On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:11:31 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

The Phantom wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:58:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

*Snip*

Either that or we are back to Don Lancaster's correct statement
that they are meaningless terms anyway. They certainly are if
that is the way they are defined!

Don first said:
---------------------------------------
'"DC" is simply the first (or "offset" term in the Fourier expression
of
any repetitive waveform.

"AC" are all of the remaining components.'
----------------------------------------

Then he said:
----------------------------------------
'"AC" or "DC" are gross and meaningless oversimplifications.'
----------------------------------------

Which are we to believe?

There is no contradiction, so what is wrong with understanding both
statements?

The difficulty is understanding just what Don was getting at. His first post in its
entirety was:

--------------------------------
Bob Penoyer wrote:


A rectified AC waveform contains DC and AC components but if the
current isn't changing direction, it isn't alternating current. And,
if it isn't AC, it's DC.


Total and utter horse****.

"DC" is simply the first (or "offset" term in the Fourier expression of
any repetitive waveform.

"AC" are all of the remaining components.

Changing the relative amplitude of the terms does NOT in any manner
change which is the first term and which are the remaining terms.

DC, of course, cannot exist at all ever. Because it would have to be
unvarying through infinite time.

Tutorials on my website.
---------------------------------

In this post he seems to be suggesting that Bob Penoyer's definitions of AC and DC were
"Total and utter horse****", and follows with a couple of definitions which appear to be
offered as alternative definitions which presumably Don thought were *not* "Total and
utter horse****". But then in his next post, he says:

---------------------------------
"AC" or "DC" are gross and meaningless oversimplifications.
---------------------------------

If he thinks "AC" and "DC" are gross and meaningless oversimplifications, why would he
offer alternative definitions of AC and DC to those given by Penoyer which Don thinks are
"Total and utter horse****"? Why offer definitions of AC and DC at all if he thinks so
poorly of the terms? Because when people see him first disparaging someone else's
definitions and then offering definitions of his own, they're going to think he believes
his own definitions are good ones.