directional cables?

Jea, There are positive and negative charges and they are what they are. They do not change from positive to negative. In the case of a wire there are negative charges in motion but in some mediums there are + charges in motion and in some there are both.

So it isn't + 0 - 0 + 0 - as in the charges are changing polarity it is L 0 R 0 L 0 as in the negative charges are vibrating left and right around a zero point.

If electric current is the movement of charge what is wrong with using the word current in place of the word charge?

Any place you see "current" you can substitute "movement of charge." If you say movement of current you are saying movement of movement of charge. It is redundant.

Look at it this way. In order for something to move it must exist. Current is not a thing or a form of energy, it is a word that describes movement. If water stops flowing the water is still there but there is no current. Did the current just disappear? No, it never existed, it is a concept, not a thing.

With the load consuming power from the supplying alternating voltage source explain the process movement of current to the load.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for asking. That question is a perfect example of why "alternating current flow" is a very bad description of what is going on.

In a nutshell AC current does not move or flow to the load.. That is the very heart of my debate with simply_q.

As stated above current does not move. Current means something is moving. If we switch to charge instead of current then those don't move to the load either. The charges in an AC circuit merely sit there and vibrate.

Power isn't moving to the load either. Power is the rate at which we transfer energy. Power is not a thing, it is not energy, it cannot be moved or consumed.

So what's moving from the source to the load? Energy. A wave of electromagnetic energy moves down the wire and the energy in it is transferred to the load. Charges are vibrating everywhere around the path but energy is flowing in one direction...source to load. It is converted into another form of energy like heat or light, or motion, or it is launched into space if the load is an antenna.

So there you go Q, the debate has come full circle. I kicked this off by saying it was a bad idea to use that phrase because it confused people and did not describe what was happening. Most people will tell you it means current is flowing to the load just like Jea.

You can word play and try to say that vibrating electrons is what alternating current means but you know as well as I do that isn't true. If you conduct a survey the vast majority of people will incorrectly tell you that AC current flows along the wire to the load just like Jea did. Your example with the switch has nothing to do with the common meaning of the phrase so it deserves no more attention. You can't seriously continue in that vein.

Scene from the holy grail after Arthur has chopped off both of the Black Knight's arms

Arthur ...... Look you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left

Black Knight ....... Yes I have

Arthur ....... LOOK!! (pointing to his obvious lack of arms)

Black Knight ...... Just a flesh wound.

.

So there you go Q, the debate has come full circle. I kicked this off by saying it was a bad idea to use that phrase because it confused people and did not describe what was happening.

"Alternating current" describes current which flows alternately in one direction and then the opposite quite perfectly.

What is happening is current is flowing alternately in one direction and then the opposite. Can't think of a better description of that than "alternating current."

Most people will tell you it means current is flowing to the load just like Jea.

I don't see that as being due to any confusion CAUSED by the term "alternating current" and its common definition. It's a very easily understood concept.

The only confusion I can see coming about would be trying to reach conclusions based solely on that basic concept without the benefit of knowing some circuit basics. Not by the concept itself.

Your example with the switch has nothing to do with the common meaning of the phrase so it deserves no more attention.

It has everything to do with the common meaning of the phrase. The common meaning of the phrase is current which alternately changes direction.

You yourself agreed to this very thing.

When I flip the switch in one position for ten seconds, there is "current" "flowing." When I flip the switch in the other position for ten seconds, there is "current" "flowing."

When I flip the switch in one position, the "current" "flows" in one direction and when I flip the switch in the opposite position, the "current" "flows" in a direction opposite the first.

Hence, we have an "alternating" "current." And if I keep doing this, we have an "alternating" "current" in which the change in the direction of "flow" is "periodic."

We have the same thing whether I am mechanically flipping a switch that alternately changes the polarity of a battery or a power amplifier outputting a signal which alternately changes polarity.

You can't seriously continue in that vein.

It's you who can't seriously continue in that vein. That's because you've dug yourself into a hole. I saw you grab the shovel some time back when you said "How can the charge carriers (electrons) be traveling back and forth when the charges are all going in one direction?" That and your bit about the electrons flowing down the wire at nearly the speed of light.

Then the word games started.

Jea48

So if I understand you correctly even though the generator is putting out alternating voltage, where the voltage changes polarity, all a connected load sees is pulses.

You can imagine the load seeing the voltage just as you'd see it on a 'scope, changing in magnitude and polarity. This results in a proportional current THROUGH the load, which you can imaging being just as you'd see it on a 'scope, only changing in magnitude and direction instead of polarity.

Jea, assuming a sine wave generator, If you look at the output of the generator you will see a voltage that does alternate between positive and negative in a sinusoidal fashion. During one half cycle it is trying to push the negative charges in one direction and during the next half cycle it is trying to pull them in the other direction. During one half cycle the voltage is more positive than the reference ground and during the next half cycle it is more negative than the reference ground. The result is a charge that vibrates back and forth under the influence of this constantly changing voltage.

The scope shows positive then negative because that is what is happening. The source is generating a positive then a negative potential referenced to ground. Not really a pulse since that implies a square wave but a sinusoidal wave.

Q, I have completely destroyed any argument you've presented. The fact that Jea asked the question which perfectly illustrates my point lends even more credence to my position.. I've proven you wrong at least a dozen times, yet like the Black Knight who refuses to admit his arms and legs have been chopped off you now threaten to bite me. It has been interesting but you keep repeating a mantra that has been thoroughly rebuked so now it is tiresome and we are done.

I truly hope that someday you are able to expand your thinking and accept the truth. Take care.

.