On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:51:11 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
On 6/14/05 2:28 AM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:
I agree with your examples of DC power supplies and AC noise. Been there,
done that.

Defining how may angels can dance on a DC power cable without having to
redefine it is pointless, however. Everyone I knew in the telco industry
had good, workable terms for the cause of the need for filters, not only at
the FB, but at the equipment rack too; it was noise, trash, crap.
spikes....., but the 48V and 130V "power" were always DC and we knew the
noise had to be dealt with as AC riding the DC. No other esoteric, mindless
definitions are needed even though the terms AC and DC may be misnomers.
They are historic and work very well.

Exactly.

---
LOL, instead of grasping at straws you're now grasping for the
coattails of someone who knows what he's talking about, and you're
using that "Exactly" crack to make it seem like what you've been
positing all along has finally been iterated by someone with some
credibility.
---

But look at all the people claiming it *isn't* AC! Very clearly
anyone who claims the various "noise, trash, crap, spikes" etc
are *not* AC, needs a reality check on their definition of AC.

---
And here, now, you're using your newly found unilateral alliance to
vehemently try to add credence to your error-plagued hypotheses and to
pooh-pooh your naysayers. It won't work. Got some circuits? Got
some numbers? Post 'em and end the bull**** or else get the **** out
of Dodge.
---

On the other hand, while their definition and understanding of
it is clearly invalid, there is no lack of wide spread belief
that it is correct. Which I do find somewhat amazing...

---
Only because it's at odds with what you think is correct which,
because of your obvious lack of technical training, has you in
blinders.

However, you do seem to have a nice command of the language, so there
may be hope for you yet. :-)

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer