On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:24:06 -0800, Roger wrote:

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

Are you asking for a discussion about batteries?

Hi Roger,

"About" batteries?

You originally asked what I learned from Zo = 1/cC.

Actually, my original was:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:08:54 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi Roger,
This last round has piqued my interest when we dipped into DC. Those
"formulas" would lead us to a DC wave velocity?
And I have repeated that request at frequent intervals as DC having a
wave velocity is quite a departure from the catechism.

What I learn from
it may not be obvious to you. Discussing particles would be a
completely new discussion.

OK, a completely new discussion that perhaps was not in your interest
to raise or expand upon here. I see nothing productive in it either.

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 agree on this.

So, are we to discard this phenomenon of the clumsy current bulge so
illustrated at one of your links? It seems to have injected this
aberrant usage of DC which then donned the mantle of Wave.

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.

They don't seem to be confused, once the limitations of human language
are overcome. We have many very intelligent and astute observers in
this newsgroup.

Then they are not confused, simple so stunned as to not ask the
questions you anticipate. I haven't seen any objections, other than
yours, to the term Stepped Wave. Are you referring to private
correspondence?

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?

Do you really know that mother nature is not ALWAYS operating in small
steps of DC? How small is the scale that you can resolve to? I can not
answer where DC starts and stops. Maybe you can?

With great certainty and precision. I have measured the fundamental
units of DC out 7 places, traceable to the National Bureau of
Standards. I have also measured AC from sub-Hertz to 12GHz to the
highest precision and certainties in the same occupation. The body of
science and engineering is not confused about this demarcation.

For any purpose of discussion, DC is regarded by science and
engineering to mean either:
1. Static, non-changing potential (your discussion violates this);
2. Constant, unvarying current (your discussion also violates this).

If your current or voltage cannot subscribe to these commonly held
descriptions, your currents and voltages are not DC.

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

This is best left in the privacy of the home.

It seems that a simple yes or no answer could suffice here. How is
"privacy in the home" related to Zo = 1/cC?

I have stated the harm several times, repetition does not seem to be
adequate in that your having perceived benefit is a personal choice. I
see no reason to dwell on the subjective.

Please elaborate about the "death grip on DC".

How is DC related to
waves, or better, where does DC stop and waves begin?

It was your premise. If you cannot explain it (and I see absolutely
nothing that would help you explain it) - then this is obviously the
end of the matter to which I first (see that question above) asked you
about.

Should we never
consider any portion of a wave to be DC like we do in calculus routinely?

Calculus is done "by parts." In derivation DC is the first thing to
disappear! In integration, DC arrives as an unknown! If this
discussion of Calculus were to progress any further, it would involve
dt which imagines no past, no future, just now. DC comes equipped
with all three nailed down to the same value.

My original remark about about Zo = 1/cC expressed my surprise that such
a relationship existed. It was not an original discovery by me, only
new knowledge to me. From your reaction, this must be the first time
you have run across the equation and how it might be derived. I
provided two links to web pages where others have derived the equation
from a different aspect, and even more pathways exist. It seems to be a
very fundamental relationship despite being not well known or wide used.

It is no more fundamental than when Tennessee state law mandated that
the value of PI would be 22/7ths. Your fundamental is merely a
shortcut, not a fact of nature. Like that Tennessee law, you can't
use it for very much when push comes to shove. I certainly wouldn't
buy tires based on the circumference calculated from Tennessee law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC