2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave....let's suppose you have a DC
Sine wave which varies from +5V to +15V peak-to-peak going into a load
with R, L, and C components.....

Question #1:
Is the load's impedance a function of R, L, and C (and wave frequency)
or is it simply just R (i.e. Z=R)? In other words does non-resistive
impedance (L + C) really only matter with an AC signal OR anytime
voltage varies periodically (even if it is all DC)?


Question #2:
Would a "regular" negative peak detector ciruit, like shown he

http://www.elektroda.net/cir/index/D...CTOR.htmgative


work for the DC Wave described? Will it output +5V or do negative peak
detectors only work for AC signals?

Thank you.

wrote in message
ups.com...

2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave

One answer. Sine waves aren't DC.

N

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

See also:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...n&lr=lang_ en

wrote in message
ups.com...
2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave....let's suppose you have a DC
Sine wave which varies from +5V to +15V peak-to-peak going into a load
with R, L, and C components.....

Question #1:
Is the load's impedance a function of R, L, and C (and wave frequency)
or is it simply just R (i.e. Z=R)? In other words does non-resistive
impedance (L + C) really only matter with an AC signal OR anytime
voltage varies periodically (even if it is all DC)?


Question #2:
Would a "regular" negative peak detector ciruit, like shown he


http://www.elektroda.net/cir/index/D...CTOR.htmgative


work for the DC Wave described? Will it output +5V or do negative peak
detectors only work for AC signals?

Thank you.

Impedance varies with frequency if there are reactive components, L's and
C's. Since you haven't told us whether this is a series or parallel circuit
of L's, R's and C's, We don't know what the impedance is at DC, zero
frequency or any other frequency for that matter. If it's a parallel circuit
the DC impedance is zero unless there is resistance in series with the L as
is the usual case. In that case, the impedance is R at DC. If it is a series
circuit, the DC impedance is infinite. SO, you have three choices, Zero
ohms, Infinite ohms or R ohms depending on the connection.

A peak detector will have to work on the range of voltages expected on it's
input. I can't get to the URL, sorry.
Bob

Bob Eldred wrote:

Impedance varies with frequency if there are reactive components, L's and
C's.

That is not always true.

Take
1) A resistor of resistance R in series with a capacitor of capacitance C.

2) Another identical resistor of resistance R, but in series with an
inductor L.

Make R=sqrt(L/C)

and put 1 and 2 in parallel and measure the impedance across that
combination. The impedance is always R, and is independent of frequency.

A useless fact I would admit!!

wrote in message
oups.com...
How come? Do you object to the term "DC" - is monophasic acceptable to
you?

Varying DC? i.e. DC varying in amplitude a manner similar to an AC sine
wave.
If it goes into plus and minus regions I guess we are getting pretty close
to an AC waveform?

wrote:
2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave....let's suppose you have a DC
Sine wave which varies from +5V to +15V peak-to-peak going into a load
with R, L, and C components.....

There is no such thing as a "DC sine wave." I suspect you mean what would
more correctly be described as a 10 volt peak-to-peak sine wave with a +10
volt DC offset.

Question #1:
Is the load's impedance a function of R, L, and C (and wave frequency)
or is it simply just R (i.e. Z=R)? In other words does non-resistive
impedance (L + C) really only matter with an AC signal OR anytime
voltage varies periodically (even if it is all DC)?

The principle of superposition applies: the currents and voltages in the
circuit will be the sum of those that would result if the DC voltage and the
AC sine wave were applied to it seperately.

Question #2:
Would a "regular" negative peak detector ciruit, like shown he


http://www.elektroda.net/cir/index/D...20DETECTOR.htm


work for the DC Wave described? Will it output +5V or do negative
peak detectors only work for AC signals?

That circuit (I've fixed the link) exploits the fact that the LM139
comparator has an open-collector output. It runs off a negative rail, and
cannot produce a positive output voltage.

Since you haven't told us whether this is a series or parallel circuit
of L's, R's and C's,

O.K. here's the combinatrics:

Combo 1:
DC Sine Wave + (R+L in series with C parallel)

Combo 2:
DC Sine Wave + (R+C in series with L parallel)

Combo 3:
DC Sine Wave + (L+C in series with R parallel)

Combo 4:
DC Sine Wave + (R, L, and C all in parallel with each other)

Combo 5:
DC Sine Wave + (R, L and C all in series)



A peak detector will have to work on the range of voltages expected on it's
input.

O.K., so can I correctly infer from your response that a negative peak
detector will yield a value of +5V for a sine wave which varies from
+5V to +15V?

There is no such thing as a "DC sine wave." I suspect you mean what would more
correctly be described as a 10 volt peak- to-peak sine wave with a +10 volt DC offset.

Not that it's that important, but I don't see why a "DC sine wave" is
an impossible concept, considering the definition of DC as a current
which flows in one direction:

http://www.answers.com/topic/direct-current

A "DC Sine wave" doesn't say that current reverses direction, only that
the current flow wanes and waxes.....like a river is still a river even
though its flow varies with rainfall...

The principle of superposition applies: the currents and voltages in the circuit will be
the sum of those that would result if the DC voltage and the AC sine wave were applied
to it seperately.

O.K. - now we're getting somewhere......you're saying the current and
voltage (and the implied impedance Z = V/I) of the "DC sine wave" is
the sum of the respective current and voltage of a +10V DC signal and a
-5V/+5V AC signal going into the same load.

Example:
DC +10V into load produces 1 Amp, therefore implied resistance = 10
ohm.
and
AC -5V/+5V (and given frequency) into load produces 0.5 amps, therefore
implied impedance = 20 ohms,

then what would the superposition prinicple predict as the resulting
combined current and impednace?

read the original post - talking about a sine wave bouncing between +5V
and +15V - no where near negative

wrote in message
oups.com...

read the original post - talking about a sine wave bouncing between +5V
and +15V - no where near negative

That's an AC wave with a DC offset.

N

wrote:
O.K. - now we're getting somewhere......you're saying the current and
voltage (and the implied impedance Z = V/I) of the "DC sine wave" is
the sum of the respective current and voltage of a +10V DC signal and
a -5V/+5V AC signal going into the same load.

Example:
DC +10V into load produces 1 Amp, therefore implied resistance = 10
ohm.
and
AC -5V/+5V (and given frequency) into load produces 0.5 amps,
therefore implied impedance = 20 ohms,

then what would the superposition prinicple predict as the resulting
combined current and impednace?

The current is simply the sum of the AC and DC components
e.g. 0.5 amps peak-to-peak AC with a 1 amp DC offset
Max. instantaneous current = 1.25 amps
Min. instantaneous current = 0.75 amps

Impedance can be represented as a complex number:
real part = reisitance = R = 10 ohms
imaginary part = reactance = X

Total impedance Z = R + jX

To work out the imaginary part, you have to do a vector addition because
current and voltage in a reactance are 90 degrees out of phase:

Ipk = Vpk / sqrt(X*X + R*R)

0.25 = 5 / sqrt(X*X + 10*10)

X = sqrt(300) = 17.3

i.e. Z = 10 + j*17.3

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 6/10/05 3:53 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

read the original post - talking about a sine wave bouncing between +5V
and +15V - no where near negative

So the 10V p-p sinewave is riding on 10VDC. There is no requirement that a
sinewave must have an absolute negative component.

wrote:
2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave....let's suppose you have a DC
Sine wave which varies from +5V to +15V peak-to-peak going into a load
with R, L, and C components.....

Question #1:
Is the load's impedance a function of R, L, and C (and wave frequency)
or is it simply just R (i.e. Z=R)? In other words does non-resistive
impedance (L + C) really only matter with an AC signal OR anytime
voltage varies periodically (even if it is all DC)?


Question #2:
Would a "regular" negative peak detector ciruit, like shown he

http://www.elektroda.net/cir/index/D...CTOR.htmgative


work for the DC Wave described? Will it output +5V or do negative peak
detectors only work for AC signals?

Thank you.


Question 1: A capacitor "capacitates" whether it sees
AC or DC. An inductor "inducts" whether it sees AC or
DC. A resistor resists whether it sees AC or DC. You
might find it beneficial to think of what happens to
each component on a component level rather than thinking
of total impedance. Understand what each component
does, and circuit impedance will make more sense.

Question 2: 404 file not found error
That said, you can peak detect on a varying DC
sine. As someone else said, its AC with a DC offset.

Ed

wrote:
2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave....let's suppose you have a DC
Sine wave which varies from +5V to +15V peak-to-peak going into a load
with R, L, and C components.....

Question #1:
Is the load's impedance a function of R, L, and C (and wave frequency)
or is it simply just R (i.e. Z=R)? In other words does non-resistive
impedance (L + C) really only matter with an AC signal OR anytime
voltage varies periodically (even if it is all DC)?


The impedance of a set of passive devices is independent of the voltage
across them. It only depends on R, L, C, and f. The fact that there is a
DC component makes no difference.

An inductor will pass DC current as if it were a wire. Only differences
in current cause a voltage across it. A capacitor will not pass DC, so
the DC does not matter. Obviously, a resistor is a resistor, and cares
nothing for ac vs dc.

This is only true for ideal components. In the real world, inductors,
caps and resistors have voltage limitatations. They are usually well
beyond 15V, though.


Question #2:
Would a "regular" negative peak detector ciruit, like shown he

http://www.elektroda.net/cir/index/D...CTOR.htmgative


work for the DC Wave described? Will it output +5V or do negative peak
detectors only work for AC signals?

Thank you.


Your link has crap on the end. Here it is without the crap:

http://www.elektroda.net/cir/index/D...20DETECTOR.htm

With this circuit, the input at V+ will always be outside the power
rails. Thus, it will not work.

NOTE: I changed the followup-to field to sci.electronics.basics, because
that is where this thread belongs. I hope you don't mind.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:55:02 -0700, jackbruce9999 wrote:

2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave..

If you think that the term "fully DC Sine Wave" even means anything,
then you have not understood the coursework. Either your teacher is
incompetent, or you have been spending too much time partying and not
enough time studying.

Good Luck!
Rich

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

wrote:
2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave....let's suppose you have a DC
Sine wave which varies from +5V to +15V peak-to-peak going into a load
with R, L, and C components.....

Question #1:
Is the load's impedance a function of R, L, and C (and wave frequency)
or is it simply just R (i.e. Z=R)? In other words does non-resistive
impedance (L + C) really only matter with an AC signal OR anytime
voltage varies periodically (even if it is all DC)?


Question #2:
Would a "regular" negative peak detector ciruit, like shown he

http://www.elektroda.net/cir/index/D...CTOR.htmgative


work for the DC Wave described? Will it output +5V or do negative peak
detectors only work for AC signals?

Thank you.

According to Fourier analysis, any repeating waveform can be
decomposed into harmonically related and appropriately phase shifted
sine waves and also a DC component. If all the components involved
are linear, then they react to each of these components,
independently, and the result is the linear sum of all those
reactions. So the capacitors react to the DC component as open
circuits, and the inductors as short circuits. At all frequencies,
the resistances follow ohms law, and at each AC harmonic, the
inductances and capacitances react in their normal frequency dependent
ways.

Throw in one nonlinear component, like a diode, and you have to do a
completely different kind of analysis.

Question #2:
Would a "regular" negative peak detector ciruit, like shown he

http://www.elektroda.net/cir/index/D...CTOR.htmgative


work for the DC Wave described?

That is not a "regular" peak detector, it is a comparator used as an
overcompensated opamp follower and exploits the open collector output
characteristic of fast discharge and slow ( 10 second) charge of the
capacitor. In concept it will work for a varying "DC sine wave" by
replacing "-Vcc" with "GND" and all "GND"'s with "+15V" in that circuit
diagram only. Then Vout= "Vpk,neg" =+5V.

wrote in message
oups.com...
There is no such thing as a "DC sine wave." I suspect you mean what
would more
correctly be described as a 10 volt peak- to-peak sine wave with a +10
volt DC offset.

Not that it's that important, but I don't see why a "DC sine wave" is
an impossible concept, considering the definition of DC as a current
which flows in one direction:

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read. DC has:
1. Constant amplitude (that's not to say you can't change it.
2. Frequency of 0 Hz. Also, a non 0 frequency does not imply polarity
changes.

Tam

"Dave" wrote in message ...
Bob Eldred wrote:

Impedance varies with frequency if there are reactive components, L's and
C's.

That is not always true.

Take
1) A resistor of resistance R in series with a capacitor of capacitance C.

2) Another identical resistor of resistance R, but in series with an
inductor L.

Make R=sqrt(L/C)

and put 1 and 2 in parallel and measure the impedance across that
combination. The impedance is always R, and is independent of frequency.

A useless fact I would admit!!




Not exactly useless, you just described a Zobel network.

It is used as crossover to feed two loudspeaker on HI range and LOW range
presenting a constant resistive load to the Amp.

It is used to compensate a shunt at higher freq. The transfer function is
perfectly flat even with two reactances in the circuit.

It is used to terminate a DC distribution line R+L with a R+C to avoid
resonances, the line is perfectly damped, when the load current steps there
are no oscillatory transients.

MG

MG

"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)

Is that definition of "DC" written in stone (i.e. fundametnally true)
or as defined by convention? How is a sine wave operating as all
postive voltages not yielding a current (albeit variable) of a single
polarity, single direction that does not alternate? Isn't saying it is
an "alternating current with a dc offset" a rather queer way of saying
things since there actually is no (net) alternating (i.e.
bi-directional) current flow?

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong OR is it problematic because it is at odds with
conventional terminology and nomenclature.....if it is fundamentally
wrong, then please show how.....however, if we're just talking about
convention, then why break balls? (Wait, I'm sorry, I don't mean
literally "breaking balls", that's just nomenclature).....if you were
given a piece of paper a week ago with just the words "A Fully DC Sine
Wave" on it and you were asked to come up with as many possible things
it could realistically mean, how many things could you come up with?
If you were being truthful I think you could only think of one thing
(and think of it very quickly).

If you think that the term "fully DC Sine Wave" even means anything,
then you have not understood the coursework.

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

In article .com,
says...
Is that definition of "DC" written in stone (i.e. fundametnally true)
or as defined by convention? How is a sine wave operating as all
postive voltages not yielding a current (albeit variable) of a single
polarity, single direction that does not alternate? Isn't saying it is
an "alternating current with a dc offset" a rather queer way of saying
things since there actually is no (net) alternating (i.e.
bi-directional) current flow?
The only difference between your "DC sine wave" and an your "AC sine
wave" is where you happen to choose your reference point. Most of us
don't consider a wavefornm to magically shift from AC to DC simply by a
change of reference.

Robert

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)

If the low peak of the sine wave (and the rest of the the sine wave for
that matter) is "fully" above the "zero" reference point, then isn't it
true that the current DOES NOT alternate? That is to say, that current
only flows in one direction....i.e. "direct current"? Isn't it also
true that if the low peak of the sine wave is -0.00001V then the sine
wave results in current flowing in both direction (albeit for a
nanosecond)....i.e. "alternating current".....I'm not arguing that my
use of nomenclature is "pure" or conventional....but I don't see how it
is fundamentally wrong, without merit, or lacking a reasonable
basis.....

wrote in message
oups.com...

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong

Yes. DC by definition is zero frequency.

N

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 04:12:52 GMT, "NSM" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong

Yes. DC by definition is zero frequency.

Um, no. DC is Direct Current, i.e., current that flows in one
direction. For example, the output from a rectifier is DC but it
certainly isn't "zero frequency."

wrote in news:1118461679.394136.299150
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong OR is it problematic because it is at odds with
conventional terminology and nomenclature.....if it is fundamentally
wrong, then please show how.....

Look jackass, AC means it is alternating in time. If it is DC it is
constant. A sine wave alternates in time, thus is AC. Now shut up.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

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 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

On 6/10/05 9:10 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

If the low peak of the sine wave (and the rest of the the sine wave for
that matter) is "fully" above the "zero" reference point, then isn't it
true that the current DOES NOT alternate? That is to say, that current
only flows in one direction....i.e. "direct current"? Isn't it also
true that if the low peak of the sine wave is -0.00001V then the sine
wave results in current flowing in both direction (albeit for a
nanosecond)....i.e. "alternating current".....I'm not arguing that my
use of nomenclature is "pure" or conventional....but I don't see how it
is fundamentally wrong, without merit, or lacking a reasonable
basis.....

Here's one last tip to help you with the homework assignment I gave you
earlier: You are wrong in assuming the current flows in only one direction.

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"

wrote:
If the low peak of the sine wave (and the rest of the the sine wave for
that matter) is "fully" above the "zero" reference point, then isn't it
true that the current DOES NOT alternate? That is to say, that current
only flows in one direction....i.e. "direct current"? Isn't it also
true that if the low peak of the sine wave is -0.00001V then the sine
wave results in current flowing in both direction (albeit for a
nanosecond)....i.e. "alternating current".....I'm not arguing that my
use of nomenclature is "pure" or conventional....but I don't see how it
is fundamentally wrong, without merit, or lacking a reasonable
basis.....

You seem very attached to the word, "alternating" that is abbreviated
in the term AC. Once people get involved in analyzing circuits and
waveforms, they start to think in terms of frequencies. All kinds of
signals can be described in terms of the frequencies they contain.
Signals with zero frequency are analyzed and described as DC, while
everything else is some frequency other than zero. And there are two
distinct kinds of frequency. One is based on number of sinusoidal
cycles in a given period of time and the other is based on exponential
decay or growth rate (number of decay or growth time constants per
time period).

I am sure that many who have not learned the math of Laplace
transforms have a hard time thinking of a decaying, unidirectional
pulse as a kind of frequency, since it never alternates, but there are
such powerful analytical reasons to take this view that anyone who
understands this power has little difficulty with this rather non
literal extension of the AC frequency concept.

So only those with a very primitive view of frequency and are bothered
by describing a non alternating but time varying signal as a kind of
frequency (and informally called AC). The simple minded terms, AC and
DC are just not up to the job of describing many waveforms, unless you
are willing to be quite flexible in the usage.

I will absolutely buy what you said, but understand the import of what
you're saying....you're saying that the language of "AC" and "DC" has
essentially been somewhat *******ized from its original meanings to
also mean zero-frequency and non-zero-frequency signals. Therefore, to
describe a 10Vpp signal with a 10VDC offset as an "AC" signal is
actually contrary to the original connation of "alternating current"
since it (net) results in a signal which yields only a mono-directional
(i.e. direct) current flow (albeit time variant). So in a sense, you
could say I am holding "pure" to the original (circa 1890's) definition
of AC/DC while its use has been "officially" corrupted to cover the
concepts of "zero frequency" and "non-zero-freuency".

Agree?