John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:47:51 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
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?
Oh, my. And you said what about Emily Post.
Nothing I said was a flame. And I'd suggest you go practice (a *lot*)
before you try me on for a flame war. Especially if you think *that*
is a flame.
I'm starting to think you're having a real problem with reading
comprehension.
Apparently I read a lot better than you write.
I write that for the current in a load to alternate,
You write a lot of things that are not valid.
Don't you understand that an alternation in polarity means that the
polarity changed???
Do you understand that is not significant? The reactance of circuit
components, the fundamental significance of AC circuit analysis, does
not depend upon polarity alternation in any way. What else is there
to talk about? How many chocolate drops should be in each chocolate
chip cookie? I await your essay on *something* of significance.
But please, that is the *end* of discussion on your confusion about
AC.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)