directional cables?

But it IS audio circuits that we're discussing here. And my comments regarding current have all been within that context. And if you wish to address what I have said, then address it in the proper context.

How pompous is that? You give me permission to address you only if I do so in a manner you approve? So radio transmitters used to explain AC are off limits but you want to use batteries and light bulbs? We're discussing AC, not batteries, which are DC. Audio and RF are both EM waves. I was trying to let you down easy with my transmitter example since you are obviously struggling with the EM wave concepts but now the gloves are off. Until you accept the fact that audio and RF are both EM waves that act the same way then you will never get it. I said it wasn't an issue with audio, not that it was fundamentally different. Let me know if you don't have one and I can loan you a good book on transmission line theory and EM waves.

The same principles apply only since the audio cable is such a small fraction of a wavelength the audio amplifier sees the open at the end of the cable as almost an open. Not quite an open but so close that for most discussions it can be considered one. However, there will be a teeny, tiny amount of current since the reflected impedance isn't infinitely high. If you had sensitive enough equipment you could measure the current. The transmitter example I gave was perfectly valid and you would know that if you understood the concepts.

Keeping with the context of this discussion, i.e. audio cables, all your source component does is simply apply a potential difference across its outputs. It doesn't apply an electromagnetic wave as without a completed circuit such as connecting a cable between the source component and the downstream component, there will be no current flow. And without current flow, there can be no magnetic field.

Again. Wrong. At what magic point does the cable get long enough that all of the sudden this magnetic field appears? It is always there but since the cable is so short the wave is very weak. If we happen to hit the right length of open ended speaker cable then the audio amp would see a short and there would be a lot of what we call alternating current. There is no separating the principles of AF from RF.

So it is indeed the "wiggling" that's causing the wave. No wiggling, no magnetic field. No magnetic field, no EM wave.

That is just plain wrong. You can't have an EM wave that does not have both an E and M field. The only difference in audio, RF, light or any other EM wave is the frequency. Light travels through a vacuum with no wiggling electrons yet it has a magnetic field. When I strike a match and it emits light are you saying the waves lack an M field since there is no current or are you are saying there is current in the match?

Yes, in order to have current flow you must have a complete path. But you're confusing having a complete path with a given electron flowing through the entire length of that path.

I just gave you a very specific example where you do not have to have a complete path for alternating current flow so now you have changed the definition of complete path. So now in your world open ended circuits are complete paths?

I give up. I can't hit a moving target. I'll leave you with a quote from the misconception link to show I'm not the only person who thinks like I do.

"What's the difference between AC and DC?

"AC" originally meant "Alternating Current", while D.C. meant "direct current". Over the years the meanings have changed. AC has come to mean "vibrating electrical signals." For example:

* AC is vibration, DC is flow
* AC is dynamics, DC is statics
* AC is like sound, DC is like wind
* AC is like ocean waves, DC is like rivers
* AC moves back and forth like a piston, DC moves continuously forward, like a drive belt.

If you hear people talking about "AC voltage", you need to realize that they are not saying "alternating current voltage". Instead they are saying "vibrating voltage".

With your permission I suggest you give that some thought. You probably think "AC voltage" is a good phrase along with AC current flow. Alternating current voltage? yea, that makes a lot of sense.

Good day.

Herman

How pompous is that? You give me permission to address you only if I do so in a manner you approve?

If I say something in a particular context, and you wish to take issue with it, then yes, I expect you to do so in the same context in which it was said.

So radio transmitters used to explain AC are off limits but you want to use batteries and light bulbs? We're discussing AC, not batteries, which are DC.

Yes, I know we are discussing AC, and yes, I know batteries are DC. But if you alternately change the battery's polarity with respect to the pair of wires feeding the light bulb, you end up with an alternating current. You know, AC.

This is fundamentally no different than your source component, preamplifier or amplifier, all of which are fed from a DC power source, and can even be powered from a battery, yet produce an AC signal at their outputs.

Are you going to argue that audio components are off limits because they use a DC power supply?

The battery in my example was nothing more than a power source. The end result was alternating current in the circuit attached to the power source.

The transmitter example I gave was perfectly valid and you would know that if you understood the concepts.

Your transmitter example was completely irrelevant in the context of what I had said and the argument I was making. We were discussing the appropriateness of using the terms "current" and "flow" as it related to AC. Specifically, in an audio system where the electrical wavelengths are vastly greater than line lengths.

I could have addressed your comments in their own context, but the two situations aren't quite the same and would have to be discussed rather differently than had previously been discussed and I saw that as a distraction which would just further confuse those who may be reading this trying to understand things.

If you can ONLY make your argument by invoking systems which are on the order of the wavelengths involved, then I can only say that your argument isn't holding water. If it did, then you could also make an argument in the context of a system which is a microscopic fraction of a wavelength.

So let's just stick to the original context in which this issue arose.

Again. Wrong. At what magic point does the cable get long enough that all of the sudden this magnetic field appears?

Even with just a short length of cable there will always be some amount of parasitic capacitance which means there will always be some current flow as a result and subsequently a magnetic field.

But talking about parasitics is just a distraction and I'm tired of distractions so let's get this back on track.

This all started with your saying the term "alternating current" made no sense.

I provided definitions of both "current" and "flow" from the Oxford English Dictionary which were quite in keeping with the notion of "alternating current."

Instead of addressing that, you instead went off on some other tangent.

So, no more distractions. Here they are again:

Flow:

"The action or fact of flowing ; movement in a current or stream ; an INSTANCE or MODE of this."

Current:

"That which runs or flows, a stream ; spec. a portion of a body of water, or of air, etc. MOVING IN A DEFINITE DIRECTION."

Again, whether the current is flowing in one direction during one half of the cycle, or in the opposite direction during the other half of the cycle, it is indeed moving in a definite direction. It is an instance of flow. It is a current. An alternating current.

Address this. No more distractions.

Great idea. We will focus on the definition of flow that you believe proves your point.

Bear in mind, my position hinges on my belief that the people who discovered AC didn't fully understand what was happening and incorrectly decided to use the word flow.

Please have a seat. I am about to destroy your position. Sorry this is long but you seem to need definitive proof.

I will now prove that the definition you are hanging your hat on describes motion in one direction.

"That which runs or flows, a stream ; spec. a portion of a body of water, or of air, etc. MOVING IN A DEFINITE DIRECTION."

In a dictionary a definition is often followed by a common use of the word. This common use is designed to make sure it can only be taken one way. In this case they use the common example of a flowing stream of water because everybody except you knows that a flowing stream of water moves in one direction.

If they had said "that which runs or flows, a pendulum" then you would be correct.

Give me one example of a flowing stream of water where the molecules of water vibrate about a fixed point. Better yet, give me an example of a stream of anything that vibrates about a fixed point.

Your definition uses the word stream. Here is a definition. Everything in it means moving in one direction.

Main Entry: 1stream
Pronunciation: \ˈstrēm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English streme, from Old English strēam; akin to Old High German stroum stream, Greek rhein to flow
Date: before 12th century

1 : a body of running water (as a river or brook) flowing on the earth; also : any body of flowing fluid (as water or gas)
2 a : a steady succession (as of words or events) b : a constantly renewed or steady supply c : a continuous moving procession
3 : an unbroken flow (as of gas or particles of matter)
4 : a ray of light
5 a : a prevailing attitude or group b : a dominant influence or line of development

Do a google on your catchphrase "moving in a definite direction.". Every example I found was describing something moving in one direction. In fact, they were using it to emphasize that it was in one direction, well, except the ones that point to this thread.

Here are a few examples

An electron tends to act more like a water wave than a billiard ball. At any one moment in time the ball is in some definite place; it is also moving in some definite direction at a definite speed.

