On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:35:25 -0800, Roger wrote:

The derivation did several things for me. It clearly explains why we do
not have a runaway current when we first connect a voltage to a
transmission line,

Hi Roger,

It doesn't describe why the current flows in the first place, does it?

what transmission line impedance is, that moving
particles can not be the entire explanation for the electromagnetic wave
(because the energy field moves much faster than the electrons), and
puts into place a richer understanding of inductance.

And here we begin on the wonderful world of spiraling explanations,
not found in the original source: "Moving particles cannot be the
entire explanation?" How about that in the first place, particles
don't inhabit the explanation at all?

What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves.

I'm even convinced most of them would not call this DC too.

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term.

They would've been confused anyway.

It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.

And this is still DC?

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC?

This is best left in the privacy of the home.

However, none of your comments respond to the question: What is with
this death grip on DC? What makes it so important that it be so
tightly wedded to Waves? What mystery of the cosmos is answered with
this union that has so long escaped the notice of centuries of trained
thought?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC