John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:37:08 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
---
Well, Floyd, Take a look at the schematics below and you may notice
that while the first one (the one without the cap in series with the
load) puts out a sinusoidally varying unipolar signal, (DC) the second
one (the one _with_ the cap in series with the load) puts out a
sinusoidally varying bipolar signal. (AC)
Now, since the only difference between them is the cap and one puts
out a varying DC signal while the other one puts out a true signal,
then the cap _must_ be generating the AC signal.
Reality check! Capacitors are passive devices. They do *NOT*
generate signals.
All that has happened is the capacitor does not pass DC. You
haven't generated AC on one side, you've merely removed the DC.
I don't see how that could be any more obvious. You did take
a high school physics class, didn't you? *Use* what you learned!
Poppycock. It's precisely the alternations in the direction of charge
flow which cause it to be called "Alternating Current".
It is defined by a differential (which necessarily will have a
sign reversal), not "polarity" reversals.
---
Specious gobbledygook.
A reversal of sign is, by definition, a reversal of polarity.
Okay, so you not only need to restudy high school physics, but
differential equations too.
The point is that you didn't point out a non sequitur. (notice that
there's no apostrophe in there) The definition, which I got from
Webster's College Dictionary and posted for your edification, should
have made that clear.
If you had read the definition you posted, you might have
noticed that it perfectly described the remark that I was
commenting on. It had nothing to do with the discussion.
And, speaking of manners, I suggest that yours need a little trip past
Emily Post.
You are the one stooping to spelling flames.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)