"Don Bowey" schreef in bericht
...
On 6/14/05 10:58 AM, in article , "Don
Lancaster" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
No other esoteric, mindless
definitions are needed even though the terms AC and DC may be
misnomers.
They are historic and work very well.

Don


The only tiny problem is that the definitions are wrong.

As with many historic terms, they may be off the mark by today's
understanding, but they are not necessarily wrong.

For example, I have no problem using the term DC even when there is no
current (flowing). Is that bad that I can assume DC is valid for static
and
dynamic states? It didn't cause me any problem when I first began to
learn
about electricity. How about we assume the term DC is a set with many
subsets? That beats defining DC in a manner that says if there is a
constant, never-ending load on a EMF, then it is DC, but if it is EVER
interrupted, then it never was DC but was some form of AC?

The more I learn, the more I find fault with some definitions. I find
more
fault (pointing the finger nowhere specific), however, with people who
want
to redefine things before they have studied long enough to understand what
they are doing.

Go on folks, this is all very bloody important.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)