn't even get into that debate.
To me the terms involved are open to too many interpretations. As evidenced
in this thread, I suppose.

Where *do* you get this requirement for changing polarity? We
don't call it "Alternating Polarity", we call it "Alternating
Current". If the current is being altered, it's AC.

---
No, if the direction of charge flow alternates between two states,
then it's Alternating Current.

That fits my definition, but not yours! Are you changing your definition
or is that just a momentary bit of logical thought?

---
Try not to be a stupid ****. Flames will get you nothing back but more
flames. Is that what you want?
---

The states do *not* have to be plus and minus polarity. Just different
current levels...

---
Go back and read it again. Concentrate especially hard on the part
about the _direction_ of charge flow alternating between two states
and maybe you'll get it.
---

You keep talking about AP, and it isn't the same.

---
Yes, it is. In order for the current in a load to alternate, the
polarity of the generator's output voltage must alternate as well.

Sure. But it doesn't need to change polarity. All it needs to do
is change level.

---
I'm starting to think you're having a real problem with reading
comprehension. I write that for the current in a load to alternate,
the polarity of the generator's output voltage must alternate as well,
and then you agree but state that it doesn't need to change polarity.

Don't you understand that an alternation in polarity means that the
polarity changed???

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer