Talk:Electricity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RESEARCH

TO: Australian Institute of Ciminology, GPO Box 2944, Canberra ACT, AUSTRALIA.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Does anyone know if electricity can ‘leak’ into the body? I am updating a book called The Bread Perspective © Leeds 2003, and one of the things I am focusing on, is ways people cope. I have found most people cope in fairly predicitable ways, however I have found a few instances where people have to cope with things they cannot explain. For example:-  Jane was reacting to doing something unnatural [she kicked someone and was distressed because it was an expert karate kick and she doesn’t know how to do karate]. She coped by collecting information from a wide variety of sources like television programs, books and the environment. These sources showed people having their muscles stimulated by ELECTRICITY to make them smile, kick ect. Then she likened this to a player piano and deduced it was possible to use technology to play the brain like a player piano. The conclusion she came up with was with all the technology floating about [eg., like programs on self defence], some of it may have hit her and enabled her to do a karate kick.  Bob has had quite a few gall bladder attacks in the last 5 years. The pain starts and gets stronger until he vomits and goes into shock. The pain abates with analgesics, but is chronic for about a week. The important factor is the pain comes first then the shock and the shock is induced by the pain eg., On the last occasion the pain only lasted for a few minutes, the shock however, went on and on until he could no longer stand up. There seemed to be no cause for the shock to continue without the pain. Bob thinks when his body went through the experience of the gall bladder attacks, his brain took a chronicle of his experience. Then when exposed to something {he thinks it is ELECTRICITY} his brain ‘replayed’ the chronicle. He feels this last attack was artificial.

Can anyone expand on this?

Kind regards,

Christine Leeds. (Jan 14) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.88.154 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

While electricity could cause a muscle contraction, it could not cause a kick to be accurately aimed. Electricity could not float around and cause someone to be suddenly educated. As to your second question, don't ask online for medical advise, consult a licensed doctor instead. --ssd 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Misc Comments/Questions

"there is a force between these charges that is directly proportional to the magnitude of the charge of the objects and inversely proportional to distance between them."

Is that correct? Should it not rather be " ... and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."?

The subsequent formula seems unnecessarily awkward.

S.

Can anyone remember reading a short science fiction story about someone who is granted a wish, and decides that the best way to solve the world's problems is to abolish electricity? Unfortunately he doesn't know that electricity is what holds atoms together. His wish is granted, and the universe falls apart. If I knew the name of this story, I would add a reference to it in this article. - Heron

• Perhaps, Electricity (Sci-fi) if it is long enough.

Hmm. I have to say this article is phenomenally America-centric. And pretty much glosses over everything before Ben Franklin, whose significance (on the other tentacle) to what followed, really is blown totally out of proportion. I mean, really! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 20:08, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

Removed from Current

Accuracy aside, the following 'graph does not belong in the section on Current. It may have some value elsewhere.

It is often important, particularly for safety reasons, that one side of a circuit be electrically bonded to an earth terminal. Such an earth terminal is usually connected to an electrode buried in the ground. The potential of earth (ground) is defined as zero by convention, and the electrical conductivity between similarly buried electrodes is considered to be low enough that all earth terminals are effectively at the same voltage.

--Jerzy 01:35, 2003 Dec 12 (UTC)

I actually don't know really because I am in 6th grade and I try to understand because I am making an electric generator for my science project. I understand how to make it and all, but not what it is. My guess of what it is would be:Electricity- lighting; energy; more than on spark put together to make electriciy.-Kristie

Main focus of this article ??

Many of the pointers to this page seems to mean electricity in the meaning electrical energy. Perhaps there should be a separate article about electrical energy, with all relevant pointers so directed? -- Egil 07:46 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

If I had started this article, I would have made it a disambiguation article with links to "electrical energy", "electrical power", "electric current", "electric charge" and all other electrical phenomena. The present article is about electric charge, so it could perhaps be merged with the article of that name. -- Heron

I believe this article should focus on the commonest meaning of electricity, i.e. electric current. One proof of this is to look at the articles that link to here: most take the "electric current" view. It should start with a disambiguation paragraph linking to other electrical phenomena. Pcarbonn 19:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, the commonest meaning of electricity is electrical energy. It is a widespread misconception that electric current is a form of energy. No, an Ampere is not a Joule. Just because many authors incorrectly give electric current the name "electricity" doesn't mean that reference works should support the error. In non-science topics, common usage *is* the correct usage, but in physics, a common misconception remains incorrect no matter how many people aquire that misconception. Physics books play by very different rules than dictionaries. ------- I agree that "Electricity" should become a disambiguation entry. In addition to articles on Electric Charge and Electrical Energy (etc.,) the present article can split off into an article about common misconceptions regarding the term Electricity. Because even the authors of many reference books have a fairly poor understanding of charge vs. energy, disambiguation becomes a proper topic for the science and education community, not just the usual Wikipedia issue. Wjbeaty 16:19 Dec 27, 2004 (PST)

I agree completely with Bill on this one!--Light current 18:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this page should be a disambiguation page. I agree that, out of a scientific point of view, electricity is many different things and this article certainly should link to the articles about charge, energy, etc... But the main point of the article should be what people usually mean when they say "electricity", which would be a synthesis between energy, potential difference (voltage) and current. Hymyly^TC 21:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you really can't synthesize these separate topics, and it's wrong to pretend that a single overacrching "electricity stuff" exists. (It would be like pretending that sound, wind, and nitrogen are really just one thing.) On the other hand, book titles such as "Optics" and "Acoustics" and "Electronics" exist. Electricity is a subject in the same way that Electronics is a subject, and Electricity can serve as a section heading, although it still will mislead some. What would you think if people assumed that Electronics was a form of energy? Or, what if they thought that air was made of Meteorology rather than nitrogen? That's the situation at present with the "Electricity" concept: the chapter title has been mistaken for the substance-like entities being studied. We want to tell our audience that "water" flows in pipes, but "Hydraulics" never does. --Wjbeaty 04:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

How electricity kills

Electricity kills in either of these ways:

• Current of at least 50 miliamps passing through the heart can cause it to stop. To get 50ma to the heart, there must be sufficent voltage to overcome the body's natural resistance.
• The body's natural resistance can cause it to absorb the electricity and convert it to heat. Given enough power, this heat will cause the body to cook. For this, it does not matter if it is low voltage or low power, as long as the product of the two is high enough for the power to heat the body faster than it can dissipate the generated heat.

