12

We had a big argument last night with vague conclusions. Is the current with a frequency less than 1 Hz considered DC?

It would still resemble a wave...

Phil Frost
  • 56,804
  • 17
  • 141
  • 262
Brlja
  • 239
  • 2
  • 6
  • You already have some good answers, but here's another thought: how would you describe a discharging battery? I'd say it's DC for most uses, but it's not constant and across larger timeframes you could describe it as having some very low frequency AC components. – Anton Dec 20 '14 at 15:50
  • I think, it is a good question because it touches the problem how to discriminate between a "slowly changing DC current" and an "AC current". – LvW Dec 20 '14 at 15:53
  • Thats true. But polarity never changes. Point of AC is that the polarity is changing – Brlja Dec 20 '14 at 15:53
  • 16
    What's special about 1Hz? – OJFord Dec 20 '14 at 17:56
  • Well, the guy I talked with says that AC below 1Hz is DC. – Brlja Dec 20 '14 at 18:34
  • Of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound – Hot Licks Dec 20 '14 at 19:17
  • 2
    (The guy you talked to is wrong, at least at a theoretical level. Though it might (in the right context) be reasonable to say that it's "for all intents and purposes" DC.) – Hot Licks Dec 20 '14 at 19:18
  • 1
    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment Just because its solid doesn't mean its not a liquid. – Passerby Dec 20 '14 at 20:11
  • Hah I know about pitch experiment. Its something like watching the paint dry. – Brlja Dec 20 '14 at 20:18
  • @Anton IMHO it's incorrect to think of a very slow discharge as having "low frequency AC components". Fourier analysis should only be applied to _infinite waveforms_, and your example isn't one of those. – Alnitak Dec 20 '14 at 21:30
  • 1
    @Alnitak it just have to be "periodic" over whatever timespan you choose (not even necessarily continous), infinite's got nothing to do with it. – Anton Dec 20 '14 at 22:34
  • Related: http://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/112248/10475 – Alfred Centauri Dec 22 '14 at 01:15
  • @Brlja So 1.1Hz is AC? What about 1.01Hz? – Michael Dec 22 '14 at 03:03
  • 1
    http://xkcd.com/594/ – Phil Frost Jan 18 '15 at 11:41
  • @PhilFrost: you sir, deserve more likes. – Mister Mystère Jan 18 '15 at 19:43
  • If the guy you talked to thinks that the only number below 1 is 0 then I guess he's sort of right. 0 Hz is DC. But 0.5 Hz is not, its still AC. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum May 23 '17 at 15:46
  • AC is called AC because some portion of the signal is + and some portion of the signal is -. No other reason. The direction of current flow *alternates*. Doesnt matter the shape, frequency, DC offset, or what. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum May 23 '17 at 15:48
  • But even if you have a 5 V sine wave riding on top of a 10 V DC offset, where it oscillates between +5 and +15 volts, you have DC, not AC. Direction of flow doesnt change. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum May 23 '17 at 15:49
  • All that said, if your frequency were small enough, you probably could model *some portions* of the period, as though it were approximately DC. But youre just playing with numerical approximations now, not theory or reality. – CogitoErgoCogitoSum May 23 '17 at 15:51

9 Answers9

34

AC and DC are relative terms. If you're looking at a 10kHz waveform for 100ns, you will think it is DC. It works the other way around too: if you forget about what's providing you with "DC", who knows if this waveform is not going to change in the next seconds, minutes, days, years? Think the voltage of a capacitor for example during slow discharge. If you monitor the voltage on an oscilloscope, you'll see a flatline. DC you say? Wait longer, and the flatline will decrease in voltage towards zero, which means there is some AC in there as well.

Besides, no signal is actually pure DC, you always have AC components as well due to noise and all sorts of causes. It is only "DC-enough" or "AC-enough" for the application you're intending to use it with/for.

Fourier transforms are a good way to picture what DC and AC components are in a waveform. The transform is constant for periodic signals and depends on time for any non-periodic signals like the capacitor example. For the square wave: (source: wikipedia) enter image description here

Mister Mystère
  • 9,477
  • 6
  • 51
  • 82
  • Hm, this makes sense.. So if 1Hz is number of patterns per second and if you measure 1\2Hz AC current in 1s discreet intervals you will see DC component 0 to 0 or half wave. Maybe this is what person I argued with was trying to say... – Brlja Dec 20 '14 at 12:42
  • 4
    Some people call things that oscillate but don't cross 0 DC. Some devices can only take current in one direction even though they can tolerate wild voltage swings. – Joshua Dec 20 '14 at 22:00
  • 4
    Joshua: "things" that oscillate but don't cross 0V would typically be the sum of a DC component (average of the signal) and of an AC component (in turn perhaps the sum of different frequencies, c.f. Fourier transform of periodic signal). Transients are more difficult to categorize, but again it's a matter of timeframe. The average on the time window would give DC, and the rest AC. A Fourier transform is more strict, defining DC as 0Hz. Theoretically Fourier transforms are only for periodic signals, but one can assume any signal capture repeats itself and proceed. – Mister Mystère Dec 21 '14 at 00:13
  • 4
    I disagree with your example of a capacitor during slow discharge being implied that it is AC. Throughout the entire discharge it is Direct Current (DC). At no time during the discharge is it Alternating Current (AC). Something being AC implies that the direction of the current changes. You can have a fluctuating DC voltage, but unless the current direction actually changes, it is not AC. Something being DC does not imply that the voltage must be constant, only that the direction of current flow does not reverse. – Makyen Dec 21 '14 at 02:03
  • 2
    @Makyen - Read Mister Mystère's comment about how it's a DC voltage with a AC component. It's still partially AC. – Connor Wolf Dec 21 '14 at 11:33
  • @ConnorWolf, My issue was specifically with the discharging (not _oscillating_) capacitor example. Signals oscillating around a non-zero voltage can be _modeled_ as a fixed DC plus an AC signal. They are not uncommonly referred to as AC, but that may be inexact/erroneous. As to actually being AC, that depends on the measurement and reference points being used. The same voltage fluctuation could easily be fluctuating DC with respect to a resistor to ground, but AC with respect to the terminals of a capacitor connected directly across the resistor (the capacitor both charging and discharging). – Makyen Dec 21 '14 at 13:34
  • 5
    And I'm saying you're incorrect in that characterization. If it is changing, it contains an AC component. Period. End of story. A fluctuating DC signal is a oxymoron. – Connor Wolf Dec 21 '14 at 13:49
  • 1
    The capacitor discharging is a DC signal with a set of infinite AC lower harmonics summed together, which produces the asymptotic fall-off. Much like a square-wave is really the product of an infinite set of higher-order harmonics, **everything** is fundamentally a offset + harmonics of some sort. Hell, you can even produce something that looks like DC with the right infinite set of harmonics. – Connor Wolf Dec 21 '14 at 13:52
  • Basically, you can derive DC from AC with the right infinite series, but you cannot derive AC from DC. Therefore, representing things in terms of AC is much more useful then DC terms, which can never fully describe a system where anything changes. – Connor Wolf Dec 21 '14 at 13:53
  • 1
    You seem hung up on the idea that AC has to go "through zero". This is not true, since the very concept of zero is relative. AC = changing. DC = not changing. Everything can be described in terms of AC. Everything is AC – Connor Wolf Dec 21 '14 at 13:59
  • 1
    @ConnorWolf Umm, if current is actual physical movement of charge carriers, isn't the concept of zero absolute, no movement? Especially so in "simplified"/theoretical system where wires are assumed to be essentially 1-dimensional. – hyde Dec 21 '14 at 20:15
  • Thanks ConnorWolf, very nicely said. I appreciate you expressing your concerns Makyen though, hope they everything is clear now. – Mister Mystère Dec 21 '14 at 22:18
  • 1
    Yipe! 0 current is NOT relative and I find it amazing that some people would think it is. – Joshua Dec 21 '14 at 23:36
  • I must admit I had overlooked the last comment which puzzles me as well. What do you mean by "zero is relative"? Also, I'm not sure any signal can be obtained only with AC ("everything is AC") - that is without the 0Hz component. On the other hand, pure DC - if it existed - would have 0 AC components. – Mister Mystère Dec 21 '14 at 23:40
  • 3
    "Alternating Current" MUST mean that the current changes direction. Otherwise it is not "alternating", just "fluctuating". – Floris Dec 22 '14 at 03:56
  • 2
    Yes, that's why the DC component exists (average of the signal). Get rid of DC and all other sinusoid components are centred on zero. – Mister Mystère Dec 22 '14 at 11:10
  • @hyde - I was *only* referring to voltage with the "zero is relative" comment. the flow of charge carriers *does* indeed have a absolute measurement. – Connor Wolf Dec 26 '14 at 08:11
19

Yes, you can have AC with a frequency less than 1Hz, in the same way you can have numbers between 0 and 1.

Frequency isn't an integer number, but a "real" number. You can quite happily have a waveform of \$1 \times 10^{-100}Hz\$ if you wanted. You'd have to be quite patient to see it change, but it will change, and given time it would trace an AC waveform.

Majenko
  • 55,955
  • 9
  • 105
  • 187
  • 12
    ["Quite patient" is quite an understatement](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10^100+seconds) – user253751 Dec 21 '14 at 05:41
  • 1
    "and given time it would trace an AC waveform." Indeed it wouldn't, since the protons in your oscilloscope don't survive that long. (Probably; realistically of course there'll be some other interruption much earlier.) – leftaroundabout Dec 21 '14 at 16:30
  • 1: You don't have to watch an entire cycle to see it change. 2: You're assuming time is linear. – Majenko Dec 21 '14 at 22:09
  • 4
    Also: How do we know the Big Bang isn't just the zero-crossing point of the universe? – Majenko Dec 22 '14 at 14:14
  • 1
    Oh come on, a signal who's oscillation frequency is so slow that the present age of the universe is a *measurement error* is DC. – Bryan Boettcher May 23 '17 at 17:12
5

As with any AC voltage, frequency is the inverse of the period in seconds, and vice versa:

$$f = 1 / T$$ $$T = 1 / f$$

As f gets asymptotically close to 0, T correspondingly becomes very large.

As a practical example, I have a function generator that generates any frequency up to 5MHz in 0.01 Hz steps. So at its lowest setting (0.01 Hz), it can generate a sine wave with a period of 100 seconds.

tcrosley
  • 47,708
  • 5
  • 97
  • 161
5

If you want to be strict, all real current is AC. I'll explain why.

Looking at it from a thermodynamic point of view, a direct current (which never changes magnitude) would require two terminal points of fixed charge; that is, one relative positive, one relative negative. (I'm using charge here instead of voltage or current in order to stick to my thermodynamic approach, and keep things simple.) The relative positive would dispense into the relative negative, without ever changing magnitude itself; thus, an infinite source of charge, dispensing into an infinite well. This is of course an ideal.

Since such black boxes do not exist in the real world, it is safer to say that "direct current" is simply a model. The rules that apply to it have been calculated and can be applied to a slowly varying voltage source, such as a gradually draining AA battery; but all sources of current will ultimately reach zero, and thus have a frequency.

So, in a broad sense, there are cases in which /any/ current frequency can be described as DC; and the AC laws can be derived from the DC laws. As to whether 1 Hz looks like DC, it depends on how short a time frame you are using it over, and how close it appears to be to level during that time. It's really up to you.

  • 1
    This confuses me. I thought that alternating current changes flow of current for each half period. DC battery just discharges in same direction which ultimately makes it unstable DC current – Brlja Dec 20 '14 at 20:12
  • You need to remember that current flow is relative in direction; zero is wherever you want to put it. Thus, battery alternating current can be thought of as a low-frequency sinusoid, plus a constant; which qualifies as AC. – Michael Macha Dec 21 '14 at 02:09
  • Your argument doesn't quite hold if we consider superconductors, but in essence you're right of course: DC is just a model. – leftaroundabout Dec 21 '14 at 16:32
  • Well, they're both models, really. DC versus AC is like arguing quantum mechanics versus general relativity; they're both correct, but the equations only really apply under certain circumstances, and are part of an overarching whole. (Also, superconductors still link a finite source to a finite drain, so I don't think I follow how they wouldn't change with time.) – Michael Macha Dec 21 '14 at 17:10
  • "Alternating current" has a fairly strong implication of being a periodic waveform. A lot of the non-DC situations being discussed here are more about the real term of the complex exponential than they are about the periodic imaginary one. – Chris Stratton Jan 18 '15 at 17:20
  • So , Can I safely take 1 Hz wave as approximation for DC ? – AAI Dec 22 '16 at 01:18
2

As others have already pointed out, you can have AC of as low a frequency as you wish.

