Tom Donaly wrote:

Not everyone is happy with the term "displacement current." Albert
Shadowitz, in his book _The Electromagnetic Field_, has a chapter
entitled "The So-called Displacement Current." The term isn't in
the index to Feynman's _Lectures on Physics_. (At least I couldn't
find it.) All that is academic to the fact that AC current seems to
be able to make its way through a capacitor with no more opposition
than the capacitive reactance. Fortunately, no one on this
newsgroup has any objection to the way the term is commonly used.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

That's interesting. It prompted me to look at my other electromagnetics
texts. Of the eight I have (Johnk, Jordan & Balmain, Kraus, Ida, Majid,
Holt, Ramo et al, and King), all include displacement current in the
index and all discuss the concept. Only King objects to its use,
although he notes that "The second term [in Ampere's law] was called the
'displacement current' by Maxwell, and this name continues to be used."
He goes on to say that "Actually this terminology is unfortunate because
the word displacement belongs to the old ether model and because the
word current means specifically moving charge." He adds further reasons
for his objection in the following paragraphs. With a copyright date of
1945, King's book (_Electromagnetic Engineering_, Vol. I) is the oldest
of the texts I have. Perhaps the term has become more acceptable as time
has passed. I do see why physicists such as Feynman wouldn't be
accepting of the term.

As I mentioned in my earlier posting, it does need to be used with care.
We have to always keep in mind that it isn't a real current and
therefore doesn't always behave like one. But it is a useful concept as
long as we stay aware of its limitations.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL