Talk:Electricity

Template:WP1.0

Good article review (January 2008)

The following is a summary of my review of this article for good article status, separated into the same sections that the criteria are presented in. At this point in time, I am unable to pass it due to some minor problems I have with the references. I have instead put the review on hold, which allows for up to 7 days for these issues to be addressed. Once this has happened the review will be updated without the need for relisting the article and thus restarting the entire process.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Clearly written and well explained.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Looks fine to me.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   References consistently presented in a separate section at the bottom of the article.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   In the history section the discovery of bioelectricity is dated as 1783. However the reference dates the experiment as occurring in 1771 and the theory being advanced in 1786 (as a side note, the IEEE Virtual Museum used two references prior dates it as being in the 1780s). I'm not sure which of the two referenced dates should be listed in the article.
   
   The inline citations drop off in the last paragraph of the "Electric current" section. It would be good to see a couple there, especially for the comments about AC. Similarly, I would like to see a reference for The electric field acts between two charges in a similar manner to the way that the gravitational field acts between two masses, and like it, is infinite in extent and shows an inverse square relationship with distance (unless of course the Hawking reference at the end of the paragraph covers this, which I am unsure of given the title). Note that, as an electrical engineer, I am not disputing the statements, just saying that it would be nice to have some references.
   
   A similar issue occurs with the final paragraph in the "Electrical phenomena in nature" section (about the response to / generation of electric fields in animals).

   C. No original research:

   None that I can hunt down.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers the major aspects nicely with links to relevant articles for further information.

   B. Focused:

   Focuses on the major areas with 'main article' links to the full article.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Not entirely sure how one would introduce bias into an article like this... any ideas?

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Can't find any evidence of edit wars in the recent history (checked the last ~3 months).

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

lightning is made of the positive from the ground the negative from the bottom of the cloud and positive at the top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.110.18 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1. A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All images are from Commons (i.e. no non-free images).

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Nicely illustrated without stretching the point; all captions suitable.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   An excellent improvement - thanks largely to BillC (talk · contribs) - on the version previously nominated for GA status. The issues mentioned above are fairly minor and should be straightforward to address in the hold period.

I am more than willing to respond to any queries or comments that may arise from this review. However, I would ask that they are kept here so that all who are involved with the article can readily see them.

Blair - Speak to me 11:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your review. I have added 15 more references since then. Where written material was not adequately supported by existing references, I have revised it or replaced them. In the case of Galvani, he conducted a series of experiments throughout the 1780s, and for which sources give various dates for various milestones, finally writing them up in 1791. The date of 1771 previously given in the web reference was probably a typo; since this casts a pall over it, I removed it altogether from the list of references. I have added a couple of footnotes to the citations to note where disagreement exists, such as under what circumstances Øersted discovered the deflecting compass needle, though this doesn't materially affect the validity of the reference. — BillC ^talk 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up and adding the extra references. I now have no problems passing this as a good article. And once again, extremely good work on the improvements you have made to this article over the last couple of months. Feel free to use one of the templates from Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors on your user page as a mark of your efforts. Blair - Speak to me 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

in regards to the name Electricity

In regards to the name Electricity the article states "Electricity (from New Latin ēlectricus, "amber-like")" can someone please verify this is the case as I remember being taught that the name electricity derived from the ancient Greek name for amber "elektron", on which the first effects of electricity were observed. I don't remember which Greek writer mentioned that by rubbing a piece of amber in wool would make it attract smaller bodies like dust etc. It seems logical that the name would be derived from the original source and not the later Latin. Radaemon (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)radaemon

The Greek word for amber is indeed elektron, and the Greek who first described amber's ability to attract motes of dust when rubbed with wool was Thales in around 600BC. However, there was no term for the phenomenon until Gilbert, writing (in Latin) in 1600AD, employed the term electricus, meaning "amber-like". The English term electricity was derived from Gilbert's neologism by Sir Thomas Browne in 1646. Elektron clearly begat electricus, but the latter is the first use of the term to describe the phenomenon, not the former. — BillC ^talk 17:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

conventional flow notation and electron flow notation

A little something about Benjamin Franklin: he's the one who made what turned out to be an erroneous assumption about the direction of current flow, or properly the electron flow (shown in the simple circuit later in the article): from positive to negative. William Crookes (1832-1919) proved this wrong. This guy is responsible for the discovery and proof of the true electron flow (- to +) rather than the conventional flow (+ to -) assumed by Benjamin Franklin. source: http://www.3rd1000.com/history/electrons.htm search on "William Crookes". He's also wikified here.

However, by that time of the discovery, the "conventional flow notation" (as is the proper name for it- from pos to neg) had already been established and continues to this day. That makes the circuit diagram in this article "politically correct," but technically incorrect. Something should be said about the correct "electron flow notation" (again, as is the proper name for this- neg to pos) in this article. But it should also be maintained that the conventional flow notation is the mainstay of all circuit designs, even by engineers today. Mdoc7 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the above is wrong, and appears to be a common misconception. The above explanation suffers from the mistaken idea that all electric currents are flows of negative charge. In fact, electron-flow applies only to metals and to vacuum tubes. Franklin might have been wrong about metal wires, but it's just as wrong to assume that electron flows are the only type of electric current possible. Here's a counterexample: electric currents in human flesh are composed entirely of flows of positive and negative ions. Electric currents are flows of any electric charge, including negative/positive ions, electrons, protons, positrons, charged dust particles and water droplets, etc.

In modern terms we could say that Franklin was wrong in assuming that electric currents were flows of just one type of charge carrier. But if we wanted to simplify the physics by pretending that only one polarity of charge can move, then the labeling of "positive" charge is truly arbitrary. And no matter which polarity you pick, somebody will complain that it's "wrong!" --128.95.172.173 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"...the valence shell of an atom represents a band of energy levels and the valence electrons are confined to that band. If an electron aquires enough additional energy from an external source, it leaves the valence shell and becomes a free electron and exists in what is known as the conduction band.

"The difference in energy between the valence band and the conduction band is called the energy gap. This is the amount of energy that a valence electron must have in order to jmp from the valence band to the conduction band. once in the conduction band, the electron is free to move throughout the material and is not tied to an given atom."

"When a voltage is applied across a piece of intrinsic silicon... the thermally generated free electrons in the conduction band, which are free to move randomly in the crystal structure, are now easily attracted toward the positive end. This movement of free electrons is one type of current in a semiconductor material and is called electron current

"Another type of current occurs at the valence level, where the holes created by the free electrons exist. Electrons remaining in the valence band are still attached to their atoms and are not free to move randomly in the crstal structure as are the free electrons. However, a valence electron can move into a nearby hole, with little changein it's energy level, thus leaving another hole where it came from. Effectively the hole has moved from one place to another in the crystaline structure. This is called hole current."

source: Electronic Devices: Electron-flow version Thomas L. Floyd 2nd edition ISBN 0-13-363599-6

to my understanding technicians are trained in electron flow and engineers are trained in conventional current. As this discussion illustrates, there appears to be a difference of opinion over whether electron flow (negative to positive) or conventional current (positive to negative- or hole-flow to continue the terminology in the above quote) is what should be considered the "correct" direction of current flow.

I have been taught from the Floyd text above. The explaination given in the quote above gives no preference to which is the "correct" direction or polarity of current. It provides an objective explaination.

An objective explaination is not what appears in the article. The direction of flow section appears biased toward conventional current. The judgement

"If another definition is used-for example,"electron current"-it needs to be explicitly stated."

exists without citation to source as if the article writer is authorized to determine the correct usage. This may be the terminology used in the text cited earlier, but it isn't clear. The terminology usage is likely intended to clarify terminology in the textbook cited in the article (citation number 24) and in my opinion should not be used as an order of usage for the Wiki article. The Wiki article does include the language

"Current can consist of any moving charged particles; most commonly these are electrons, but any charge in motion constitutes a current."

This is acceptable as it objectively states physical fact. It states that electron flow is common, but allows for the existance of the flow of other polarities.

I recommend (if it's allowed in Wiki rules) quoting the Floyd source as I have above as a lay-term explaination of the difference between positive flow and negative flow current. I also recommend consideration of removing the suggestion on correct terminology usage ("If another definition is used—for example, "electron current"—it needs to be explicitly stated."). I would be happy to merely have an accurate description of both electron flow and hole flow even if it doesn't contain the Floyd quotation.

I am not advocating electron-flow as the true flow of current (even though I am of the opinion that electron-flow describes the physical process). I merely wish this section to appear unbiased per the Wiki practices. DarthAlbin (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The flow of positive ions should not be neglected; important fields depend on ions, such as batteries and electroplating. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything should be neglected. I'm suggesting that a complete, encyclopedic explaination should be given. The section as it exists is confusing, incomplete, and unclear. The flow of positive ions should be mentioned and discussed. If free floating electrons carry current in a conductive material, further explaination SHOULD be given to explain both negative and positive flow so that anyone, not just electrical engineers, can get an unbiased explaination of current flow in all of it's forms. This discussion illustrates that a controversy exists in the terminology. this controversy should be mentioned in the article. DarthAlbin (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to say the current version is confusing to people who are not electrical engineers; that may be so. It is quite another thing to say there is a controversy over terminology. SI incorporates electrical units, and is the law almost everywhere in the world (including the United States) so far as electricity is concerned. Anyone who thinks the current flow convention needs to be changed must complain to their congressman, member of parliament, or the like; this is not the place to argue about it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

the discussion is regarding the section in this article in Wiki. SI isn't cited. Nor is there clarification for non electrical proffesionals. This needs to be clearer to the general public. Let's be aware of our readers when we write.DarthAlbin (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactally, current always flows from higher to low potential because thats what we defined it as. Weither it be electrons moving in the opposite direction, or protons moving in the same direction, it makes no difference. There isn't an engineer or technician on earth whom if you told the current goes from A to B would think that A is a lower potential with respect to B. Unfortuently we named 'electrons' with the word 'elect' in them, so people think they are electricity and that 'current goes the wrong way'. We should have named them negitrons or something opposite of a proton.--155.144.40.31 (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety

Do we need something on safety and the fact that electricity can kill? In fact Electrical safety redirects to Electricity but there is nothing about it. 118.208.184.222 (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good candidate for a new article. Perhaps you'd like to create it? You'll need to register an account to start an article, though. Regards, — BillC ^talk 11:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

V is not equal to IR

Facts:

1) In chemisty the number of electrons leaving a mass is determined by the voltage Source: chemistry textbook 2) In induction physics, the current is determined by the number of coils in the winding source: physics textbooks 3) In circiut theory the current is determined by the load Source: also physics textbook 4) these three things are all different 5) In the power industry, there is also something called "current draw" which is a current not determined by the load but the power supply Source: Con Edison training manual 6) All of these things with the exception of 5 are excepted theories of science that contflict with the electricity theory 7) The units for charge are wrong. The 4pi that is in F = q1*q2/(4pir^2). the 4 pi is found experimentaly but is from the units for charge.

I find that most circuits textbooks don't even talk at all about any scientist. Many of whom pointed out alot of these things What I demand:

1) A scientific presentation of electricity theory that uses the scientific method 2) A list of people in the scientific community who actually accepted this (and hold electrons to be a fact and more than a theory), and on what basis of the scientific method did they accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostkey (talk • contribs) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC) I am an electrciain and Bill Clinton is my hero. He lost his load to monica lewinsky, and I have hated the existance of electrons ever since. HE told monica, Lick my electron dont ruin my election. Well, I say V=IR when your clinton and you spill your load. This is how I view electricity:

• 1) The voltage (load) is like the number of electrons you have in your penis
• 2) Voltage is a good indicator of how much fucking power you have, but really some guys like me can fuck for a long time even on a low voltage and still keep it up.
• 3) The current, is different that the voltage, that is like when your fucking, how good you are
• 4) paraell and series, those are sexual positions when you are having a threesome(or more)

But I do not beleive there to actually be electrons, its just a big gew, and I dont really know what it is. But dont ask monica lewinsky what an electron is because she ruined clinton (and lied and said his load was on her dresS). And V is not IR, when there is a lonely woman, who made an expensive housecall. She is living proof there is no electrons, and you can ask her what electrcicity really is, because she eats it every day and loves it. SlickWillyLovesSex (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)