Talk:Electricity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216100857/http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/2005_USAEE.pdf to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/2005_USAEE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Language Funk

If you look at the way electricity is defined in the first few paras, its way too esoteric, would never been clear to a laymen, can be easily improved. I tried by one guy in particular undid my attempts. I'd love to get other people into this. "electricity" is important enough so we get this right. thanks, Drycroft4 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(I created a new Talk section)

Hi Drycroft4. I've had a look at the series of changes that were made, and after doing so, have to support Wtshymanski. To deal with them: Electricity certainly can be described as a form of energy, but to do so doesn't capture it in its entirety. The word is an umbrella term, and means different things in different contexts. As such, we're better off describing it as an umbrella term. The description of the electric field is not correct: a charge will not only produce a field "if close enough in proximity". All charges produce fields, and those fields extend to infinity (An Introduction to Electrical Science, p22); there are no preconditions. Energy storage in batteries is certainly a phenomenon, but a battery, as Wtshymanski says, is an artefact not a phenomenon. —BillC ^talk 09:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mistake

It is mentioned that lightning is ra'ad in arabic language, while the right word for lightning is "barq". Moayadalhendi (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Arabic word

the Arabic word for lightning is Barq (برق) not ra‘ad (رعد) which means thunder. so correct it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by هارون الرشيد العربي (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If I may add also, reference to "Lightning" and the grammar of the sentence is a meaningless non-sequiter and not supported by the reference: "Possibly the earliest and nearest approach to the discovery of the identity of lightning, and electricity from any other source, is to be attributed to the Arabs, who before the 15th century had the Arabic word for lightning ra‘ad (رعد) applied to the electric ray.[5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.145 (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2018

Abbas Al Maliki the Elder FRS (1660–1713), also known as Abbas Ali, was an 18th-century Iraqi scientist best known for his work on electricity and electrostatic repulsion. Abbas primary contributions were was a talented scientific instrumentmaker[8] and a creative experimenter, who was able to discover unknown and unexpected phenomena, especially his observations about electrical attraction and repulsion.[9]

Until 1705, most of these experiments were air pump experiments of a mundane nature, but Hauksbee then turned to investigating the luminosity of mercury which was known to emit a glow under barometric vacuum conditions.

He was the first to observe, in the early 1700s, that it was possible to use glass for electrical experiments.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hauksbee Inglesuk (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make a specific request for what language you'd like added to or changed in this article. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2018

Stephen Gray (December 1666 – 7 February 1736) was an English dyer and astronomer who was the first to systematically experiment with electrical conduction. Until his work in 1729 the emphasis had been on the simple generation of static charges and investigations of the static phenomena (electric shocks, plasma glows, etc.). He also first made the distinction between conduction and insulation, and discovered the action-at-a-distance phenomenon of electrostatic induction. Being the 'father' of electricity Electrical conductivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gray_(scientist) Inglesuk (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Electricity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Electricity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Electricity until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

delete this

this page needs help — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImDatnerd (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

In the opening paragraph, the article says that 'In the early days, electricity was considered as being unrelated to magnetism'. 'In the early days' is vague and unquantified and should be changed to 'Before the development of electromagnetic theory with the publication of Maxwell's equations, electricity was considered as being unrelated to magnetism'.

 Not done: The lead is supposed to be a summary of the information in the article. Your wording is more verbose, and Maxwell's equations are mentioned in the very next sentence... I fail to see how this would be an improvement. The current wording also keeps a coherent chronological order. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

What are "the early days"? Where do I find that in my Encyclopedia Britannica? That's the point the op was trying to make, and it's a valid one. It won't do to demand a specific academic tone on one hand, but on the other actively defend the use of "in the early days". Might as well say "back in the day", or speak of Maxwell's early life as having occurred "back in his 'hood". Heavy10mm (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Order of discoveries dubious

This is the first time I've ever done this here. I'm an electrician by trade and historian by education. I'm concerned about the fact that whoever wrote this says that the earliest discoveries of "electrical identity" are from the Muslim world in the 15th century, but in the next paragraph discusses Greek findings two millennia earlier. Not only is this biased toward discovery by the Muslim world, but it's sloppy writing out of chronological order.

I'm not going to change it, because someone would doubtless make a "racial" issue out of it, and it's not worth it to me. But it's not quality history. It has an OBVIOUS lean to it, and it's just not very well done, since history, even though it occurs in fits and starts, contains evident delineations when we're talking about two thousand years difference. Heavy10mm (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This text was added a long time ago by an editor who was subsequently permanently blocked for "long term source misuse". It's time to remove it. —BillC ^talk 12:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

You describe current does not flow, charge flows, where ever you have "current flow(s)" replace with "current (flow of charge)"? 2A00:23C5:F906:5900:384B:FD4A:24BC:8F54 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"Thales of Miletus made a series of observations on static electricity around 600 BCE, from which he believed that friction rendered amber magnetic, in contrast to minerals such as magnetite, which needed no rubbing.[5][6][7][8]"

The statement is not supported by what is quoted in references 7 & 8 and they are about the only references available that can claim to be based in information from the time of Thales. About all that can be said is that the electrostatic attraction of amber and the magnetic attraction of mangetite were known in Thales' time and he he argued that indicated those objects had contained live or a soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c44:e7f:eafe:98df:14a3:1a7b:2d64 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

lead section

• Thus we can speak of electric potential at a certain point in space, which is equal to the work done by an external agent in carrying a unit of positive charge from an arbitrarily chosen reference point to that point without any acceleration

really it's okay to use "we can say" in a encyclopedia? and it's a little difficult to understand. --Reza Amper (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:TONE, no, it should be rewritten. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What is electricity?

Greetings Wikipedians! I added this paragraph because I think the distinction it draws is important. The entire paragraph was taken from the book cited. There is no original research here, just me making the book's point in slightly different words. I believe the source is reliable: a textbook for U.S. Navy personnel whose jobs require knowledge of electricity, originally published by the US Government Publishing Office. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

Please don't copy and/or close paraphrase sources, its against Wikipedia policy, see WP:COPYVIO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Should probably mention problems with the other edits. Lead sections do not normally contain citations, they summarize the body, which does have citations. Also links should not be easter eggs [1] (and those device convert to mechanical energy, not electricity). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: I understand your point about no citations in lead sections. But could you help me to understand why my "citation needed" note (next to the formula P = etc.) was also reverted. It seems to me if we're going to put formulae in an article, we should provide an inline citation so that readers can verify that the formula is correct. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to rewrite the "what is electricity" paragraph in my own words. The basic message will still be the same. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@BuzzWeiser196: I think we already have that answered in the first sentence: electricity is a set of phenomena. What causes it is another question. This 1969 no-author book says that we know a lot about electricity, but that we cannot tell what it is (well, isn't that true for all matter and energy in our Universe — what are they?) or that we don't know its inner workings. The latter is a rather philosophical problem: every description of the phenomenon will include more things unknown to us and we'll (again) be asking ourselves what they are. If you say "its fundamental identity remains undetermined", I'll ask you what kind of "fundamental identity" you're trying to find: gears that turn, little demons that throw balls at each other? The paragraph you added is a cute little essay from a cute little book, but it leaves the impression that there should be something more fundamental that produces charge (currently, we consider it a property of some elementary particles) and makes charges interact (we like to say it's photons, but what are photons?). All in all, this old hard-to-find no-author book isn't enough, I'd consult a few more sources. Ponor (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ponor:: I don't appreciate the tone of your response. We'd all do well to remember Wikipedia Pillar #4: "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility." End of discussion. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, the actual author of the of entry for 'Electricity' in the printed version of Encyclopedia Britannica told me everyone wants to say what your first sentence says, but that's not technically right, so your first sentence is wrong. He is (I understand) the world's leading authority in his specific field. He offered some other opinions about this discussion, but they are not polite enough to type here. 2603:6000:DC00:C1F2:D512:C254:171D:E202 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Electricity

What is the purpose of studying for electrical engineering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:31FF:26:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

New power plant photo

Fountains of Bryn Mawr Back in November, your rationale for deleting the Rostock Power Station photo was "power plant is not actually a good illustration of electricity." Perhaps you meant that the image itself is poor, and the caption (which read something like "electricity in power station") was poor as well? I agree on both points. Clearly, power stations generate electricity, so I see no problem with having a power plant photo in this article. So I've inserted a recent photo of a modern combined cycle gas-fired power plant with an appropriate caption. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you listed the reasons not to have a poor picture of a power plant in the lead and then inserted a poor picture of a power plant in the lead. I have reverted the addition for the same reasons:

• Leads should normally have one image.
• The article is not about power plants
• MOS:PERTINENCE - the image is unreadable at thumb and even looking at it full size it looks like some kind of factory, only the caption clues you in that it is a power plant
• If it belongs anywhere it should go in Generation and transmission, but that section is already fully imaged.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr - Thanks for explaining your reasons. I'll address them one by one. 1) Leads have one image: OK, put it somewhere else. 2) Article isn't about power plants: this is inconsistent with images already in place - building with lightning and lamplight, light bulb, batteries, bust of Thales, etc. The article isn't about those things either. But the article already has images for all of those, and quite rightly so. They are directly related to electricity and are mentioned in the text. The same applies to the power plant photo: it's where electricity is produced for human use. 3) Image is unreadable, looks like a factory: This seems arbitrary and is merely your opinion. In my opinion, it's fine. I have visited many power plants and can assure you, this looks like a power plant. But if you don't like the image, I challenge you to find a better one. Search Wikimedia Commons for one depicting a conventional steam turbine power plant-- not a renewable, since we already have a wind turbine image. 4) Generation/transmission already fully imaged: I disagree. I see no image of a modern conventional power plant; it shows only an "early 20th century alternator" and a wind turbine. Finally: This reminds me of the response I got from you and others the last time I tried to edit this very same article. These Wiki-disputes are counter-productive, taking up time and energy that would be better spent improving Wikipedia. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read through MOS:IMAGES. "Clearly, power stations generate electricity, so I see no problem with having a power plant photo in this article" Wikipedia is not an image host so we do not insert images into articles just because they are related to the topic, that is what Wikimedia Commons/Wikimedia Commons Categories is for. Images are inserted into sections where they illustrate a point being made in text in that section. We have a section mentioning generation history and renewable energy, well illustrated already. We can not present everything about electricity generation, that is another topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn MawrThanks, I will give MOS:IMAGES a read. But even without reading it, I would venture to say I can easily make the case that the modern technology is more deserving of an image than the antique alternator. If we have to set priorities, why not delete the antique alternator image and show the technology that provides most of the energy for powering your home or business: a conventional modern power plant, or at least a component of one, like a steam turbine. But it's not worth any more debate. I think I'll stay away from this page from now on. Too contentious. End of discussion. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

According to a controversial theory …

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery 'theory' is pretty much refuted and no longer deserves the moniker theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.5.73 (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Electricity

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Electricity's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Edwards 2021":

• From Electric organ (fish): Edwards, Paul (10 November 2021). "A Correction to the Record of Early Electrophysiology Research on the 250 th An- niversary of a Historic Expedition to Île de Ré". HAL open-access archive. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• From Electric eel: Edwards, Paul (10 November 2021). "A Correction to the Record of Early Electrophysiology Research on the 250th Anniversary of a Historic Expedition to Île de Ré". HAL open-access archive. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• From Electric ray: Edwards, Paul (10 November 2021). "A Correction to the Record of Early Electrophysiology Research on the 250 th An- niversary of a Historic Expedition to Île de Ré". HAL open-access archive. Retrieved 6 May 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Installation