Re: DC Wave Questions

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...

> 2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave

One answer. Sine waves aren't DC.

N

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) 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?

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) 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

On 6/10/05 3:13 PM, in article
(E-Mail Removed). com,
"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
(E-Mail Removed). com,
"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

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

> On 6/10/05 3:13 PM, in article
> (E-Mail Removed). com,
> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

Bullshit. 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BECF757E.5171%(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 6/10/05 3:13 PM, in article
> (E-Mail Removed). com,
> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

(E-Mail Removed) 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

(E-Mail Removed) 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 6/10/05 8:28 PM, in article
(E-Mail Removed). com,
"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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