On 6/10/05 3:13 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

How come? Do you object to the term "DC" - is monophasic acceptable to
you?

See also:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...com/global/our
_product/sp_Inverter/3_techno.html+%2B%22dc+sine+wave%22&hl=en&lr=lang_ en


Your posts have all the characteristics that indicate you are a troll. If
you aren't I suggest you quit being combative and learn from what the
posters are saying.

And re the link; that refers to an inverter that uses a DC input and outputs
a sinewave. You must be troll.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:51:10 -0700, Don Bowey wrote:

On 6/10/05 3:13 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

How come? Do you object to the term "DC" - is monophasic acceptable to
you?

See also:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...com/global/our
_product/sp_Inverter/3_techno.html+%2B%22dc+sine+wave%22&hl=en&lr=lang_ en


Your posts have all the characteristics that indicate you are a troll.

Bull****. This kid is not a troll, by any means. He's just a student
desperate to weasel answers to his final without having to learn the
material he was supposed to have learned while partying and chasing tail.

A troll is a much more serious matter. This is just a child who needs
to fail the course, have Mom and Dad scold him, and next semester,
pay attention in class.

Cheers!
Rich

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 6/10/05 3:13 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

How come? Do you object to the term "DC" - is monophasic acceptable to
you?

See also:


http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...com/global/our

_product/sp_Inverter/3_techno.html+%2B%22dc+sine+wave%22&hl=en&lr=lang_ en


Your posts have all the characteristics that indicate you are a troll. If
you aren't I suggest you quit being combative and learn from what the
posters are saying.

And re the link; that refers to an inverter that uses a DC input and
outputs
a sinewave. You must be troll.



He's obviously not a troll, just not super knowledgeable about the subject
at hand. If he were a troll he'd have crossposted to something like
alt.vampires or alt.masturbation and alt.catholosism.

Don Bowey wrote:

How come? Do you object to the term "DC" - is monophasic acceptable to
you?

See also:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...com/global/our
_product/sp_Inverter/3_techno.html+%2B%22dc+sine+wave%22&hl=en&lr=lang_ en


Your posts have all the characteristics that indicate you are a troll. If
you aren't I suggest you quit being combative and learn from what the
posters are saying.


The person I was replying to was being unnecessarily difficult and
counter-productive....he knew what I meant (or should have known) as
many other posters have graciously corrected....see also this previous
thread where someone else uses the same terminology ("DC sine
wave")....

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...a075188ea87d6b

the replies were most considerate and productive and were not done in a
childish and smug manner. I suggest the real trolls here are people
who jump on the missue of conventional terminology (eventhough the
message is otherwise clearly understood) to engage in mental
masturbation with an "oh-so-witty"(not)8th grade, sophomoric "gotcha".

P.S.
I would challenge you to prove that the term "DC sine wave" is
objectionable because it is fundamentally wrong as opposed to being at
odds with conventional terminology and nomenclature.....Isn't a sine
wave that operates as all positive voltages always yielding currents
that operate in only one direction (i.e. "direct current")? Surely you
wouldn't call this AC, would you? Isn't "DC sine wave" a more concise
and readily (albeit only slightly more so) concept that an "AC sine
wave that has been fully DC offset"? Is it conceivable that
conventional terminology and nomenclature could have evolved such that
"DC sine wave" was acceptable? If not, why not? How is it
fundamentally wrong? (as opposed to being at odds with convention)

wrote:
P.S.
I would challenge you to prove that the term "DC sine wave" is
objectionable because it is fundamentally wrong as opposed to being at
odds with conventional terminology and nomenclature.....Isn't a sine
wave that operates as all positive voltages always yielding currents
that operate in only one direction (i.e. "direct current")? Surely
you wouldn't call this AC, would you? Isn't "DC sine wave" a more
concise and readily (albeit only slightly more so) concept that an
"AC sine wave that has been fully DC offset"? Is it conceivable that
conventional terminology and nomenclature could have evolved such that
"DC sine wave" was acceptable? If not, why not? How is it
fundamentally wrong? (as opposed to being at odds with convention)

The signal would be said to have a DC-component (of the average value) and
an AC-component(of the rms value minus the DC)
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Right...but your reply actually doesn't address the NET effect......if
the wave had a DC-component of +2 V and an AC-component of 10Vpp, then
the wave would be NET AC (since its polarity changes
pos/neg/pos/etc.)......however if the DC-component was +10V instead,
then the wave would be NET DC (since its polarity never changes
polarity - i.e. always positive).....that is why I argue a "fully DC
sine wave" is a BETTER (albeit unconventional) and more concise way to
describe what I'm talking about (without using actual values) than the
conventional description you provided....your description is
ambiguos...could be NET "AC" (biphasic) or "DC" (monophasic)

wrote:
Right...but your reply actually doesn't address the NET effect......if
the wave had a DC-component of +2 V and an AC-component of 10Vpp, then
the wave would be NET AC (since its polarity changes
pos/neg/pos/etc.)......however if the DC-component was +10V instead,
then the wave would be NET DC (since its polarity never changes
polarity - i.e. always positive).....that is why I argue a "fully DC
sine wave" is a BETTER (albeit unconventional) and more concise way to
describe what I'm talking about (without using actual values) than the
conventional description you provided....your description is
ambiguos...could be NET "AC" (biphasic) or "DC" (monophasic)

The term "DC wave" is plain wrong, ask your teacher if you do not believe
us. If you want to define new meanings for widely accepted definitions, it
is ok, but do not try to communicate with anybody, because they will
misunderstand you. Look at the definition of electric current flow. The
convention is to say current flows from positive to negative, even if we
know that the electrons move the opposite way. But because of the convention
we keep up with the old definition to allow a communication with others.
So you can make up a lot of logic constructs why you said this, it doesn't
make it right. Your teacher will mark you a mistake and you will have to
accept that. NO way out!

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

I concede my terminology is anti-convention, and "wrong" (with respect
to convention) BUT I disagree with you he

but do not try to communicate with anybody, because they will misunderstand you

If you were given a sheet of paper a week ago, with only the phrase "a
fully DC sine wave" on it, and you were asked to come up with as many
realistic possible meanings, I have to believe that you could have only
come up with one (and rather quickly)

If true, then your statement:

But because of the convention we keep up with the old definition to allow a communication with others.

would hold true about "a fully DC sine wave" with respect to
convention/"old definition" but not with respect to "communication" or
ambiguity....while not "pure" or conventionally correct, is there
really any other possible interpretation of "a fully DC sine wave" and
therefore wouldn't you agree that being a "hyper-stickler" on this
point is really not justifiable?

Again, isn't there more ambiguity (poorer communication) in your
description:

The signal would be said to have a DC-component (of the average value) and an AC-component
(of the rms value minus the DC)

versus:

a "fully DC sine wave" versus "a partially DC-offset AC sine wave"

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:24:24 -0700, jackbruce9999 wrote:

I concede my terminology is anti-convention, and "wrong" (with respect
to convention) BUT I disagree with you he

but do not try to communicate with anybody, because they will misunderstand you

If you were given a sheet of paper a week ago, with only the phrase "a
fully DC sine wave" on it, and you were asked to come up with as many
realistic possible meanings, I have to believe that you could have only
come up with one (and rather quickly)

If true, then your statement:

But because of the convention we keep up with the old definition to allow a communication with others.

would hold true about "a fully DC sine wave" with respect to
convention/"old definition" but not with respect to "communication" or
ambiguity....while not "pure" or conventionally correct, is there
really any other possible interpretation of "a fully DC sine wave" and
therefore wouldn't you agree that being a "hyper-stickler" on this
point is really not justifiable?

Again, isn't there more ambiguity (poorer communication) in your
description:

The signal would be said to have a DC-component (of the average value) and an AC-component
(of the rms value minus the DC)

versus:

a "fully DC sine wave" versus "a partially DC-offset AC sine wave"

Ban and others are trying to educate you. You are resisting fiercely.

As I said elsewhere, DC and AC have become (or perhaps always
were) misnomers. In electrical engineering circles, the terms can be
applied to ANY signal, even if there is no current at all.

DC can be thought of as the average value of a waveform, or the zero
frequency component, or the offset, in case of a sinewave.

Your term "DC sine wave" makes you sound ignorant of engineering
terminology. If that is not a good enough reason for you to drop it, then
maybe you should avoid future posts to sci.electronics.design, where many
or most of the posters are electrical engineers.

--Mac

wrote in message
oups.com...
I concede my terminology is anti-convention, and "wrong" (with respect
to convention) BUT I disagree with you he

but do not try to communicate with anybody, because they will
misunderstand you

If you were given a sheet of paper a week ago, with only the phrase "a
fully DC sine wave" on it, and you were asked to come up with as many
realistic possible meanings, I have to believe that you could have only
come up with one (and rather quickly)

On the other hand, given a sheet of paper with a drawing of your waveform on
it, I don't think too many readers would have described it as "a fully DC
sine wave".

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:24:24 -0700, jackbruce9999 wrote:

I concede my terminology is anti-convention, and "wrong" (with respect
to convention) BUT I disagree with you he

but do not try to communicate with anybody, because they will misunderstand you

If you were given a sheet of paper a week ago, with only the phrase "a
fully DC sine wave" on it, and you were asked to come up with as many
realistic possible meanings, I have to believe that you could have only
come up with one (and rather quickly)

If that happened to me, I would snitch out the teacher to the principal,
or snitch out the professor to the dean, because the teacher/prof is
obviously incompetent, and has no business teaching wholesale bull****
to impressionable students.

'nuff said?

Go read a _real_ book.

Sheesh!
Rich

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:59:03 -0700, jackbruce9999 wrote:

Right...but your reply actually doesn't address the NET effect......if
the wave had a DC-component of +2 V and an AC-component of 10Vpp, then
the wave would be NET AC (since its polarity changes
pos/neg/pos/etc.)......however if the DC-component was +10V instead,
then the wave would be NET DC (since its polarity never changes
polarity - i.e. always positive).....that is why I argue a "fully DC
sine wave" is a BETTER (albeit unconventional) and more concise way to
describe what I'm talking about (without using actual values) than the
conventional description you provided....your description is
ambiguos...could be NET "AC" (biphasic) or "DC" (monophasic)

Now, you're trolling.