After decades of floundering, thrashing about trying this and that latest scheme to renew the church, we are at last focusing and moving in a definite direction.

If you're driving in a car on the freeway at 70mph and see a car in the next lane matching your speed, you can easily tell it's heading in a definite direction -- same as yours -- at 70mph.

Thus the object can’t move in a continuous way, since continuous motion requires a definite direction, for example, in one-dimensional situation, the object must select a preferred direction, right or left to move continuously.

Make sure the class knows that you are not referring to waves, but actual, massive "rivers" of water moving in definite directions.

When a school is moving in a definite direction, it is necessary to set the bag of the net as squarely across its path as conditions permit.

Rather, the true movement of the social cycle may be likened to a spiral movement; it is circular, but moving in a definite direction, making definite progress. This progress can be recognized as movement toward a greater expansion of consciousness.

Simply pointing in a random direction and exploring no longer works for fans of today. Star Trek fans expect an engaging, fast moving story with a definite direction in mind.

I challenge you to find one that doesn't describe it as making progress and moving in one direction and instead talks about moving back and forth.

Like I've been saying all along, give me one example besides AC where flow is used to describe periodic motion.

I wish I was as wise as Almarg. When he recognizes the person he is dealing with is arguing without basis he politely drops out. The teacher in me foolishly thinks he can educate someone who's mind is closed. This has been fun but I don't see where you can possibly defend yourself any longer. I truly and I hope graciously (except for the snide comments) back away.

.

I will now prove that the definition you are hanging your hat on describes motion in one direction.

As I said previously, at any given time, the motion IS IN ONE DIRECTION. Not in two directions, or five directions or a dozen directions. But ONE DIRECTION.

While the SPECIFIC direction may eventually change, you're still left with motion in ONE DIRECTION at any given time.

Let me get my battery, polarity switch, 100 feet of wire and light bulb again. And I'd like to ask you two simple questions.

I flip the switch one way for ten seconds.

First question: Was there any "current" "flowing" during that ten seconds?

Then I flip the switch the other way for ten seconds.

Second question: Was there any "current" "flowing" during that ten seconds?

I hate to say it but I'm beginning to believe you are an idiot, you are just so pig headed that you can't admit you are wrong, or you are having fun at my expense.

While the SPECIFIC direction may eventually change, you're still left with motion in ONE DIRECTION at any given time.

That is hilarious. Everything I just stated has to do with continuous motion in one direction with no reversal and no reference to a change at ANY point in time. ALL periodic motion has "motion in ONE DIRECTION at any given time." For that matter all motion fits that description since you can't be moving more than one direction at any given time. Using that notion to defend your position is ridiculous.

You have yet to come up with anything that links periodic motion and flow.

Every single example I gave including the definition that YOU used to try and prove YOUR point indicated a single direction that never, ever, reversed direction. Nothing ever alluded to the possibility that the stream reversed at any point in time. Nothing even hinted that the direction eventually changed.

You wanted to get back to basics yet you can't refute any of these points.

I challenge you to find one that doesn't describe it as making progress and moving in one direction and instead talks about moving back and forth.

Give me one example besides AC where flow is used to describe periodic motion.

Give me an example of a stream of anything that vibrates about a fixed point.

If it wasn't so much fun to point out the idiocy of your position I would have dropped this long ago. Yes, that makes me a petty person but if you can't make fun of internet idiots what else is there?

I'm sorry. That was cruel. Here is what you should do. Take a day or 2 to absorb what I just said. Realize that everything I said makes perfect sense and everything you've brought up is a silly convolution of the facts. Realize that I laid down some specific challenges that you can't possibly refute. Realize that I systematically destroyed your arguments about definite direction.

Until you can specifically address each of the points I brought up in this and my last post you should save yourself the embarrassment and just drop it.

I will now bow to my mentor Almarg.

.

.