directional cables?

Mr. Blues, you lost me on that one.

Mr rog, I believe we have come to an agreement. I agree that " it would pretty much be considered an industry standard that the arrow markings on cables point in the direction of the signal flow." However, that does not mean that all cables do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that RCA plugs are used on single ended equipment, but not all manufacturers do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that when you touch the positive end of a battery to the red terminal and the negative to the black that the cone moves out, but not all manufacturers do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that line level output is about 2Vrms at 0dB, but not all manufacturers do it that way. It is pretty much an industry standard that power amplifiers are voltage amplifiers with a low output impedance, but some are transconductance amplifiers. It is pretty much an industry standard that a 300B tube has a 5V filament, but somebody makes one with a 2.5V filament. It is pretty much an industry standard to state speaker output with an input of 1W, but some use a voltage that produces a different power. Need I go on?

Q, you have now gotten to the point of being ridiculous with your twisting of the terms to avoid saying you are wrong. I believe we agree that the electrons in an AC circuit make no net progress but merely vibrate about a fixed point. To take that motion and label it as flow is, as I just stated, ridiculous. Ask as many people as you like to use flow in a sentence and it will involve moving forward in some manner. Water flows in a stream, Cars flow along the road. Sap flows from the tree. Wine flows from the bottle. Blood flows from the wound. Oral diarrhea flows from my mouth.

To describe a back and forth motion as flow is just plain wrong. Use flow in a sentence that describes a back and forth motion. You can't do it. If the motion is back and forth you have to use ebb and flow, not just flow. Do these make sense?

The pendulum on that clock is flowing.
Grandma is flowing in her rocking chair.

I don't expect you or Rog, or Garch to ever admit you made a mistake. That's fine. I've spent enough time proving my point. On to bigger and better things. Take care.

.

Oh, Oh, OH.........

Mr simply Q,,,, a thousand apologies. A light bulb just went off in my head. I sincerely and completely apologize for lumping you in with others who clearly are defending their position just to be contrary. I see now that you truly believe what you are posting. I will be back later to explain but since I can't edit my last post I wanted you to see this before you became angry with me.

Herman

To describe a back and forth motion as flow is just plain wrong. Use flow in a sentence that describes a back and forth motion. You can't do it.

Sure I can.

"Under AC conditions, electric current flows alternately in one direction and then the other."

If that makes no sense, then there are countless physics and electronics texts which make no sense as "flow" is commonly used to describe electric current, both DC and AC and has been for over a century.

That you're not aware of this leads me to suspect that either you've never studied physics and/or electronics to any degree and are arguing from ignorance, or you're disingenuously playing word games. However I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume the former.

But if you want to continue arguing against such well-established precedent, go ahead and knock yourself out.

So here is the problem. I don't know why I didn't see this before. You are hung up on the term "alternating current" as if that was an accurate description of the phenomenon. Current in a general sense implies there is a forward motion. If I say there is a current in the river we all know that means the water is flowing downstream. An air current means air is flowing passed some point. Trying to equate that idea to the term alternating electrical current is hopeless since linking the term current and the idea of back and forth is only done in electricity.

The whole debate is stupid. Whoever started using the term alternating current to describe what we are talking about was an idiot. The only thing that is really important here is the movement of the electromagnetic wave from source to load. That can be done by various means, for example with wires, waveguides, or through the air. The fact that if using a wire there is a resultant moving about of electrons is really just a side effect. It is not the cause. They are wiggling about because there is an electromagnetic wave passing by. The wiggling about is not causing the wave.

If you want to describe this wiggling about, this vibration of electrons, this back and forth motion as flow then go right ahead. You are probably the only one doing so but why should it matter to me. The real flow that should be discussed is the flow of that wave.

If you had first learned about this as energy being transferred in an EM wave and the subsequent vibration of the electrons you would never have come up with the idea that this was a flow of alternating current. Flow of alternating current just doesn't make much sense, but since we are stuck with the terms we have these stupid debates.

.

You can't give me an example of an alternating flow and use the one we are debating i.e. alternating current. Come up with one that does not involve AC.

As for your defense that it is convention, well, that doesn't mean it is a correct. Textbooks are filled with examples of bad ideas that have taken on a life of their own. Yes, I understand what somebody is trying to describe when they they say flow of AC but that doesn't mean it is an accurate description of what is going on, it is simply an agreed upon convention. Well established precedent doesn't mean it really makes any sense. This is science and poorly worded phrases should be corrected and challenged, not just accepted because that's the way it has always been done.

If you want to describe bathing yourself as "washing up" then I know what you mean, but from a scientific standpoint you did not describe what you were doing any more than flow of alternating current describes what we are talking about.

.