"Electricity" doesn't kill. That would be as wrong as saying that "geology" kills. Or alternately, first you have to settle upon a clear and narrow definition of the word Electricity. If you don't, then "electricity" doesn't exist, and the phrase "electricity kills" only seems to mean something, and yet it really does not. Or in other words... what is electricity?!! --Wjbeaty 04:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Voltage doesn't exist (or does it ?)

As stated in the main article, Ohm's law gives the relationship between current, voltage, and resistance. When resistance is present, both current and voltage must be non-zero for the other to exist. Power is the product of current and voltage. --ssd 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to explain it to you, if you are not interested then too bad. Voltage DOES NOT EXIST in a physical manner, it is simply the difference of potential between two points.

That's silly. I can measure it, it exists. No, it isn't a physical substance. I can't see voltage. I can't see current. I can't see wind either, does it not exist either? Voltage, as you say, is the electrical potential between two points. If there is no potential, there will not be any current either. Neither current nor voltage alone are sufficent to describe electricity. Both must be considered. If voltage was not important, Ohm's law would also not be important. I suppose you could argue that given $V=IR$ you have two independent variables and one dependent variable. However, which one you pick for the dependent variable is really just a matter of semantics or point of view. --ssd 20:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Voltage does exist. It is a potential to do work caused by the field in the circuit. Also, current exists too. Current is the passing of electrons from one atom to the adjacent atom due to the use of volts (potential pressure that can push electrons).

There are two kinds of current. If you look and read the historical orgins of understanding of such things in the world of mathematics and science, you will find the answers. Can we see current? I think someone out there takes tiny pictures of moving electrons through a substance with a camera connected to an electron microscope of something....will have to research that one I guess.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. When you pull out your voltmeter, you are not actually measuring voltage - you are measuring the DIFFERENCE in "pressure" between two points. In a wye connected system, for example, if your line voltage was 480v, your phase voltage would be 277v.(480/1.732, or the root of three). Now measure from phase to phase, and what would you have? exactly. --Vega007

By the way, no disrespect, but you CAN see current when it is arcing and sparking. Are you an electrician like myself or just an educated observer?

When you see arcing, you are seeing voltage high enough to ionize the air and form a conductive path. If it is high current, the arc lasts longer and is thicker. If it is low current, you will see short lived thin arcs that will reoccur as the voltage becomes high enough for a new arc. (Technically, you don't see current or voltage, you see photons, but that's just being pedantic.) --ssd 05:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voltage is a relative difference between two points. If you want to say that a single point has a voltage, then you have to choose a single reference point for the circuit, and you are implying a measurement relative to that point. That point is called ground. Although there are conventions for which point you call ground, you could technically define any point in the circuit as 0 V and measure all other points relative to it. - Omegatron 00:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree mostly with everything now here. A couple of fine points... Everything Omegatron said about voltage is exactly correct. However, when I think of voltage, I think of a power source. When I think of voltage from a power source, I think transmission line, which has (at least) two wires, and thus two points of reference from which to measure. If you grabbed those two with one hand, you'd be burned. If you grab one in each hand, there's a good chance voltage (and current) will pass through your body, and thus through your heart. For those purists that say "voltage does not exist, only current matters", I'd like to remind them that only ideal power sources can supply infinite voltage when met with high resistance, where a real power source won't get sufficent current through to matter if it can't supply the needed voltage. Likewise, the real power source when faced with zero resistance can't supply infinite current to keep voltage constant. Thus, all real power supplies have a maximum voltage and maximum current rating, and even if they are constant current (rare except battery chargers) or constant voltage (most are), when the maximum voltage or maximum current is surpassed, it will be unable to keep the other from sagging. This is why both ratings are important. It is thus incorrect to say only current or only voltage is important. This was my original point, more correctly stated.

Also note that Voltage is a way of measuring a certain stuff: the electrostatic part of electromagnetic fields. It's the EM fields which are the real stuff that surrounds wires. Voltage may be an abstract concept, but EM fields certainly exist. For example, something weird exists in the space around a bar magnet. Something weird also exists around a charged rubber balloon. Arguments might clear up if we call this stuff "e-field" instead of "voltage." (On the other hand, most people encountered the word voltage before,but not the word e-field, so in that case we might use the word "voltage" in order to quickly communicate the general concept.)

(These incremental changes from discussion like this I like to think make points clearer and help all parties see their errors and fuzzy thinking. Some of this probably should be integrated into a relevant article once it's all correct. --ssd)

As much as I hate to stir up confusion, I'm going to adds some arguments in favor of the "voltage does not exist" side of things. While the *idea* of voltage (also called electric potential) is a useful approximation when magnetic fields are small enough to be neglected, it completely falls apart in the presence of strong, rapidly changing magnetic fields.

The voltage I measure between two points with a "voltmeter" depends strongly on exactly how magnetic fields effect the wires from those points to the voltmeter. In a transformer with a resistor as a load, Electromagnetic induction pushes all the electrons in a coil of wire clockwise for 1/60 sec (then counterclockwise for 1/60 sec). The electric field vectors form a closed loop, around and around the coil and through the resistor back to the starting point.

I think the voltage between 2 points is best defined as the total energy (in Joules), per Coulomb, it takes to slowly move an electron from one point to another. With a strong, rapidly changing magnetic field, the total energy along one path can be different from the total energy along another path. In a transformer, the total energy around a loop back to the starting point is non-zero. The voltage between 2 points on that coil is not single-valued. With a voltmeter, I get (at least) 2 different values for the voltage, depending on exactly how the wires run from those 2 points to the voltmeter. If a person is convinced that electrons always flow from the most negative voltage to the most positive voltage, the internal operation of a transformer is mystifying. (I suspect my point is better said in the electric potential article). --DavidCary 05:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You've got the concepts of AC voltage, DC voltage, instantaneous voltage and average voltage all confused in there. For voltage in an AC circuit to make any sense at all, you need an oscilloscope, not a volt meter. No wonder you're confused. --ssd 02:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly do need an oscilloscope. I'm probably a bit confused as well. I have a transformer that, when I short the outputs together, gets quite warm. (With this particular low-power transformer, the output coil wire so long and thin that it has enough internal resistance that no harm is done). What is the instantaneous voltage at, say, 10 equally spaced points along the output coil? Because of the circular symmetry, wouldn't those 10 voltages all be the same at any one instant? If they are all the same, why does it get so warm? --DavidCary 05:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohms law in its various forms answers this question. The heating is from P=I^2*R losses. Essentially, current is flowing through the windings. The windings have resistance. These two things cause them to heat. As to the voltage, the winding resistance acts like a voltage divider; shorting out half the transformer makes it essentially a big loop. Assuming even field distribution (which is unlikely) and even divisions, I think the voltage in each of your 10 segments would be the same. Ohm's law says V=IR; so if you know the resistance of the length, and the induced current, you should be able to get the voltage. Remember, though, that this is an AC circuit, so you either look at RMS values for all of these values, or you remember that they are (probably) sine waves with an amplitude, frequency, and phase. --ssd 07:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, but I am still confused. I don't see how Ohm's law answers the question "What is the instantaneous voltage at, say, 10 equally spaced points along the output coil?"

Focus on the short piece of wire connecting one point to the next. We agree that (because of circular symmetry) the (instantaneous) current through that wire and the (instantaneous) voltage "v" across that wire is the same as the current and voltage for all the other short bits of wire making up the output coil -- right?

If (**) the voltages of each bit of wire "v" sum to get the output voltage "10*v", then since the output voltage is zero "10*v=0" (I shorted the output), then "v" must equal zero. Then Ohm's law (V=IR, or V=IZ, or any other form I've ever seen) seems to tell me that the current (at every instant) through that wire is zero. But we agree that, in this particular case, the (instantaneous) current is not (always) zero, right? What went wrong? (I think this is something different from the fact sometimes summing three-phase RMS AC voltages gives a nonsensical answer, when I neglect phase.) --DavidCary 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Think of it this way... You have a loop. The voltage in the loop will almost certainly be assymetrically distributed, but for simplicity, let's ignore that. There is some total voltage in the loop, call it VT. Divide the loop into some number of pieces, call it N. The voltage in any piece will obviously be VT/N. Each piece is D=T/N long. (or N=T/D) If you want the voltage across some random piece, it would be VT/D. Now, you want to measure the voltage at the short? That will be VT*D/T = V*0 = 0. (D=0, no distance) Oh, and you divided by zero, so any answer you get will also be nonsense. --ssd 14:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't read the second half of your guess. The current will be zero only as long as the connection is open. When you short it out, there WILL be current. That current will be very high, which is why your windings heat up. --ssd 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Further clarification... This is a transformer, not just a wire loop. You can't compare the case of the open winding vs. the closed winding with ohm's law alone, as the open loop has a higher terminal voltage but not much power drain, while the closed loop has a lower voltage (only what ohm's law allows) but a higher power drain. Neither the voltages nor currents between the two cases will be the same, as power will be supplied from the other half of the transformer. Yes, in the closed loop, the sum voltage is zero. Each section of wire will have a voltage drop to balance out the power supplied from the other winding. --ssd 07:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a transformer. I agree that

• open-winding has practically 0 power drain and high terminal voltage
• normal loads with resistance R have lower terminal voltage, with currents and power that can be predicted from ohm's law
• shorted-output (closed loop) has even higher current (and higher I²R power loss). The windings get hot.

Fortunately, my transformer is so small, and has such thin, cheap, high-resistance wire, that it doesn't get hot enough to damage anything. Let's leave it shorted while we talk about what's happening. While I short the output, the output coil is physically a loop of wire, right? "What is the instantaneous voltage at, say, 10 equally spaced points along the output coil?".

The voltage doesn't exist answer to that question goes something like this (is there any other answer?): The voltage a person measures (using an o'scope) from one end to the other end of one little pieces goes up and down like a sine wave. At some instant, each little piece has 100 mV across it. The total voltage all the way around the loop is 1 V, and yet, simultaneously, it is also 0 V. (The "total EMF around a loop" can be calculated exactly using Faraday's law of induction). It seems weird to me to say that the total voltage is 1 V and, at the same instant, at the same place, also 0 V. Is there any alternative that matches what I observe in my (still shorted) transformer? --DavidCary 07:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, this is all wrong. Remember, you are measuring the voltage difference. In the absence of a power source, the voltage difference is a voltage drop. So, it's not 100mv, it's -100mv. The transformer induces 1v, and you are measuring the voltage drop in the segment. 1v - 10*100mv = 0. --ssd 14:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a little picture in my mind -- the hydraulic analogy. That analogy (which is accurate and useful most of the time) doesn't seem to work for shorted-output transformers.

Yes, my o'scope measures the voltage difference from one end to the other end of one part of the output coil, while the whole transformer is shorted and humming. (I should actually build a winding that exposes 10 points, so I can measure for myself, rather than keep it as a thought experiment. Perhaps I'll wind, say, 50 turns, so that each "piece" has 5 revolutions). I agree that, if I wait a half-cycle, there comes a point that I measure -100 mV voltage difference from one end to the other of this piece of wire. At that same instant, I also measure -100 mV voltage difference from one end to the other (in the same direction) of the next piece of the wire loop. (If I measure it the "normal" way. If I wind the o'scope lead around the coil, exactly next to the wire I'm trying to measure, then I see 0 on the o'scope. Or do I have this backwards?). The total voltage I measure from the beginning of the first piece to the end of the next piece is ... what? -200 mV? "What is the instantaneous voltage difference at, say, 10 equally spaced points along the output coil?" --DavidCary 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, it's much worse than that. First, if you wrap the o'scope wire around, unless it is shielded and balanced, it will itself pick up part of the transformer field, so that will throw the measurements off. Second, if the wire is not uniformly picking up the field, the imbalance in the field will probably contribute additional voltage. Only some of the voltage will come from the wire's resistance (v=ir, r is proportional to the wire length). You also have to factor in the power being contributed by the other transformer winding, which will vary depending on if your power supply feeding it is constant voltage, constant current, or neither. --ssd 02:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are all good things to keep in mind. My transformer plugs right into the wall, so the input is nominally 120 VAC. "What is the instantaneous voltage difference at, say, 10 equally spaced points along the (shorted) output coil?" --DavidCary 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed focus

I was surprised to see how the focus of the article changes rapidly as you read into it. I'd suggest putting all the electric power discusions as links to those articles, and leaving "electricity" as more of a discussion of the fundamental physics. Static charge, dynamic charge, all the pith-ball-and-compass-needle history, etc. - and leave applications to other articles. --Wtshymanski 22:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with this thought. Much of the existing material should be moved to specific pages like electric power systems. Of course many links and see also s will be needed but I think we have a responsibility to clear up the mega confusion existing around the word 'electricity' with its multiple meanings.--Light current 08:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I delete a pending task, please?

• Perhaps convert Electricity into a disambiguation stub

I think this would be a disaster. Electricity is a major concept in science. Readers will expect to find a substantial article with that title. If they find anything else, they will think we are wasting their time and will go somewhere else. [I haven't edited the Pending Tasks list yet, because to do that without prior discussion might have seemed arrogant]. --Heron 16:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Scientifically, electricity is a number of different things, but what people usually mean when they say "electricity" is a combination of these different things out of a practical point of view, and that is what this article should be about. --Hymyly^TC 21:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Word coinage

Was the word "electric" or "electricity" coined by anyone named "Electra"?

No. See the "Antiquity" section of this article. --Heron 20:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Electric Power

We have an article Electric power, there's no need to expand this section in the "electricity" article and it would seem more logical (to me, anyway) to work on the electric power article as required, instead of duplicating content here. We don't *have* to put every electrical fact we know into *every* electrical article, when we can organize things so that additional explanation, where required, is only a mouse-click away. --Wtshymanski 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree.--Light current 08:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

Shouldn't all this terminology stuff be up at the top to try to disambiguate all the diffrent meanings of the word?--Light current 13:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Im proposing to move terminology to the top and make it part of the lead in to try to disambiguate as soon as poss on the page. Does anyone have any objections to this?--Light current 01:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This certainly needs doing! The old article answered the question "what is electricity." The present one does not. The present one suffers from the same disease that most textbooks have: they avoid defining the word "electricity," and any user who wants to know what "electricity" is will go away somewhat confused. The present article accidentally reinforces the idea that "electricity" exists. Or at least it does nothing to attack the confusing and incorrect concept. Remember, if "electricity" means energy then it cannot mean "charge," and if it means charge then it cannot mean energy. If the general public misuses the word electricity, we should point out their misuse and not reinforce it by leaving it till the end. --Wjbeaty 04:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

New Page version 13 Sept 05

Would people interested in this page please view the modified version and post their comments on it as it stands now (maybe compared with how it was) Is it better or worse? --Light current 04:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that this article is pretty good as it stands. This is a fundamental subject that is the basis for a lot of other subjects. The article introduces the subject and presents some of the basics. Many of the concepts introduced here are discussed in further detail in other articles (or should be). I will try to put together some more detailed comments.

C J Cowie 22:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the term electricity is most often used as the most general term applied to the phenomena involving electric charges, either static or moving. It is commonly applied to any and all of the subjects that have more specific names, but, in some sense, have electricity as their underlying principle. This is not so much a misuse of the term or a conflict of definitions but a figure of speech.

C J Cowie 19:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"It is commonly applied to any and all subjects," ...is not correct. In truth, the word "electricity" is wrongly applied to any and all subjects. For example, people say that an electric current is a flow of electricity. Then in the same breath they say that flows of electrical energy are flows of "electricity." We have a word for this situation: "a direct contradiction." Electric charge and electric energy are two different things. The problem is simple, if the charges which flow during an electric current are defined as "flowing electricity," then it's wrong to state that electricity is a form of energy. Charge is not energy. Or the other way round: if "electricity" is a form of energy, then an electric current is not a flow of electricity. Yes, people may insist that electricity is energy and also insist that an electric current is a flow of electricity. But if they do this, they are wrong. If Wikipedia implies that electricity is energy and that a current is a flow of electricity, then Wikipedia is wrong. This problem involves the difference between scientific terminology and non-scientific words. Specifically: if millions of people misuse a non-science term, then the misuse becomes slang use and eventually evolves to become the correct use. Majority rules. Language evolves. But if millions of people misuse a scientific term, it remains a misuse always. I.e. if millions of people say that one plus one is three, or say that energy is measured in coulombs... the majority doesn't matter: they remain wrong. Majority doesn't rule. So, if "electricity" is a science term, then it has a narrow definition, and any usage which conflicts with the scientific definition is wrong. Big Question: when people come to Wikipedia and ask "what is electricity?" are they asking for a concise and scientific definition? If so, then we'd better not give them the widespread and muddy misusage, and then pretend that we've answered their question. Let's cut to the chase: if quantity of electricity is measured in coulombs, then electricity is very definitely not a form of energy. If quantity of electricity is measured in coulombs, then any reference book is wrong if it claims that electricity is a form of energy. And how do scientists use the term? They avoid it! But this wasn't always the case. See Scientists definition of Electricity --Wjbeaty 05:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nuna Solar powered vehicle

Nuna is the name of a series of manned solar powered race cars that won the World solar challenge in Australia five times, of which four times in a row: in 2001 (Nuna 1 or just Nuna), 2003 (Nuna 2), 2005 (Nuna 3), 2007 (Nuna 4) and 2013 (Nuna 7). The Nunas are built by students who are part of the Nuon Solar Team at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.

"Nuna" is also the Icelandic word "now."

Exactly What Is This Intended To Convey To The Reader?

For historical reasons, electric current is said to flow from the most positive part of a circuit to the most negative part. The electric current thus defined is called conventional current. It is now known that, depending on the type of conductor, an electric current can consist of a flow of charged particles in either direction, or even in both directions at once. The positive-to-negative convention is widely used to simplify this situation. If another definition is used - for example, "electron current" - it should be explicitly stated.

I'm a trained and (until recently) practicing electrician for 20 years and have no idea what this passage is intended to convey. Conventional current flows positive to negative. Electrons actually flow negative to positive. What are these "charged particles"? Cosmic rays? Either this is a very confused passage, or if it's intended to discuss something more obscure like charge distribution on the surfaces of insulators, charges in semiconductors or Cooper pairs in superconductors or whatnot, it surely has no place in an article generically entitled "electricity". --82.71.30.178

I agree. If positively-charged particles are involved, then certainly there can be flow from + to −, but without a specific example, that passage is confusing. Actually, it's poorly written and so confusing in general. (I added "82.71.30.178" to the above for clarity.) —BenFrantzDale 03:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm a double-E and a physics person, so does that mean that my creds trump yours? (Why even mention such things?!!) But seriously, a general article on electricity is exactly where a general definition of electric current and direction of current belongs. A general definition of "flowing electricity" includes all possible charge flows. (I hope you're not one of the folks with the misconception that that electric current is a flow of electrons. If you do have this misconception, then certainly the correct information is going to appear confusing to you.) Perhaps that statement is too short? Here's the full-blown story: during electric currents in ocean water, and currents in electrolytes such as battery acid, and in human tissue, the electric current is entirely composed of negatively-charged atoms flowing in one direction and positively-charged atoms flowing simultaneously in the opposite direction. No electrons can flow in salt water (the lifetime of bare electrons in salt water is measured in nanoseconds.) When in ionized gases (such as fluorescent tubes, sparks, neon signs,) electric current is partly made of bare electrons flowing in one direction, and some of the current is made of positively charged gas atoms flowing opposite, and some is made of negatively charged gas atoms flowing in the same direction as the electrons, but at a much lower velocity. In other words... the direction of the flowing particles depends on the type of conductor. A very simple statement. And in my opinion only confusing if for some reason you think it's wrong. Even more important as a concept: ELECTRIC CURRENT is defined as FLOW OF CHARGED PARTICLES. Which charged particles? Any. Any at all. We don't have to say which. Electric current MEANS "flowing charged particles," period, end of story. But here are examples: if we have some charged dust blowing in the wind, THAT is an electric current. If we have some positive hydrogen ions flowing through frozen water (e.g. bare protons flowing through ice,) THAT is a "flow of electricity". Back in the days of Ben Franklin the scientists thought that there might only be one kind of "electricity" flowing inside conductors. They were wrong. So to compress all of this into a couple of sentences: "It is now known that electric current can involve charged particles flowing in either direction or even both directions at once. It depends on the type of conductor involved." The statement is brief, concise, and correct. Can you further explain why you think it's confusing? This is a general article, and I think a list of examples is inappropriate and should only appear in specialized articles about electric charge or electric current. --Wjbeaty 04:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

When teaching I worked with a lot of military trained people, who used the less common "hole flow" convention. They drew arrows representing current in the opposite direction as "electron flow" convention. In the "electron flow" convention, current is drawn from a positive voltage to a negative one. The quantum view Wjbeaty was trying to show is a lot more complicated for the layman than it needs to be. Charge movement and power flow are two different terms and are abstractions of the actual motion of electrons and positive ions. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that backwards? In my experience it's the military people who commonly use "electron flow," while science and engineering people use Conventional Current assumed to have positive charge flow. You're also backwards in claiming that electrons flow from positive voltage to negative. And about "quantum," I think you're using distorting labels, since this has nothing to do with complicated concepts in QM, and everything to do with standards. As with metric measurements, things are easy if we adopt a single standard, but they become confusing if we try to switch back and forth between two competing standards. As far as most circuit calculations are concerned, it doesn't matter whether we assume that the standardized charge carriers are positive or negative. So what ARE the standards? Scientists and engineers use Conventional Current. Technicians (especially vacuum tube technicians and military ones) go the opposite, assuming that the only mobile charges are the electrons, and they reject the use of Conventional Current. This creates a sort of "religious war" where one side claims intellectual superiority and develops hatred for the competing belief system. I've encountered this personally many times. Many technicians trained in "electron flow" worldview actively hate engineers who use Conventional Current. Further... if this was to be an argument over which view is really correct, then neither view is correct, because neither view is real. During actual electric currents, flowing particles can include both polarities of moving charges depending on the material doing the conducting. In other words, whenever we deal with vacuum tubes, semiconductor currents, electrochemistry, and particle accelerators, we must abandon our simplifying assumptions such as Conventional Current or "electron current", and instead must deal with the real motions of real charged particles, whatever they may be. It's only when we deal with groups of connected black-box components that we can pretend that all charge carriers have the same polarity. But when analyzing what occurs inside any particular component, confusion will be caused by any assumption that charge carriers MUST be positive, or MUST all be negative. --Wjbeaty 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Hole flow current from neg to pos. Electron, conventional flow from positive to negative. Those guys get uppity about hole flow, I know it. Dominick ^(TALK) 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the above. This has nothing to do with hole flow at all! If we want to deal with REAL particle flows, then the current in electrolytes and plasmas is always composed of positive and negative charges flowing in opposite directions. Only in metals and in vacuum tubes is it nice and simple single-polarity particles. So, whenever we say that there's 10mA flowing in a human body during a shock, or there's 10 amps in the liquid in your electroplating tank, what the hell are we talking about, since in both those situations there is a certain amperage of negative charges going one way, and a different amperage of positive charges going the other way. Yet we insist on simplifing this, and we say that there's just one current (it's the current measured by an amp meter.) That single current simplifies everything. It lets us think about circuits in sensible terms, without having to confront the REAL particle flows.--Wjbeaty 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Thomas Edison has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for this article and help improve it to featured status. --Fenice 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speed of electric current

Can we specify it somewhere. I believe it is almost equal to the speed of electromagnetic waves. Charlie 08:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See Electric current#The speed of an electric current. --Heron 14:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Velocity of propagation. It's a per-medium thing, and affects impedance and refractive index. --ssd 07:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that the "speed of current" is incredibly slow. This is a cause for confusion because most people don't recognize the difference between the stuff that flows, versus the motion of that stuff. For example, when a water-filled hose is attached to a backyard faucet and turned on, the water flows quite slowly, yet a *wave* of motion will propagate almost instantly to the far end of the hose, and water will squirt almost instantly from the end. Obviously there is a great difference between water and "propagating waves of flow-initiation." Things are similar in electric circuits: an electric current is a very slow flow of electric charges, yet the charge flow begins almost instantly. The "wave of flow-initiation" propagates along wires at a large fraction of the speed of light.--Wjbeaty 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The "electric bulb" in the Dendera Temple is a complete misunderstanding of the relief. It shows an electric eel in a jar and the purpose is to give a patient electric boy treatment!

John Larsson (jl[at]ing.dk)

abbreviations for electricity units

Are these all shown correctly (usually in upper case)? I have seen v for volt. I thought W meant west, while watts were w.

West and Watts are used together so infrequently that there's not much harm in using the same symbol for both. Electrical engineering uses so many different variables that they ran out of normal letters and then ran out of greek letters too. Symbol reuse within EE is a problem that must be danced around carefully. It happens. --ssd 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the question, yes, they are all shown correctly. W is for watts, V is for volts; any other variations are wrong. --Heron 20:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been told that units (such as Kelvins K and Volts V) named after people (such as Lord Kelvin and Voltaire) are capitalized. Other units (such as meters m and seconds s) are lowercase. But perhaps I'm mis-remembering. I do know that in some classes, teachers use lowercase variables (such as i) to represent instantaneous values (such as current at a particular instant), uppercase variables (I) to represent average values (average current). Distinguishing i from I, both measured in Amperes (A) wasn't too bad. But distinguishing v from V, both measured in Volts (V), was a bit tricky, especially for someone with my handwriting. --DavidCary 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your definitely right, capitals for units named after people such as Ampere and Ohm. Lower cases are used for specific values (/kg) of things but I don't see how this applies in electricity. -- 15 June 2006

No, you're not right. The full names of all SI units are in lower case, whether they are named after people or not. See the official SI brochure. --Heron 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I reading it wrong? The example shows that the correct use of Celsius is with a capital, because it is named after a person. -- 3 July 2006

The SI unit of Celsius temperature is the degree Celsius, with begins with a small d. It is equal in magnitude to the SI unit of thermodynamic temperature, the kelvin, which begins with a small k. It's all in the SI brochure. --Heron 17:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

energy flow

Have you seen this one? Pretty. IN A SIMPLE CIRCUIT, WHERE DOES THE ENERGY FLOW? by William Beaty

Lead picture

What exactly is this picture intended to show?--Light current 03:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, what is Wires.jpg supposed to show? This photo was obviously taken because of the unusual fluff balls on the power lines, but the caption completely glosses over them. —Deadcode 07:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. What are those fluffy balls any way? THeyre not birds nests are they? Picture is confusing . I think it should go.--Light current 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

I think this article is getting near to FA standard but we need more references and citations. Any offers?--Light current 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

Now heres a question I'm not sure if it can be found elsewhere, but does electricity travel in cold weather like under 20 degrees celsius? please someone edit this page with an answer!!! Much appreciated in advance. Question from 87.228.136.253 moved from article page. --C J Cowie 16:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Electric current does flow in cold weather. There is generally less resistance to current flow at colder temperatures. At very cold temperatures, some materials become superconductors and their resistance is nearly zero. --C J Cowie 16:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians

I remember hearing somewhere (perhaps more than one place) a while ago that there is evidence that the ancient Egyptians may have actually discovered the secrets of electricity. I heard that they found copper wiring in some of the buildings or something like that. Is this true, or am I confusing it with something else, or what? bob rulz 19:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You might be thinking of the Baghdad battery (not in Egypt, but possibly an ancient battery) or the Dendera light (in Egypt, but only nutcases believe that it was an electrical device). --Heron 20:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that answers my question. bob rulz 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oersted not mentioned

There was a significant contribution by Hans Christian Oersted that is not mentioned at all in this article on electricity.

Circa 1820 he first noticed the relation between electric current and magnetic field and wrote a short paper that was widely circulated.

Much of the work of Faraday and Henry depends on this discovery of Oersted.

Mention him!--Light current 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ebenezer Kinnersley !!??

The inventor of positiv and negativ was either Franklin or Kinnersley?! That's not fact!

References

If we had a few, this would make a good FAC!--Light current 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Removals from Page

Removed from page by User:DV8 2XL THey look abit like school notes. Put here in case any use can be made of them. I doubt it really. --Light current 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC) What is electricity?

Atoms and electrons Diagram 1 All matter is made up of atoms. In the centre of an atom is a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons. Surrounding the nucleus there is a lot of empty space with tiny particles called electrons orbiting. Neutrons have no electrical charge, protons carry a positive charge and electrons are negatively charged. The positive and negative charges attract each other.

Static electricity and current electricity Diagram 2.1

Electrons can be freed from their orbit around the nucleus, and made to move. Rubbing objects can cause electrons to be added or removed from the object. The object then becomes charged because it no longer has the same number of electrons as protons. In the example shown in diagram 2.1, when a perspex rod is rubbed with a silk cloth, electrons move from the rod to the cloth, leaving the rod positively charged, and the cloth negatively charged.

Diagram 2.2 - Attraction

When electrons are moved to or from an object, that object becomes charged. This means it may attract or repel other objects, for example, if the now positively charged rod is placed near your hair, it will cause the electrons in your hair to move towards the end of the hair (see diagram 2.2). Your hair will become attracted to the positive charged rod making it stand up. If a silk cloth is used to rub two ping-pong balls that are suspended close together, they lose electrons to the silk cloth and the ping-pong balls both become positively charged, repel each other and move apart.

Static electricity occurs when electric charges build up on an object, but the electric charges cannot move around.

There is another type of electricity, current electricity, which consists of a continuous flow of electrons. It requires a source of electrons and a pathway to carry or conduct them. The source of electrons might be a battery or a generator.

Current electricity must flow along a pathway, usually metal, called a conductor. A bulb or an electric appliance may be part of that pathway. Electrons are returned to the battery or generator along the pathway completing the electric circuit.

ActewAGL uses copper or aluminium for its conductors.Some materials prevent the flow of electrons and are called insulators.

Voltage Current electricity flows because there is a difference in electrical pressure or potential between two points along a conductor. This potential difference is called voltage. Electrons flow from an area of high potential to a point of lower potential or voltage through a continuous circle or circuit.

Series and parallel circuits

Diagram 3 - Series Circuit An electric circuit is a combination of metal conductors and equipment that can include things such as switches and electric appliances. These circuits can be connected in two ways, either in series or in parallel.

Diagram 4 - Parallel Circuit A series circuit is when the electrons only have one path to travel along, like a string of lights on a Christmas tree (see diagram 3). If one light globe does not work, then the whole circuit is broken and will not work.

A parallel circuit gives electricity a choice of paths to flow along. A parallel circuit has the advantage that if one globe does not work, then all the other globes stay alight (see diagram 4). Houses are wired in parallel circuits.

Direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC) Diagram 5

Electric circuits can be connected to either a direct current (DC) or an alternating current (AC) electricity supply. In a direct current, the stream of electrons flow in only one direction around the circuit, from the negative terminal to the positive terminal (see diagram 5). The current that flows in a circuit connected to a battery will be a direct current.

Diagram 6

Most electric circuits are connected to an alternating current, where electricity is generated by power stations and supplied through power points. The electrons move backwards and forwards around an electric circuit in this case (see diagram 6).

Diagram 5 shows that electrons flow from the negative terminal to the positive terminal. In the early days, the concept of electron flow was not fully understood so scientists randomly decided that current in a conductor flowed from the positive terminal and into the negative terminal. It is still convention today to show current flowing in this direction (ie. opposite to electron flow).

What is electricity?

The first sentence of the Electricity entry has become corrupt:

Electricity is a property of matter that results from the presence or movement of electric charge.

It's certainly true that there is a property of matter called "electric charge," and scientists have historically used "charge" and "electricity" interchangably. But in that case we'd say that Electricity is electric charge, period, end of story. On the other hand, many other references insist that bioelectricity and atmospheric electricity are different "kinds of electricity." And most children's textbooks insist that "electricity" means charge-flow rather than charge.

The present WP definition above is wrong because it's a combination of two distinct and contradictory meanings for "electricity." If Electricity is a class of phenomenon associated with the presence or motion of electric charge, then electricity cannot be a property of matter. Charge is a property of matter, and electrical phenomena are not charge.

Let's improve things. One possibility is to use the scientific definition of electricity, where quantities of electricity are measured in Coulombs. Unfortunately this definition is becoming archaic and is no longer used. (Search google for the number of hits on "coulombs of electricity" versus "kwh of electricity" and you'll see what I mean.) Maybe we could use WP to force everyone to start using the original scientific meaning of electricity, but it's probably a huge uphill battle.

Since the greater world uses multiple contradictory definitions for the word "electricity," I think it would be best to avoid deciding which one is "right" or "scientific" and which ones are "wrong." Instead we should be up-front about the problem. We could simply be honest and point out that the word Electricity has several conflicting definitions, so Electricity is neither a charge nor an energy nor a class of phenomena.

FYI, here are the three separate and contradictory meanings of Electricity:

1. Electricity means electric charge. Electricity is a property of matter, and quantity of electricity is measured in Coulombs

2. Electricity means electromagnetic field energy. The quantity of electricity is measured in Joules or KWH. "Electricity" is the same thing as light and radio waves, but of much lower frequency.

3. Electricity means the flow of electric charge. When electrons stop flowing, "electricity" goes away. The quantity of electricity is measured in Amperes or Coulombs/sec.

4. Electricity is a field of science and a class of phenomenon similar to "geology" or "government." We cannot measure quantities of myoelectricity or triboelectricity, any more than we can measure the quantity of optics or weather.

...and here are definitions from earlier WP entries for Electricity:

1. Electricity, also called electric charge, is a fundamental property of matter, and gives rise to many well-known physical phenomena such as lightning, electric fields, electric currents and electric power.

2. Electricity is a general term applied to phenomena involving a fundamental property of matter called an electric charge

3. Electricity is a property of certain subatomic particles (e.g. electrons / protons) which couples to electromagnetic fields and causes attractive and repulsive forces between them. Electricity gives rise to one of the four fundamental forces of nature, and is a conserved property of matter that can be quantified. In this sense, the phrase "quantity of electricity" is used interchangeably with the phrases "charge of electricity" and "quantity of charge."

I like #2 above the best. I'd be bold and change it back to this myself, but perhaps the Wikipedian who began this talk topic deserves the honor, and perhaps it deserves further discussion. Whatever the case, I agree that electricity is not usually thought of as "a property of matter." Mass, charge, "color"--these are properties of matter: they can quantifiably be used to describe different kinds of matter. I've never heard anyone say that a brick of gold or a glass of water had yea-much "electricity". Robert K S 13:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the sentence that's being complained about [1], and I accept that it's wrong because it mixes up two different definitions. Like Robert K S, I prefer #2 immediately above, which agrees nicely with the article's second paragraph, under 'Concepts in electricity'. I think I'll change it now, on the principle that removing factual errors is more important than worrying about who gets the honour. --Heron 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the phrase "general term" and just came up with an analogy which clarifies the situation. The word "crane" has more than one meaning. Should we say the following? "Crane" is a general term referring to feathered migratory construction equipment whose main diet is frogs and small fish. Cranes are commonly found in wetlands as well as construction sites for tall buildings.

Since the word "electricity" has more than one distinct meaning in widespread use, I don't think it's proper to say that it's really a class of phenomena or a general term like "optics" or like "government." And if we were to pick a single definition, well, scientists have long used "flow of electricity" to mean electric current, and "quantities of electricity" to mean quantities of charges of electricity(!) But several other definitions are far more commonly used than the scientific one: electricity is energy, and electricity is the movement of charge, and electricity is a field of science. Shouldn't the WP entry reflect these actual uses, rather than pretending that there can be just one electricity? If electricity can flow, and electricity is also a field of science, then there can be no general term, any more than there is a general term for "crane." --Wjbeaty 01:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Franklin and Kites

Benjamin Franklin says: "On June 15, Franklin conducted his famous kite experiment in Philadelphia and also successfully extracted sparks from a cloud (unaware that Dalibard had already done so, 36 days earlier)". Electricity says that this story is "more fiction than fact". I suspect that the Franklin article is correct, but in any case the two should be brought into agreement. NewEnglandYankee 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Zero-carbon electricity

I think we would include information about zero-carbon electricity in Wikipedia. --HybridBoy 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Propose it as a new article, and make it should, not would. Slartibartfast1992 20:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What is "zero-carbon electricity"?? — Omegatron 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

Almost imediatelly following my last 1 week semi-protection of this page, a pattern of only anon_vandalize-revert-anon_vandalize-revert edits (re)started and persisted for almost a week. So I semi-protected it again, now for 2 weeks. - Nabla 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And it's going on again, obviously. I've requested a permanent semi-protect. --Steve Pucci | talk 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "Electric"

Could it be noted that in the Kentucky-Ohio-Indiana area the adjective "electric" is often used as a noun meaning "electricity"? (i.e. "We need to get the electric turned on in our new apartment.") ·:RedAugust 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that in New England too, but since this is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, I'm not sure it belongs. Also, it would need a source. --Gerry Ashton 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only original meaning of "electric" was a noun, though not in the sense you mean. Amber or plastic is "an electric" while iron is "a non-electric". See Webster's 1828 definition. "Electricity", then, was "the property of being like an electric". Electricity is to electric as elasticity is to elastic. I've been writing about this in Etymology of electricity. — Omegatron 00:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A Simple Approach?

For those of us for whom all things physics-related are complicated, could we have a laymans article on electricity? I appreciate the need for accurate technical information, but I think there is a definate need for a well-written article along the lines of 'An Introduction to Electricity' - think middle school, not post-grad? Narkboy 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with this one? — Omegatron 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why electricity works

Is the adage "no one really knows why electricity works true"? I keep finding it but really can't find an answer either way. Feedback and maybe adding something to the entry would be nice. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.126.103.25 (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There are fundamental theories, such as Maxwell's equations, which predict the behavior of electricity very well. The theory of quantum mechanics also applies to electricity. Both of these theories work, but intuitively, they seem very different. Some people feel that there ought to be a theory that combines these different ideas, but if there is, it has not been found yet. --Gerry Ashton 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

transmit or transmission

This is the talking Japanese originated words rather than gairaigo, but I would like to your help for definition. For these, transmit or transmission, Japanese has two words. "tensou 転送" literally refer to sending with roll out, apply to transmission between PC and peripheral equipment(s) without signal form change such as without modulation, transmit anything in very proximity or short distance, or transfer mail, cargo, a thing with form or style as it is, or without change. Another word "densou　伝送" literally refer to send or relay with telling or talking/speaking, apply to transmit signal with modulation and this "densou" apply to communication technology area only. not use like to do "densou" the cargo. "tensou" the cargo is correct usage in Japanese. If engineer use "tensou" for telecommunication which send to far distance location, he is not expert in Japan, he should use "densou" instead.My question is, is there different word(s) to discriminate above two condition which Japanese does? English term Transmit or transmission is seems used for any sending regardless of distance and with or without modulation/demodulation take place. Also Japanese have another word for Electricity transmission, "souden" literally means "send Electricity" with two Chinese letter "send"+ "Electricity". Japanese electricity or electronics engineer use these three terms in different meaning actually reflect different property or manipulation.--Namazu-tron 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at this time. There are numerous issues with manual of style compliance, the lead section, overall lack of reference citations, and completeness & organizational issues. I'm not sure exactly where to begin; it appears that the article needs a complete overhaul.

The lead is mainly just a big list. The 'history of electricity' doesn't seem very accurate here. Maybe just 'history', although it's not just the history of electricity we're talking about -- it's really the discovery of electricity, so perhaps this section header should be called 'discovery'. (not 'discovery of electricity', since the article title should not appear in section headers, per WP:MSH).

The subsection under the current history section (current, potential, etc), should be moved into their own main sections. These sections actually deal more with the science of electricity than history or discovery.

The 'see also' section is very long, and many of these items would probably be better integrated into a section in the article. For example, it might be good to have a new section called 'applications', discussing how electricity is used, in both nature and in human industry.

References should be formatted per WP:CITE. There's also only a single reference, which is far from complete.

There's a lot of external links. Some of this information could be used as inline reference citations instead, which might help to prune them a bit. Review WP:EL for tips on including external links in articles.

I think there's quite a bit more that can be improved in the article, but hopefully this will provide a good starting point. I would recommend referring to one of the article's wikiprojects for assistance on the article's reorganization. Good luck! Dr. Cash 05:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)