On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:59:48 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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.

---
Hah! Just as I thought you would, you disingenuous little ****, you
snipped my:

"If you have a problem with 'generating' then perhaps 'converting'
would be more to your liking. I doubt it though, you seem to be in
this only for the argument and I'm sure you'll come up with reason why
you're unhappy with 'convert'."

for the purpose of being able to reiterate the obvious. Seems that's
one of your devices, reiteration. Jumble the right with the wrong,
but just keep saying them over and over and perhaps you'll confuse
someone with a lower mentality than yours into believing that you know
what you're talking about. Not bloody likely, boyo, since someone
like that would be hard to find outside of Mickey D's and you're about
as transparent as they come.

BTW, capacitors, (even though passive) are quite capable of actually
generating signals. Consider ceramic capacitors with lead
zirconate-titanate dielectrics. Often capable of _generating_
acoustic signals. Also consider passive electrets. Nice little
microphones they are. And, even parametrically varying caps can be
used as pumps to _generate_ RF signals.

But, I digress... We're really talking about your colors starting to
show and what a dishonest little sneak you're turning into.
---

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!

---
Rather than merely parroting: "removing the DC", ad nauseam, it might
be helpful if you actually studied the mechanism which causes that
phenomenon to occur. Hint: the capacitor allows the load to "float"
without regard to the voltage on the other side of the cap since
there's a galvanic barrier between the load and its driver.
---

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.

---
No, for this exercise all I have to do is point out the untenability
of your position and watch you squirm trying to work your way out from
under my thumb.
---

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.

---
If you think that what I posted was a non sequitur, then I invite you
to expound on why you think that.
---

And, speaking of manners, I suggest that yours need a little trip past
Emily Post.

You are the one stooping to spelling flames.

---
A correction isn't a flame unless you take it that way.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer