directional cables?

One more time.

I flip the switch one way for ten seconds.

Question: Is there "current" "flowing" during that ten seconds?

I flip the switch the other day for ten seconds.

Question: Is there "curren" "flowing" during that ten seconds?

Two simple questions requiring nothing more than two simple, straightforward answers. Yet in spite of my having asked them several times so far, you've danced around and done everything you can to avoid answering them. Either there is "current" "flowing" during those ten seconds, or there isn't.

Which is it?

Hey! Get in line! I still have two questions pending. ;-)

Jea, yes, the charge is vibrating back and forth with the electrons.

Charge is not current. Electric current is the movement of charge like current in a river is the movement of water. It makes sense to use current with DC since the charges are indeed flowing like a river albeit a very slow river, but as you may have noticed it can cause some confusion when dealing with what we call AC.

Current does not flow. That would mean there is some substance called current that is moving. Since current is the flow of charges if you say electric current flow that literally means a flowing flow of charges. That is another reason why alternating current flow is not correct. It means an alternating movement of a flowing flow of charges. We all know what somebody means when they say AC current but it is literally incorrect. That is why the phrase AC current is confusing. When you here the word current you automatically think about the water flowing in a river and what we call AC doesn't act that way. Hey, that sounds familiar.

Jea, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the scope question. The vertical position of the beam is proportional to the difference of potential between the tip of the probe and the scope ground. Since that difference is constantly changing we see the trace go up and down as it moves across the screen.. Perhaps you could elaborate on your point.

.

.

Q, your turn.

I believe I did answer those questions but it really isn't germane to the debate. You can ask me if the moon is made of cheese but unless it addresses the original point of contention it doesn't pertain. I will answer again to appease you.

I said your battery-switch system describes a system of periodic motion. So yes and yes, as long as you keep flipping the switch it flows back and forth. It effectively is vibrating slowly about a fixed point. So do your 2 questions pertain to the debate? No. Your questions merely confirm what we've already agreed on. There has been absolutely no debate over whether or not the electrons are going back and forth. We agree completely on this point.

Here is the original position that you said was wrong.

AC current flow is not an accurate description of the situation. Even though it is commonly used it is literally incorrect

I proved that flow means "moving in a single definite direction." Substituting that phrase for the word flow amd knowing that current is the movement of charges we get "AC movement of charges moving in a single definite direction".. It is not. You can correctly say it is charges moving back and forth or you can correctly say there is no net movement of charge but you cannot correctly say it is charges moving in a single direction.

Let's go over that again, it is the crux of your misunderstanding. That phrase says the current is moving in a single definite direction. We both agree it is not, we both agree it is just sitting there going back and forth, yet you insist the phrase is literally correct.

You have an interesting debate style. Every time I prove you are wrong you don't respond, you just drop it and move off in another direction.

I proved your idea that the AC current from power plant to the home was like water through a hose was wrong.
I proved your ideas that EM waves couldn’t exist without electrons was wrong.
I proved your idea that there is no EM wave on an open ended cable was wrong.
I proved your idea about open ended cables having no current was wrong.
I proved your definition for current described a single direction, not back and forth as you insisted.
I proved that my example of RF and transmission lines is applicable to AF after you declared it was not.
I proved your idea about definite direction was wrong.
I proved you can’t logically use flow to describe back and forth without a qualifier like ebb and flow even though you insisted you could.
I proved your examples of alternating flow were not periodic and therefore not related.
I proved your battery-switch was periodic and the description of it could only use flow if it included a qualifier that talked about back and forth.

Good grief man, all of that and not a single time you admit you were wrong? I must say I do admire your tenacity after all of those beat downs. You are like the Black Knight when he fights King Arthur.

Black Knight (Q) vs. King Arthur (Herman)

.