"Kitchen Man" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:49:58 GMT, "daestrom"
wrote:


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"operator jay" wrote:

It is not changing polarity. I would hesitate to call it alternating
current. On the "dc sine wave" issue, I wouldn't even get into that
debate.
To me the terms involved are open to too many interpretations. As
evidenced
in this thread, I suppose.

Where *do* you get this requirement for changing polarity? We
don't call it "Alternating Polarity", we call it "Alternating
Current". If the current is being altered, it's AC. You keep
talking about AP, and it isn't the same.


'Alternating' is not the same as 'altering'. "Alternating current" is an
electrical current where the magnitude and *direction* [emphasis added]
varies cyclically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current

One may 'alter' the magnitude of a DC current without it becoming
'alternating current'

The problem with that definition is that it is unnecessarily limiting.
You can find other sources where the definition reads "magnitude *or*
direction," the latter which I believe to be more correct. If the
signal is steady state, then the current that changes magnitude but
never direction is simply an AC signal with a DC component greater in
positive amplitude than the negative peak of the AC component.

--
Al Brennan

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9,
then you would have a key to the universe." Nicola Tesla

In any case, what you have to do in analysis is to treat each frequency
separately, including the 0 frequency term.
What's the big deal.??

--
Don Kelly

remove the urine to answer