I think it's worth adding, however, that at such low frequencies it mostly won't act much like most of us usually think of AC acting.

Just for an obvious example, you can typically think of a capacitor as allowing AC to flow through it, but as stopping DC. At extremely low frequencies like you're considering, you're probably not going to see any significant current flow, even though it is technically AC.

In particular, a capacitor basically acts like a (very gentle) high-pass filter. To pass such a low frequency well, you'd need a tremendously huge capacitor. By far the most common type of large capacitor is an electrolytic capacitor. An electrolytic capacitor is a little like a specialized battery--that is, part of how it works is chemical, not purely electrical. Like batteries, electrolytic capacitors can self-discharge over time. I've never tested to figure out an exact rate of self-discharge, but it wouldn't surprise me a lot if it were to self-discharge faster than (for example) a 0.01 Hz signal was charging it--if so, the net result would be that the capacitor never charged, and it would basically act like there was no capacitor there at all.1

The bottom line is that most AC circuits are designed for much higher frequencies, so even though there's no sharp cutoff below which a signal is no longer AC, quite a bit of typical thinking about AC circuit design may easily start to sort of fall apart as you reach such...subterranean frequencies.

Just for reference, the lowest frequency of AC in really common/wide use is probably in audio circuits. Although (again) it's not a hard cuttoff, the typical number used as the bottom-end of the audio range is 20 Hz.

There has been some work done in Extremely Low Frequency radio, but the lowest frequency of which I'm aware was around 50 Hz or so. For a 1 Hz signal, a half-wave dipole antenna would be substantially larger than planet earth.


1. In fairness, most electrolytic capacitors are polarized, so you normally use them for things like filters on DC power supplies. Here I'm assuming an (admittedly, less common) non-polarized electrolytic capacitor.

Jerry Coffin
  • 3,336
  • 17
  • 18
0

Of course. 1 Hz is once per second, and a second is a fairly arbitrary amount of time. If we had settled on 100 seconds per minute, 60 times per minute would have been 0.6 Hz.

MSalters
  • 561
  • 3
  • 7
  • Of note is that a "second" is (historically) a "second minute" -- an even more minute (my-newt) fraction of an hour than is a "minute". Things started with the hour and got smaller as clocks got better. Nothing at all special about the second. – Hot Licks Dec 20 '14 at 19:24
0

Yes, you can have alternating current (AC) that alternates with a frequency less than 1 cycle per second (a period longer than 1 second). If you connect a battery and a resistor using a properly wired DPDT switch, you would be able to reverse the voltage across the resistor, at will. So if you manually throw the switch once per second, or once every 2 seconds, or once every 100 seconds, etc. you would have "alternating current" with a frequency less than 1 cycle per second.

Guill
  • 2,430
  • 10
  • 6
-2

Whether a voltage is AC or DC has nothing to do with frequency, but more to do with whether the voltage is alternating or not. If it's not alternating it's DC.

If a voltage always stays above zero (ie; positive) it is 'DC', although it may have a small 'AC' component. Such voltages have a mean value above zero (the DC level).

On the other hand, if the voltage alternates from positive to negative (no matter how slowly) it is 'AC'. Such voltages have a zero mean value.

theo
  • 494
  • 5
  • 5
-2

Yes. Hertz is a measure of how many cycles happen in a given time frame (1 second).

Since time is subjective, and a second is a unit defined by humans, you could (for example) have a "Zecond" that lasts 0.4 seconds.

Hence the definition of Hertz could be different but retain its meaning.

  • No, Hertz is a unit of measurement. Frequency is a measure. – OrangeDog Dec 22 '14 at 00:26
  • 1
    Time is anything but subjective, and it's defined by [caesium 133](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#International_second), not humans. Humor is subjective and defined by humans. – Phil Frost Jan 18 '15 at 11:48