On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:47:51 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:28:16 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"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.

---
No, if the direction of charge flow alternates between two states,
then it's Alternating Current.

That fits my definition, but not yours! Are you changing your definition
or is that just a momentary bit of logical thought?

---
Try not to be a stupid ****. Flames will get you nothing back but more
flames. Is that what you want?
---

The states do *not* have to be plus and minus polarity. Just different
current levels...

---
Go back and read it again. Concentrate especially hard on the part
about the _direction_ of charge flow alternating between two states
and maybe you'll get it.
---

You keep talking about AP, and it isn't the same.

---
Yes, it is. In order for the current in a load to alternate, the
polarity of the generator's output voltage must alternate as well.

Sure. But it doesn't need to change polarity. All it needs to do
is change level.

---
I'm starting to think you're having a real problem with reading
comprehension. I write that for the current in a load to alternate,
the polarity of the generator's output voltage must alternate as well,
and then you agree but state that it doesn't need to change polarity.

Don't you understand that an alternation in polarity means that the
polarity changed???

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:47:51 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
No, if the direction of charge flow alternates between two states,
then it's Alternating Current.

That fits my definition, but not yours! Are you changing your definition
or is that just a momentary bit of logical thought?

---
Try not to be a stupid ****. Flames will get you nothing back but more
flames. Is that what you want?

Oh, my. And you said what about Emily Post.

Nothing I said was a flame. And I'd suggest you go practice (a *lot*)
before you try me on for a flame war. Especially if you think *that*
is a flame.

I'm starting to think you're having a real problem with reading
comprehension.

Apparently I read a lot better than you write.

I write that for the current in a load to alternate,

You write a lot of things that are not valid.

Don't you understand that an alternation in polarity means that the
polarity changed???

Do you understand that is not significant? The reactance of circuit
components, the fundamental significance of AC circuit analysis, does
not depend upon polarity alternation in any way. What else is there
to talk about? How many chocolate drops should be in each chocolate
chip cookie? I await your essay on *something* of significance.

But please, that is the *end* of discussion on your confusion about
AC.


--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:10:18 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:47:51 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
No, if the direction of charge flow alternates between two states,
then it's Alternating Current.

That fits my definition, but not yours! Are you changing your definition
or is that just a momentary bit of logical thought?

---
Try not to be a stupid ****. Flames will get you nothing back but more
flames. Is that what you want?

Oh, my. And you said what about Emily Post.

---
I said nothing about Emily Post. What I alluded to was that you have
bad manners and could use a little training in etiquette.
---

Nothing I said was a flame. And I'd suggest you go practice (a *lot*)
before you try me on for a flame war. Especially if you think *that*
is a flame.

---
Oh, my! She says one thing, then does another and pulls herself up to
her full 4 foot height and threatens to strike a match! Don't forget
what your mommy taught you about playing with fire.
---

I'm starting to think you're having a real problem with reading
comprehension.

Apparently I read a lot better than you write.

---
More unsubstantiated twaddle.
---

I write that for the current in a load to alternate,

You write a lot of things that are not valid.

---
Just because you can't understand them doesn't mean they're not valid.
---

Don't you understand that an alternation in polarity means that the
polarity changed???

Do you understand that is not significant?

---
It most certainly _is_, since it's what determines the difference
between fluctuating direct current and true alternating current.
---

The reactance of circuit
components, the fundamental significance of AC circuit analysis, does
not depend upon polarity alternation in any way. What else is there
to talk about? How many chocolate drops should be in each chocolate
chip cookie? I await your essay on *something* of significance.

---
Well, since you consider matters of significance to be what you can
understand and what pleases your ego, it's not likely that your wait
will bear fruit.
---

But please, that is the *end* of discussion on your confusion about
AC.

---
I see. You've come to the end of your rope and your exit strategy is
to make it seem like everyone is wrong but you.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

John Fields wrote:
I said nothing about Emily Post. ...
....
Oh, my! She says one thing, ...
....
More unsubstantiated twaddle.
....
Just because you can't ...
....
---
It most certainly _is_, since it's what determines the difference
between fluctuating direct current and true alternating current.
---
....
Well, since you consider matters of significance ...
....
I see. You've come to the end of your rope ...

One statement (quoted in full above) that (even though wrong) at
least has something to do with the topic, Six out of seven
comments are piddly attempts a childish and gratuitous insults.

No discussion John. I don't waste time teaching basics to grown
men who have temper tantrums in public.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:55:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

No discussion John. I don't waste time teaching basics to grown
men who have temper tantrums in public.

You're confusing a temper tantrum with getting a dressing down you
thoroughly deserve. You're a poser pretending to knowledge and skills
you don't have, for the purpose of elevating yourself to a station
which you yearn to occupy, but can't.

If you wish to end the discussion or exit the thread, then just do it.
There's really no need for parting shots unless you find it necessary
to have the last word before you run away.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:55:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

No discussion John. I don't waste time teaching basics to grown
men who have temper tantrums in public.

You're confusing a temper tantrum with getting a dressing down you
thoroughly deserve. You're a poser pretending to knowledge and skills
you don't have, for the purpose of elevating yourself to a station
which you yearn to occupy, but can't.

If you wish to end the discussion or exit the thread, then just do it.
There's really no need for parting shots unless you find it necessary
to have the last word before you run away.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Posting public articles like the above may well cost you employment
in the future.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:01:09 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:55:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

No discussion John. I don't waste time teaching basics to grown
men who have temper tantrums in public.

You're confusing a temper tantrum with getting a dressing down you
thoroughly deserve. You're a poser pretending to knowledge and skills
you don't have, for the purpose of elevating yourself to a station
which you yearn to occupy, but can't.

If you wish to end the discussion or exit the thread, then just do it.
There's really no need for parting shots unless you find it necessary
to have the last word before you run away.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Posting public articles like the above may well cost you employment
in the future.

---
I see. Since you can't impugn my technical credentials and you can't
have your way with me in terms of controlling the direction of the
thread to your advantage, you think that some contrived reference to
my livelihood being affected by the way I handle the likes of you is
going to, somehow, influence my actions? Think again.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer