DC Wave Questions

I have peeked in upon this thread from time to time from ints inception. It seems so out of the EE mainstream that it is breeding mosquitos.

Bill

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:35:16 -0500, John Fields Gave us:

Your original post, dipshit. The title of the post. It says (from sed for bounty hunter). Then, you again refer to the "OP" in another post.

Make up your mind. Is it yours or someone else's.

That's about the same as pointing out that some capacitors are polarity sensitive, and will effectively be a short if the polarity is wrong. It's true, but does not enter into the problem at this point.

Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't.

To me it is obvious that by L and C, he meant the inductance and the capacitance, not the specific inductor or capacitor.

If he'd have meant a specific device, he have had to specify a few parameters as to just what kind of a device, no?

Exactly, except I don't think he changed the context.

A circuit element, not a component device.

But saturation has nothing to do with the inductance. After the right inductance is calculated, then a specific device has to be chosen, and *that* is when saturation has to be considered. So do physical size, mounting style, insulation, and perhaps other parameters too, none of which are related to the original "inductance" problem.

Could be! I don't remember the OP's question... :-)

You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the way the *component* represented by C and the *component* represented by L react. It is in your context that I used the term L. Now, apparently, you have changed the context to exclude consideration of the component (which will sometimes lead to incorrect analysis) and to restrict the term to have it refer to the property only. Therefore, we did not refer to the same thing with the term L.

What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per the definition for inductance.

I don't know where you came up with the above "rules" or whatever you want to call them. If, in solving a problem with an inductance, (specifically in this case, the effects of DC on an R,L,C load impedance) no consideration is given to saturation, the solution can be erroneous. Very specifically for the op's question, the possibility of saturation *must* be considered, even though the question did not include the word inductor. I think those rules, or whatever you call them, are not correct.

Ed

--- Had you bothered to get off of your fat, lazy ass and checked the origin of the thread you might have discovered that it started on sed where the OP asked for a five minute timer.

Since sed is a text-only newsgroup I advised the OP that I'd have a solution for him which I'd post to abse, (where binaries are allowed to be posted) then when I posted, I used the same subject as in sed in order to keep some continuity, but indicated that the _thread_ came from sed. Not the _post_, pinhead, the thread. The clue should have been that since the post had a binary attached to it, it _couldn't_ have come from sed

---

--- Maybe now that I've spelled it out for you you can figure it out.

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

John

Some people can't spell, and some people can't be nice. Luck of the draw, as you point out.

Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like asshole and idiot and churl. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter.

John

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:37:29 -0500, John Fields Gave us:

Grow the f*ck up, retard.

Note that you STILL likely don't know the meaning of the word cited.

I rest my case. The misogynistic idiot just got trivial... again. Oh... that's right, he never was anything BUT trivial.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:50:43 -0700, John Larkin Gave us:

And to think that it all started, because the John misogynistic idiot tried to play spell checker... again.

I did post on topic in this thread, btw...

It could just replace the missing words with an equal number of underscores so you can fill in the blanks. ;-)

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:08:52 -0500, John Fields Gave us:

You could be a bit more retarded, but I do not see how.

Not a common word, but there is "misandrist".

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Actually, he was being a bit clever, but you choose to criticize anyway, just because it's him posting, I have to assume.

Tom

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:10:43 -0500, John Fields Gave us:

What "myso" error? You are wrong again, asswipe.

BTW...I did mean for that to be choose (present tense), not chose (past tense). :-)

Tom