directional cables?

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.

.

Jea, to or through really doesn't make a difference as they both imply that current is flowing like cars through a tunnel or water through a hose, and the only thing flowing in an AC circuit is energy. The whole debate has been to show that nothing but energy is flowing in an AC circuit. However, I will concede we don't have a good substitute.

If you say the AC fuse blew because there was too much current flowing through it everybody nods in agreement even though that isn't true. If you say the wire in the fuse melted because it got too hot after absorbing energy from the electromagnetic wave people look at you like you are insane and want to argue that vibrating electrons constitute current flow.

These really are confusing topics as we have discovered in this thread. People frequently confuse energy and power. Most people think current is a thing when it is not. It was pounded into our heads that current flow is the same everywhere in a series circuit so we incorrectly think charges are flowing through components in an AC circuit. Yea I know, I sound like a broken record, but you asked/

The problem is there are many technically incorrect phrases that are so ingrained that we can't seem to get away from them. Everybody says it including me but power can't really be consumed because it isn't a thing, it is the rate at which energy flows, but if you say an amplifier consumes 100 watts of power everybody nods in agreement. If you correctly say energy flows into that amp at the rate of 100 Joules per second they look at you like you are nuts.

The whole long winded, boring, circular, debate happened because somebody decided that if statement was commonly accepted, like the AC fuse blew because there was too much current flowing through it, then it must be true and they would by hell or high water prove that it was. It was like trying to prove a Guinea pig is really a pig because that's what everybody calls it.

Ok, I'll get off of my sopabox. If you have anymore electronics questions I'll stick to the facts from now on and quit preaching.

I posted this before but it is an interesting read about common misconceptions.

http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html

.