**** off and read a ****ing book.

Then, ask in sci.electronics.basics, _after_ you "get" some BASICS.

Sheesh!
Rich

On 6/10/05 8:28 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

P.S.
I would challenge you to prove that the term "DC sine wave" is
objectionable because it is fundamentally wrong as opposed to being at
odds with conventional terminology and nomenclature.....Isn't a sine
wave that operates as all positive voltages always yielding currents
that operate in only one direction (i.e. "direct current")? Surely you
wouldn't call this AC, would you?

Yes, your term "DC sine wave" is objectionable because it is fundamentally
wrong.

I'm sure that one of your assumptions is that AC voltages flow through a
capacitor. They do not. Now you go hit the books and discover how a
varying voltage gets from one side of a capacitor to the other. Then you
will be close to seeing your error.


Don

Let me try this:

would you object to

"a sine wave which (net) results in a current that only flows in one
direction"

if you buy that, would you then accept it to be partially condensed
into:

"a sine wave which (net) results in a non-polarity-alternating current"

if you buy that, would you then accept this:

"a sine wave which (net) results in a direct current"

and then

"a (net) direct current sine wave"

On 6/10/05 10:43 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

Let me try this:

would you object to

"a sine wave which (net) results in a current that only flows in one
direction"

Yes, I object.

Don

wrote in message
ups.com...
Let me try this:

would you object to

"a sine wave which (net) results in a current that only flows in one
direction"

Yes, I would object. You can't predict that without knowing the whole
circuit. Connect your DC sine wave to a reactance and current (and energy)
will indeed flow in both directions.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Let me try this:

would you object to

"a sine wave which (net) results in a current that only flows in one
direction"

if you buy that, would you then accept it to be partially condensed
into:

"a sine wave which (net) results in a non-polarity-alternating current"

if you buy that, would you then accept this:

"a sine wave which (net) results in a direct current"

and then

"a (net) direct current sine wave"


I object to all of the above. Go read Scroggie's "Second thoughts on Radio
Theory".

N

wrote:

.see also this previous thread where someone else uses the same terminology ("DC sine wave")....

Just because someone else used the term doesn't make it right ! There's plenty of rubbish spouted on the net.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

wrote:

.see also this previous thread where someone else uses the same
terminology ("DC sine wave")....

Just because someone else used the term doesn't make it right ! There's
plenty of rubbish spouted on the net.

Graham


Once in a while someone coins a new term like Heinleins' waldo... but I
don't think its going to happen here.

What has been described is similar to the waveform one would see on the grid
of a class A tube circuit. (but negative voltage of course)

There are a number of waveforms that go in only one direction relative to
ground such as sawtooth waves, square waves, and triangle waves. To refer
to these as say a "DC triangle wave" would be equally confusing without
further qualification.

The closest descriptor that I can think of offhand that might meet with
general acceptance would be "bias signal".

TimPerry wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

wrote:

.see also this previous thread where someone else uses the same
terminology ("DC sine wave")....

Just because someone else used the term doesn't make it right ! There's
plenty of rubbish spouted on the net.

Graham

Once in a while someone coins a new term like Heinleins' waldo... but I
don't think its going to happen here.

What has been described is similar to the waveform one would see on the grid
of a class A tube circuit. (but negative voltage of course)

There are a number of waveforms that go in only one direction relative to
ground such as sawtooth waves, square waves, and triangle waves. To refer
to these as say a "DC triangle wave" would be equally confusing without
further qualification.

The closest descriptor that I can think of offhand that might meet with
general acceptance would be "bias signal".

Another waveform that's very similar ( albeit more of a sawtooth waveform rather
than sine wave ) is power line ripple on a DC supply rail.

Graham

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:28:09 -0700, jackbruce9999 wrote:
I would challenge you to prove that the term "DC sine wave" is
objectionable because it is fundamentally wrong as opposed to being at
odds with conventional terminology and nomenclature...

This is clearly a sucker bet. Anyone with common sense knows that
"conventional terminology and nomenclature" are already "fundamentally
wrong."

Notwithstanding there's no such thing as a "DC Sine Wave."

It's like saying, "I'd like some red paint, but in blue."

It's an oxymoron. (which I'd always thought was pimple cream for
retarded people).

"Since the sky is green, I guess I'll plant some bluegrass, and
paint my house clear."
--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"The notorious Duchess of Peels
Saw a fisherman fishing for eels.
Said she, "Would you mind?
Shove one up my behind.
I am anxious to know how it feels.""

Rich The Newsgroup Wacko wrote:

"Since the sky is green, I guess I'll plant some bluegrass, and
paint my house clear."

You truly are an idiot. Bluegrass is growing all over kentucky, and
some gets planted every year. Notr only that, but you can listen to it
on the radio or TV.


--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida