Talk:War of the currents

article is appallingly biased

This article is appallingly biased. It does the usual Teslaphile nonsense of attributing the entire development of the AC power system to one man. The reality is that functioning commerical AC power systems existed before Tesla even arrived in the US, never mind starting work there as an electrical engineer. Tesla's main practical contribution was an efficient AC motor. Securiger 13:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You may have a point, in which case I suggest you edit the article accordingly. My own understanding was that the AC system was mostly the work of Westinghouse. However what is undeniable is that the AC system is technically superior in almost every respect to the DC system, so the overall slant of the article is correct. There is no debate these days over which is superior, so if by "bias" you mean not giving the DC system a fair hearing, I don't think there's an engineering case there that can be made. Graham 23:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not criticising AC (although there are a few areas where DC is preferred - see HVDC - AC certainly is superior in general). It's all the Teslaphile stuff. The reason I lost my cool and had a little rant here rather than just editing, is that it seems to be spreading to nearly every article about AC (in fact I got here immediately after cleaning up another article in the same vein). And that's before you even get to the main [[Category:Nikola Tesla]] articles, like Nikola Tesla itself - protected due to Balkan ethnicity edit wars, so there's no chance to clean up the claims about inventing radar, X-rays, death rays, computers, free universal power and so on. Securiger 00:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Clean up the claims about inventing radar, X-rays, death rays, computers, free universal power and so on? No need to ... but I'll surely verify contributions to those topics. JDR 05:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) (PS, I'd review most of his patents before you do so)

The Tesla article series (the stuff in the category) was originally text from a Tesla fan site, so it's not surprising it'll be biased ... hacking with references will do wonders for it, I think ;-) - David Gerard 00:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Tesla article series was not originally text from a Tesla fan site (having wrote the majority of the series).

How is it "biased"? This article [originally] was based off of edison's and Telsa's articles.

I look forward to the "hacking with references".

JDR

JDR, I have a busy week coming up, so I'll have to get back to you. However briefly:

• Claims about inventing radar, X-rays, death rays, computers and free universal power require cleaning up because they are at best gross exaggerations and frequently nonsense. No, I haven't read all 700 or so of Tesla's patents, and I have no intention of doing so. But I have read several of the ones that Teslaphiles allege to support various claims. In each instance where I have so far checked in detail I have found the claims to be flatly wrong, and the claimant simply doesn't understand the paper. For example, US patent 645576 is often claimed to be the proof that Tesla invented radio communication prior to Marconi, and was accepted as such by US courts to invalidate Marconi's patents. I have read this patent in detail, and the claims about it are clearly untrue. It doesn't even discuss electromagnetic waves, never mind radio communication. If the court was not deliberately dishonest (which is widely believed to be the case), then they were confused by the difference between electromagnetic waves and plasma currents.
• You ask How is it "biased"? This article [originally] was based off of edison's and Telsa's articles. You are joking, right? The Tesla article is one of the worst examples! It was recently protected due to edit wars over disputed facts! In it's talk page, there are no less than six seperate sections disputing the factuality of the article (that is, the technical factuality; there is even more dispute about biographic details), including a long section I added. Plus, it makes extensive use of weasel words like "may have", "suggests", and "reportedly" to pump up Tesla while avoiding outright lies about unsupportable or excessively exaggerated claims. Ah, I have just noticed you replied to my dispute on that Talk page; I missed it in the Balkan edit wars, and will look at it tomorrow. However, I can see this is going to be a long hard slog; we are not going to agree quickly, so I have added a disputed tag to the page. Securiger 05:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tesla is a fascinating character, and I wrote a long article about his work on high-frequency current [1]. However, Securiger's cautions should be taken to heart. There is a current fad, almost a cult, of exaggerating Tesla's work. Tesla himself, like all celebrity inventors of his era, promoted himself aggressively and may have been less than honest about some of his experimental results with wireless power. It's also become fashionable to villify Edison. Folks like Lawrence Lessig have made Edison the ugly poster child for the anti-patent movement, but that is politics not history. Let's honor Tesla and Edison by reporting their lives and work accurately. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Not Have a New Section Within the Article on Bias?

Or call it something like, The War of the Currents Continues.

In the U.S. Edison's name and face are everywhere despite the fact that it was he who lost the War of the Currents to Westinghouse and Tesla. Edison is mythologized as a giant as the "inventor of the light bulb" as if there is only one thing that is a light bulb. Note that the Edison entry says he was the inventor of "a long lasting light bulb" which is quite different from what American school children are taught. Some may say this description of "a" light bulb that "was the primary type of bulb in use for a long time" (is this what "long-lasting" means?) is biased (It will be interesting to check to see if the Wiki editor who wrote that description has also contributed to Tesla articles.) U.S. children are not taught about the Current Wars or thet there was even a choice and for all they know, things are as they are thanks only to Edison. Edison's public, circus-style electrocutions of dogs, cats, and (one) elephant, along with his work on the electric chair, his conviction of the scientific correctness of his own ideas over those of a foreigner outweighing his own moral conviction that capital punishment is wrong, all all conveniently left out of American history and the U.S. indoctrination system. The Wikipedia Tesla entry may be accused by some of bias on Edison as inventor of "the" lightbulb, in that it includes a patent for a light bulb that needs no wires, practically identical to the screw-in type that is the only type most of us know. There are no rock bands in the U.S. called Edison, as far as my limited awareness extends. That a group of rock-and-rollers (young rebels. bucking the Establishment?) would choose to call themselves Tesla is only possible a unique identifier or useful as a means of differentiation from the masses in a world where Tesla himself has largely been erased from history in an almost Stalinist fashion. The U.S. government wouldn't hire him in his later years, he was dismissed as a Mad Scientist, and yet the government immediately seized all his papers and effects on the day he was discovered dead and declared them "top secret." I guess the Wikipedia entries on Tesla all immediately refer to his ethnicity as a Serb and then much later on get to the facts that he did most of his work in the U.S.; his patents were mostly issued by the U.S. government; his (U.S.) radio patent was upheld as valid (against a challenge by a rival) by the U.S. Supreme Court; he was a U.S. citizen, and died in the U.S. But they never say, as they should, right up top, "Tesla was an American scientist and engineer." Indeed he was. Why has the United States essentially refused to claim him as an American scientist? I believe this is due to prejudice against Eastern Europeans; Edison was Dutch and English, the two highest-status ethnicities in the U.S. If George Westinghouse had not bought Tesla's patents and processess and championed the cause; if Tesla himself had been the only opposition to Edison, we'd all be using DC power today. On Wikipedia the bias in favor of Tesla in related entries seems to be moved forward by those Tesla fans who just happen to favor the underdog and those who share his nationality, and finally, as mentioned in the talk pages here, those who say that ultimately the bias is borne out by history inasmuch as Tesla's arguments for AC ultimately won out. As for my own bias, I certainly like to side with the underdog, especially if he turns out to be right. On the other hand, Edison was and is a man worthy of admiration. But if anybody has any documented sources for a current bias debate or any historical explanation of the bias for or against Tesla or Edison, we could have a new section here. RUReady2Testify 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a largely a choice made ages ago and it trickles down as an economy grows around it. Name one home appliance which does not use a rectifier today Take this example, the bulb, the fan and a couple of other things like maybe the radio were the only things which existed during the "War of currents" era. Who predicted the TV and the Comps and the Microwaves, all of which today internally have an SMPS and work on 48V DC, funnily :)) People jumpstarted on AC, and which is why electronics was born, to solve the problem around AC.. else that billion dollar industry would be dead, right? :) Finally the choices are, from an instituional perspective about money and how to spread the wealth. My father saw the last remains of 240V DC while he grew up too, and those fans and those lights worked just as well (hang the fact that the brushes were a problem... the regulators and the AC fans slowing down due to coil magnetization today are a probably a bigger problem). So it is all about time and history, practically probably with solar cells today, DC will have a brighter future... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.194 (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

AC vs. DC

Someone (User:cataclysm) recently took it upon himself to change the section where the basic advantage of AC over DC is discussed. Yes, AC is slightly more efficient than DC due to the effect mentioned, and high frequencies better than low - but this is NOT the principal reason why AC is used instead of DC. The overwhelming advantage of AC is that it can be transformed to a high voltage and high voltage/low current distribution will only suffer relatively minor power losses due to line resistance. Besides, this explantion can be understood easily by the layman (remember, our dear readers?) whereas the electron behaviour that transfers the charge is a far more esoteric effect (and wrongly given, in this context). Graham 06:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the discussion of Ohm's law didn't do much for AC vs. DC, as it applies equally to both. Maybe this could be moved. These days, DC-DC inverters can easily change the voltage of a DC supply (and are small enough to fit in laptop displays) - I guess this is a bit out of context as DC-DC inverters weren't available at the time. I kinda hoped my explanation was accessible, but obviously not (I guess that's what you get for hanging around with engineers). I would say that the transmission loss in DC vs. AC is a more significant problem than voltage conversion as far as infrastructure goes... could you imagine a power station every block, with a fuel supply etc.? On a personal note I think "took it upon himself" and "wrongly given, in this context" is a bit harsh. Yours, Cataclysm 06:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the personal remarks, on reflection they probably are a bit harsh. I wasn't contesting that what you wrote was factually correct, just whether it was appropriate in this context. The high voltage/low current does apply equally to AC and DC of course, but it was the simple ability to transform AC to a high voltage using a transformer that allowed power distribution over any worthwhile distance at the end of the 19th century, and so was instrumental in its rapid adoption worldwide. This was an era long before DC-DC converters were conceived of, as you rightly point out. Also, a DC-DC converter does not easily approach the efficiency of a simple transformer, which can easily be 98%+, so even if we were starting now with inventing a power distribution system, AC would still be chosen, but not for the reason you put forward. For the record I thought your explantion was accessible enough - just irrelevant in the context of the "war of currents", at which time I doubt this physical difference was even known. Perhaps your contribution would find a better home at alternating current? Graham 12:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In central business districts, DC was used very successfully for many years. A 120 or 120/240 volt network was installed below street level with a network vault outside major buildings. Heavy fused leads carried the current into the building to the building panel, and circuits from there went to all the floors to operate lights, the elevator, fans, pumps, toasters, vacuum cleaners, radios, and all manner of office equipment. A 10 story building might be thus served by 120/240 volt DC risers. A massive central battery maintained the current if the generators all failed simultaneously. Rotary converters were used to convert DC to AC or AC to DC or AC of 60 Hz to AC of lower frequency for railroads. Customers loved the continuity of the power, which remained on through power storms and failures of a transmission cable, since the transmission was redundant and the distribution had battery backup. Eventually, by the 1930's engineers at GE and Westinghouse developed Network Protector switches and relays which allowed the replacement of the DC network by a low voltage senondary AC network, at 120 volts per phase or 208 volts between phases. The protector closed automatically when the transformer was energized on the high side and the phase relationship was correct for power to lflow to the secondary low voltage grid. Continuity of power to the customer was achieved by the fact that four or more 12kv AC lines could be used to power several transformers each at various spots around the grid, which could be many blocks by many blocks. Such a grid might go for decades without even a momentary interruption, unlike normal AC service where a line can be interrupted by lightning or tree contact, or an underground line by cable failure. The grid would continue to be supplied by the remaining lines, and the network protector would open automatically to isolate the faulted primary. Secondary faults would literally burn clear, with 50,000 amps or so of available fault current. When the changeover from DC grid to AC grid was made, the customer did not notice any change for the most part. Universal motors worked on AC as well as DC, and mercury rectifiers were supplied to power big DC motors. With AC available, building transformer vaults were added as well as spot networks on various floors of high rises. This part of the history should be added to the article, I think, with suitable references. Most of the Wikipedia articles give the impression that DC distribution was abandoned by the end of the 19th century, which was certainly not the case for central business districts of many large cities around the world. Edison 21:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, rotary converters, in different forms, were used for AC/DC conversion. Also, generators (AC or DC) in series, electrically isolated, to get higher voltages. And a little later, and at lower power such is in cars, vibrators were used for DC to AC conversion. They were especially needed for vacuum tube car radios. Much fun and variety in designs, until things settled down to what we see today. Gah4 (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

DC alive if not well

As of late June, 2007, the article claims: "In January 2005, Consolidated Edison announced that it would cut off DC service to its remaining 1600 customers (all in Manhattan) by the end of the year." While literally true, that is not particularly interesting. As with many prior "final cutoffs," the one named was abandoned. At www.coned.com/sales/business/bus_elec.asp, a reader will find that Con Ed went for the gold instead, proposing surcharges ranging from $588 to $91,000 per year plus $0.0231 per kWh, approved in part. This was an increase from previous suracharges starting at $385 per month (Jay Romano, A push to unplug DC power, NY Times, March 18, 2001).

I wish

I wish the article title was War of the currents - would seem to be better English. --Wtshymanski 20:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Edison

Interesting article, It is funny how most modern power transmission text books always site the fact that DC is indeed more efficent over long distances. Funny how we go around in circles........

It is today, but only because the technology now exists to convert power into high voltage DC (though usually from AC). Unlike AC, DC does not suffer losses due to shunt capacitance and series inductance. The ability to use high voltage DC was not available to Edison. 86.157.210.153 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

First Transmission between Cities?

This article states that the first transmission of electric power between cities was from Niagara Falls to Buffalo in 1896, but that is incorrect. Power was transmitted from an AC power plant in Oregon City to Portland, Oregon, in 1889.

Nope, 1891, in Germany - I'll look up the reference. --17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is still curious, check out International Electro-Technical Exhibition - 1891. also see Ames Hydroelectric Generating Plant, 1890, but that's not between cities. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Folsom Powerhouse in Folsom, CA is a National Mechanical Engineering Landmark and a National Historic Landmark for the longest 3-phase high-voltage AC transmission up to that time. It first transmitted to Sacramento, CA, 21 miles away, on July 13, 1895. While there is some dispute over whether this is actually the longest up to that time, it is certainly before Niagara Falls' 1896 date. Also--according to Wikipedia's article on General Electric, Thomson Houston and GE merged in 1892. This article strongly implies that the merger and GE's production of AC generators was after Niagara Falls powerplant. Not true! In fact, the Folsom Powerhouse (now a California State Historic Park) still has its 1895 AC generators. 207.114.244.5 (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I know the discussion over this article has died down but after stumbling upon it, I felt compelled to comment. This article does seem to be excessively favoring Tesla, (e.g. a section is called Edison's Propaganda). I would like for this article to perhaps be examined by electrical experts because there seems to be no other way to untangle and remove the issue of bias without affecting the article.--Jonthecheet 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The bias is only legitimate. If Edison had his way, he would've had AC banned. --Amit 08:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Tesla was not closely involved in the electrification of Niagara Falls. He sold Westinghouse his patent and had a Chief Engineer title, but spent his time experimenting with high voltage , high frequency effects in his New York lab. Westinghouse was producing AC at around 130 hz when Tesla sold him the motor patent, and Tesla could not get his motors to work satisfactorily at that frequency. But to his followers, he is the only person to ever touch AC. Edison 21:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Empires of Light" says Tesla never visited Niagara Falls until 1896, a year after everything was installed. --Wtshymanski 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked out some better references? Empires of light is ok, but notthe best bio on Tesla. J. D. Redding 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Who owns Tesla's patents today? GE?

The patents have all lapsed. They are a century old.

Westinghouse owned them. Edison 21:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased to those who favour Edison over Tesla and I would imagine the same bias exists from the Edison angle. It will never go away as the AC vs.DC debate is a microcosm of the Tesla vs. Edison debate. There is a jealousy between both camps. Arguments can be made for both currents when different factors are considered but the above dribble is no more than a Pete Rose vs. Ty Cobb debate. There is no doubt that AC existed before Tesla even hit America, however, he revolutionized it by catapulting it into what it is today, and for that, it will always be tagged to his name due to assimilation. So, to put into laymans terms for all you EEs who chose to use Wikipedia as a forum to vent, the fridge, like AC, was a good idea, but not until the first beer was pulled out. I suggest you put your textbooks away and make your fridges a great invention. Relax!!! This is Wikipedia!

---

Hey, I'm doing a project on Edison, and every source I find on the Edison vs. Tesla conflict is extremely biased towards Tesla. Can anyone recommend some good sources to check out on the subject? 68.54.117.60 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Savanna

Energy treatise of transmission line theory

Is there any energy domain treatise of transmission line theory? I remember there were few out there.

Edison would have had AC banned I believe. But it is ironic that he had to fight against the gas companies, during the early years, to get electricity up and running.

It is also ironic that all "useable" equipment is DC, wonder if "gas" was indeed better than sitting and computing power factors and impedence losses!

Any chances of adding 2 capacitors in series and tapping the load across each "half" to step down the voltage? Seems to work like the fridge for me ;o)

well well why is it that all grids lock back on DC? there must be a reason for this.

NPOV Removal?

Could someone list the specific points in a bullet list or numbered list so some resolution can be done about the npov tag? Otherwise it should be removed. 204.56.7.1 18:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Who named it "War of Currents"? Being capitalized I presume it has been labelled as a proper name by someone, which means it should have a reference and be explained. If a wikipedian made it up then renaming should be discussed. Cburnett 05:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is, at least, the name of a book. The movie is called The Current War. Gah4 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Irony?

Is it just me or is this a bit odd sounding: in an article about the War of Currents the second line is “Several undercurrents lay beneath this rivalry.” Could we change that? Maybe? --Dolphinn 21:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about current, voltage and power loss

"Since metal conducting wires have a certain resistance, some power will be wasted as heat in the wires. This power loss is given by P = I²R"

P = I²R shows that if we say double the current, the power loss more than doubles. Which equation shows the effect of increasing the voltage? Doing some rearranging I came up with P = V²/R, is this correct? If so it would show mathematically that doubling the voltage does not lead to as much power loss as doubling the curent. However this only follows if R > 1 and I have no idea what typical values for R would be. Have I got this completely wrong?Shorvath 05:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on where you're measuring R - none of us electrical types have managed to explain this correctly. When we say the power loss is proportional to I*I*R we mean the R of the conductors. POwer lost as heat in the conductors represents a loss. It might be better to say the power supplied to the line is the sum of the power delivered by the line plus power lost. There's two R's then, one in the conductors, one in the load. --Wtshymanski 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

the continuous current carried is essentially reactive, with a value typically in the 3000-4000 A range. The power loss is then due to the resistance of the line when this current goes through : R*I*I, the other formula that you use does not apply because the line does not carry a resistive current !. Dingy 02:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but take this perspective: let V be the rms AC voltage /or flat DC voltage, R be the resistance and X be the impedence. Hence the actual power used Active power = V.I.cos(phase) = V^2 .R /(R^2+X^2) R/(R^2+x^2) being I cos(phase) now if the voltage source was DC power consumed = V^2/R < V^2.R/(R^2+X^2) as (R^2+X^2)/R > R So is it correct to say that DC would actually consume less power i.e if there was no impedence to worry about, (other than the transient) a DC transmission line would actually use less power? As far as current goes and conductor rating goes, for any high voltage you need a thicker wire till it melts, however assume one was to send rms value(220V) DC instead of AC one would need the same type of cables and yet experience less power loss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to comment on the new perspective, actually the transmission by HVDC has less losses than HVAC due to the skin effect and the corona discharges of ac voltage. HVDC-HVDC inverters were invented recently, so changing the whole grid wouldn't be such a good idea. Besides the power lost in the inverter section would also be big... But HVDC transmission (not distribution!!) is actually already in use (https://pscad.com/resource/File/Library/BasisPrinciplesofHVDC.pdf). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarkul (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The thyratron goes back to the 1920's, and was used over the years for DC to AC converter. The mercury arc rectifier was used for high current AC to DC conversion, also for many years. Gah4 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Skin effect is a function of frequency only. 60 Hz leads to 8.5 mm as characteristical depth of current flow in a conductor of copper. Only hollow tubes make sense for high-current applications at 60 Hz instead of massive cylindrical rods (wires), if more than (+/-) 17 mm diameter would be necessary for a fitting conducting cross section area. (Copper, eventually silverplated) litz wire make sense only for frequencies above 100 kHz where skin depth decreases to 0.2 mm and less, and it works only if all its parallel tiny filaments are isolated from each other, usually by enamel. --Helium4 (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not just frequency. The resistivity and permeability of the material also enter into the calculation, as anyone shopping for cookware to use with an induction cooker gets to find out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would still relook the VI cos phase approach. Remember we are interested in transmitting power from A to B, so the actual power is the active component. While the reactive component is available in the line and can be dissipated out over time, the actual measure is "how much active was transmitted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.182.242 (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

Could someone list the specific points for cleanup? It would help to rectify the situation. If not listed n the next several days, the tag should be removed. J. D. Redding 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• [Insert Item here]

Citations needed

List of citations needed. Place citations under bullet. J. D. Redding 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• A number of deaths from the Great Blizzard of 1888 were attributed to collapsing power lines that cluttered cities running DC power grids.
  • http://aimeedupre.blogspot.com/2007/02/1888-blizzard.html "Across the Northeast trains became trapped by the increasingly heavy snow, which knocked down power and telegraph poles by the score. Passengers were trapped in the railroad cars."
  • http://www.vny.cuny.edu/blizzard/building/building.html As the poles grew in number over the course of the decade, New York’s streets became evermore dangerous. Wires snapped on a regular basis as a result of over tension, wind, or ice weighing them down. The electrical wires carried a significant charge, but the other wires carried electricity as well. As wires snapped and lashed across streets, smashing against buildings, thrashing about, spraying sparks in all directions, blocks were rendered impassable until power to the downed lines could be cut. These charged electrical vines were a recognized public nuisance, and, after 1884, the city government and city businesses entered a protracted struggle over how to best solve the problem. Whenever an ordinance was passed by the city to bury the wires, businessmen, such as Western Union head Jay Gould, would object and win an injunction against enforcement.
• Edison personally presided over several AC-current-driven executions of animals, primarily stray cats and dogs, to demonstrate to the press that alternating current was more dangerous than his system of direct current
  • Brandon, C. (1999). The electric chair: an unnatural American history. Page 9
• the initial installation at Niagara was 25 Hz in anticipation of long-distance transmission to Toronto

The ref above from CUNY says that there were 1500 arc litghts in New York City by the time of the blizzard. The arc lights were fed by high voltage AC carried on overhead wires, near the top of the power poles shown in the illustration. Lower down were alarm wires, telegraph wires and probably phone wires. Edison had placed his wires underground, at great cost and effort, from the first day of operation of the Pearl Street Station. Because they were only at about 110 volts to ground, it was possible to insulate them well enough for burial in iron pipes connected at iron manholes. When the blizzard hit, the overhead wires fell and carried dangerous high voltages down to street level and onto alarms and telegrah wires. Several wiremen had been electricuted by the overhead wires even before the blizzard. Contemporary reports in the New York Times said the Edison system continued supplying power during the blizzard, because the underground wires were not affected. I edited the article to reflect this. Edison 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullsh*t?

AC was not in widespread use at this time. If you want to try to smear AC, get a references to back up the claims. These were DC lines nearly universally, but not _may_ not be only Edison's alone (Edison's company was not the only DC power company). Edison did have some underground lines, but not all of his lines were underground. 69.76.192.18 11:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

executions

Edison, a proponent of DC, called AC, the killer current, and was a proponent of using AC for electrocutions, a process that Edison called 'Westinghousing'. Westinghouse, a proponent of AC, thought that the condemed should be put to death with DC, a process that Westinghouse called 'Edisoning'. CorvetteZ51 12:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice joke, but do you have a reference? Edison 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

It says somewhere in here that underground transmission voltages are lower than overhead transmission voltages because of insulation issues. That's not really true; the voltages are about the same in most cases. It's true that underground transmission can cost more, and it can't be overloaded in an emergency as much as overhead open wires can be.

Nobody missed DC in the cities for several reasons. The most interesting was that the leakage currents--they're unavoidable even in carefully-engineered systems--caused great corrosion in other buried utilities. This is still a problem in places where there are street railways powered by DC.

I think the discussion of the advantages of AC vs. DC in every conceivable electrical device is, well, unnecessary. Automobiles use DC because there's a battery to deal with. Telephones use DC because they'd sound awfully funny with AC power. Electrical substations use 120v DC (supplied with substantial lead-acid battery banks) to run their circuit breakers.

One advantage of Edison's DC system not mentioned in the article was that you could use a bank of storage batteries as both a back-up supply and to adjust the voltage of the system. Both were common practices in the early days. (Now, it looks like AEP will be using sodium-sulfur batteries to back up its transmission system. Amazing how it all comes back around, this time courtesy of high-power electronic devices. Kinsler33 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination removed

I just removed an AfD from this article which was added by an editor with no other edits. The stated reason is in my opinion inaccurate - while there is extensive mention of Tesla, it's in context and the primary dispute was between Edison and Westinghouse. The article is linked from dozens of other articles. --Wtshymanski 14:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Westinghouse was using much of tesla's work. The true fight was between Tesla and Edison. Tesla was backed by Westinghouse. J. D. Redding 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Former FA candidate

Look at [2] and see if we can't fix some of the reasons this didn't make FA in 2004! --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Future DC Grid?

Did anyone read that article in the Economist a while ago about how a DC grid might be the way of the future? They claim DC can now be used to more effectively transmit power long distances (voltage can be effectively stepped up) and works well with things like wind mills and "smart grids". Should that be mentioned in the article? That there is some speculation that ultimately the Edison design may win out in some places? TastyCakes (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This article already refers to HVDC which is for transmission, not distribution. We're not going to see DC at the wall plug any time soon, barring a few outlets in camper trailers. Edison's concept of utilization, distribution and generation at the same low DC voltage is not coming back. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless superconductors become practical (see my comment below). Although, with superconductors the voltage is technically zero (since the current is nonzero and the resistance is zero). Stonemason89 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

With HVDC you do NOT build grids, this is impossible with HVDC. This technology is solely used for point-to-point transfer of vast amounts of energy over very long distances.134.247.251.245 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Source?

Is there any source for this statement: Edison's series of animal executions peaked with the filmed electrocution of Topsy, a Coney Island circus elephant. The event ist dated 1903, 15 years after the invention of the electric chair. All patents, including that for the transformator, expired earlier und The New York Edison Co. obviously was 1903 not in the ownership of Thomas Alva Edison. Source: a brief history of con edison

In my opinion, there is no relationship to the war of currents. it was in the interest of the owners of luna park, coney island, to get publicity and it was in the interest of The Edison Manufacturing Co., a film producing company of Thomas A. Edison, to get spectacular pictures for their business with the kinetoscope.

Furthermore, I cant't see any prove for a responibility of Mr. Edison for the execution of the elephant. It was a descison of the owners of luna park. A New York studio of one of his companies took pictures, that's all.

Source of the Event, Thomas Alva Edison is not mentioned: Online-Archiv The New York Times: CONEY ELEPHANT KILLED; Topsy Overcome with Cyanide of Potassium and Electricity. 5. Januar 1903 --Hgn-p (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Modern use of DC

I'm curious, and I'm not sure if this would belong in this article or another article, how the remnant DC customers of Con Ed dealt with use of DC. Did they have to buy converters for their appliances that required AC? Did they get a hold of very special models of appliances that worked with DC? I mean, what happened when they went to the store and bought a new stereo, then tried to plug it into their outlet at home? 63.87.189.17 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Weren't electrical applications at this time limited mostly to light bulbs (which I believe work find with either AC or DC)? That'd be my guess - there simply weren't widely used appliances as we think of them today. TastyCakes (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read (references not handy), most of the uses of DC after, oh, say, 1930 or so, would be for things like elevator motors (which work fine on DC), and not so much for wall-plug power. Some old table radios were "universal" and could work on 60 Hz, 25 Hz or DC (if you plugged in the outlet the right way). Mind you, the New Yorker Hotel had a DC power system of its own. Ironically, Tesla spent his last years in a DC powered hotel. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Modern Use ...

To this day, major telecommunications companies still use DC to power their support systems. It would be interesting to see a technical update from one of the major telecoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.6 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edison may have the last laugh

If superconductors ever become a practical means of transmitting power over long distances, we'll probably end up going back to DC. As the article mentions, the reason we use AC now is because AC has lower power losses over such distances. With superconductors, though, the power loss for DC is zero, so this isn't a factor. Trying to run an AC current through a superconductor would lead to nonzero power loss since all AC currents act like antennas to some respect, radiating energy.

Perhaps we should mention this possibility in the article somewhere? Stonemason89 (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cite it and write it. We don't do original research here. Seems unlikely in the extreme; any time I've seen superconductors in use, there's always a squad of nervous lab coats around shuffling empty liquid helium containers in and out. The power loss is not zero, because you have a large (and necessarily inefficient) cooling plant at work. One might as well say if Wardneclyffe had worked, we'd all have free power now. Again, you're never going to see the same DC voltage from generator terminals thorugh transmission lines and distribution to the wall plug - the Edison system is dead as far as that goes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Electrocution of animals not properly sourced

I have a major problem with this statement not being supported DIRECTLY by the source cited:

"Edison carried out a campaign to discourage the use of alternating current, including spreading disinformation on fatal AC accidents, publicly killing animals, and lobbying against the use of AC in state legislatures. Edison directed his technicians, primarily Arthur Kennelly and Harold P. Brown, to preside over several AC-driven killings of animals, primarily stray cats and dogs but also unwanted cattle and horses."

The source cited is pieced together rather than directly stating that his technicians presided over these killings, and therefore should not be used to back up this statement. The only things that I gathered from the source as presented were that they got their directions weekly, and the State of New York electrocuted animals for testing, not that Edison directed them to preside over the testing. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ref re Alleged dangers of "Low-frequency (50–60 Hz) alternating currents" vs "similar levels of DC "

The source cited for this sentence of War of Currents#Early transmission analysis:

"Low-frequency (50–60 Hz) alternating currents can be more dangerous than similar levels of DC since the alternating fluctuations can cause the heart to lose coordination, inducing ventricular fibrillation, a deadly heart rhythm that must be corrected immediately.^[17]"

is "Wiggers, C. J. et al. 1940". I expected to find "Wiggers" in a Bibliograpy, or maybe further reading, but it is not there.! This type of issue seems to come up regularly on the Ref desks, and I remember taking part in such discussion as an IP editor and finding sources. Has there ever been a locateable source for this statement? (though it seems reasonable, it may not be true.) And wp:verifiability requires it to be reliably sourced.
Oh dear, Wiggers is also cited at Ventricular fibrillation too (ref #22), but no title or anything else to identify the 'source'.

• Perhaps "Wiggers, C. The mechanism and nature of ventricular fibrillation. The American Heart Journal 1940; 20, 399-412" ref #9 from Sotalol "Sotalol is a drug used in individuals with rhythm disturbances (cardiac arrhythmias) of the heart," is it? - 220 of ^Borg 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in War of Currents

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 War of Currents'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 "Bláthy_HPO":

• From History of electric power transmission: Bláthy, Ottó Titusz, Hungarian Patent Office.
• From Transformer: "Bláthy, Ottó Titusz (1860 - 1939)". Hungarian Patent Office. Retrieved Jan. 29, 2004. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

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⚡ 11:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tesla vs Edison?

I removed (most of) the paragraph (diff) on "undercurrents" in a "rivalry" between Tesla and Edison in the "War of Currents" because it put forward a premise that this was simply a Tesla/Edison thing and tried to verify it by citing a series of anecdotal stories about Tesla when he worked for Edison. The claim that there was a direct rivalry during the "War of Currents" is unverified. Also in the section was an unverified claim that Tesla was a partner with Westinghouse. Westinghouse licensed Tesla's patents and hired him as a consultant, but that is not a "partnership". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Tesla is often identified as joining Westinghouse against Edison. The war is even characterized by some sources as pitting Tesla against Edison.

• "War of the Currents", PBS. "With the breakthrough provided by Tesla's patents, a full-scale industrial war erupted."
• "A War of Currents, and Rival Geniuses", New York Times. "This highly publicized 'war of currents' embitters both Edison and Tesla..."
• "Edison vs. Westinghouse: A Shocking Rivalry", Smithsonian. "Tesla was crushed and claimed that Edison not only refused to consider AC power, but also declined to compensate him properly for his work. Tesla left Edison in 1885 and set out to raise capital on his own... the industrialist George Westinghouse... bought some of Tesla’s patents..."
• Tom McNichol (2006) AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War. Describes Tesla and Westinghouse as a team formed to push for alternating current, to oppose Edison's direct current.
• Antonio López (2008), Mediacology: A Multicultural Approach to Media Literacy in the 21st Century, page 64. "When you look at the history of the "war of currents" between Tesla and Edison..."
• Michael B. McElroy (2010) Energy: Perspectives, Problems, and Prospects, page 272. "Westinghouse and Tesla would eventually win the War of Currents but not before Edison would put up a stiff fight."
• The New York Times Presents Smarter by Sunday, page 491. "Newspapers called the growing competition between AC and DC (and the feud between Tesla and Edison) the 'War of Currents.'"
• K. Krishna Murty (2008) 50 Timeless Scientists, page 58. "Tesla and Edison developed characteristic disdain for each other. As a result of this 'War of Currents' Westinghouse became almost bankrupt."
• Michael A. Stusser (2007) The Dead Guy Interviews, page 251. "Though Tesla's discovery of AC for electrical power is one of the most important findings of the modern era, already famous super- inventor Thomas Edison had his own version of electricity (the inferior DC), thus starting the 'War of Currents'".
• Paul Atkinson, Robert Vieira (2012) Beginning Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Programming, page 621. "What Tesla and Edison's 'War of Currents' was to electricity, Bill Inmon and Ralph Kimball have brought to data warehouse design."
• Kathy Wilson Peacock (2009) Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, page 277. "Tesla pioneered alternating current (AC) electricity, which led to the War of Currents with Thomas Edison, who promoted direct current electricity. Tesla won..."
• Richard Cadena (2009) Electricity for the Entertainment Electrician & Technician, page 73. "...'War of Currents' between Edison, a staunch proponent of DC, and the team of Tesla and Westinghouse..."
• James Wei (2012) Great Inventions that Changed the World, page 67. "After the 'War of Currents' with Nikola Tesla, Edison went on to do other research..."

I think Tesla should be named in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? Clearly by 1890 Tesla wasn't interested as something as mundane as *wires* for transmitting electricity - he was deep into the high frequency ionized plasmas by then. The Tesla article here gives no indication he paid any attention to Edison after 1885. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Tesla was at the World's Columbian Exposition in 1893 helping Westinghouse promote AC.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the sources re: Edison/Tesla war.

• PBS source is has been highly inaccurate, partly because its a simple website boil down of a documentary written from a Tesla POV by Margaret Cheney et-al.
• "A War of Currents, and Rival Geniuses" is fiction.
• Edison vs. Westinghouse: A Shocking Rivalry" - Tesla left (or was thrown out of) Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing over AC, not Edison.

The rest of the sources have the problems of being fairly unreliable boil downs of the topic with claims like Westinghouse bought Tesla's patents (he actually licensed them), claims Westinghouse and Tesla were a "team" (Tesla was hired by Westinghouse for one year as a consultant and gave up because he didn't work well with other engineers), claims Tesla discovered AC (errrr..... no).

Per: Tesla vs. Edison - An attractive human story, but this isn't engineering, many engineers left Edison, not just Tesla.:::Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And yet the above list of sources shows what public perception may entail. The reader must be introduced to Tesla in the lead section but in the proper context. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is a public perception, that could be addressed in an "In popular culture" section, if there are references to a known miss-perception on the part of the public. That could then be summarized in the lead. Noticing a miss-perception itself may not be enough to be in this article, the article Earth hints at other views on Earth creation and age but it is not in the lead. The article Galaxy does not in any way address a large public perception that galaxies are 6000 years old. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Early transmission analysis?

Moved this section to talk. Wikipedia does not contain analysis per WP:NOT#OR. Contains unreferenced claims such as Tesla made it "clear that AC was the future". Large parts of this section also seem to be redundant to other article content. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits. You have taken one of the best and most interesting articles on Wikipedia and turned it into something dull and boring and lacking of detail. Are you on some kind of anti-Tesla witch-hunt? :-) No, not really, but after this article was first nominated for featured article status, Tesla seems to have become some kind of popular hero. Now we are seeing the whole f***ing war fought over again, this time on the pages Wikipedia. You can only write history – especially on Wikipedia – once things are settled. I thought this issue was settled a hundred years ago. Seems not! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem cited was WP:NOT#OR.... in this case a section specifically labeled and containing "analysis". Please try to read the guideline (or in this case policy) being cited before you revert something. I have reworded again to remove redundant statements and unverified analysis, some of which seems to be incorrect (for example Westinghouse was already building an AC system before he even heard of Tesla's patents, so Tesla was not making it "clear that AC was the future", people had reached that conclusion already). Feel free to fulfill WP:BURDEN if you think something should be added back. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This need to be restored. User:Fountains Seems to be removing relevant info from articles. --J. D. Redding 12:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the material was not deleted, it was simply moved to link it up with the same material that appeared elsewhere in the article to remove redundant and repetitive content (see this and this edit). It was also slightly re-written to match any provided references. The remaining unverified analysis was removed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead needs a summary.

Lead needs a summary. Badly ... --J. D. Redding 05:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile in Europe

So what was happening in Europe? They had some DC systems, too - who were the players there, was there more than just AEG ( which at its start was an Edison patent licensee, but rapidly went its own way) ? Tons of stuff on the Hungarians but no context, as usual. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere I recall reading that Lord Kelvin spoke in favor of low voltage distribution - but was there any money behind DC in Europe or were they waiting to see which way the wind blew across the Atlantic? (Let alone non-Western parts of the world: was the "War of the Currents" strictly a North American dispute?) --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

dubious paragraph about Bankside, can someone check?

In an edit of 18:33, 16 November 2011 a paragraph was added re Bankside's generation of 200VDC for Fleet Street presses, and that its closure was precipitated by the move of presses out of Fleet Street. While parts of this may be true (there's no reason to assume that Bankside didn't generate a small 200VDC feed for Fleet Street), I think its inclusion is highly dubious. All the citations which I've seen, independent of Wikipedia, suggest that Bankside was grid-connected, and a considerable plant. A tiny proportion of the hundreds of megawatts which it generated would have been consumed by presses, and it seems very doubtful that 300MW was ever fed by 200VDC to the other side of the river (one and a half mega amps, anyone?). If it were, you'd expect to see it mentioned on the Bankside Power Station page. Independent works suggest that the station was closed by a change in the economic fuel mix for power generation, which fits better historically with 1981 than the later abandoning of Fleet Street (eg Wapping was 1986).

It is possible that the station was run down to a low power only a 200V DC feed in its later years, but also sounds rather odd to maintain a large oil-powered plant station for such purposes and there's no evidence of this, either, in any of the reminiscences and the like you find online of workers at the plant.

None of this is conclusive, but I smell a massive fish here. Either it's nonsense or remarkable enough to need further elaboration. Could someone check? 79.65.132.47 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Topsy?

I see no references stating Topsy was part of the War of Currents. Edison's (General Electric) was AC in 1903, and it was not run by Edison any more. Also IMdb is not a source. "Topsy: The Startling Story of the Crooked-tailed Elephant" by Michael Daly page 319 also states this was not part of the War of Currents. Method of execution was chosen by owners, Frederick Thompson and Elmer Dundy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's one from the Smithsonian: [3] "To further demonstrate the lethal nature of alternating current, he [Edison] held a widely attended spectacle in Coney Island, New York, where a circus elephant named Topsy was to be executed after she was deemed to be too dangerous to be around people." Preceding this the article talks about a botched AC execution, when Edison wanted to show homeowners that AC was extremely lethal. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Logic has no part of this issue. The Topsy electrocution is widely described as being fallout from the War on Currents, so we should tell the reader about it. Scorch's Smithsonian article is good; below I am listing a few more. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Edison, Tesla, and Electrocution". Physics 10. Lawrence Berkeley Labs.
• AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War
• The Instant Physicist: An Illustrated Guide

Can we have some WP:RS on this? Reliability check.

• Smithsonian states "Tesla left Edison in 1885 and set out to raise capital on his own for Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing, even digging ditches for the Edison Company to pay his bills in the interim" (nope, was Robert Lane and Benjamin Vale's money and Tesla had to dig ditches after they threw him out of Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing) - "George Westinghouse .... bought some of Tesla’s patents" (nope, licensed, small nitpick) - "While Tesla’s ideas and ambitions might be brushed aside, Westinghouse had both ambition and capital, and Edison immediately recognized the threat to his business / Within a year, Westinghouse Electric began installing its own AC generators around the country, focusing mostly on the less populated areas that Edison’s system could not reach" (nope, Westinghouse was building these systems and was "threatening" Edison two years before Westinghouse licensed Tesla's patents, "year before 1887"). Also puts Topsy out of sequence/context, implies execution was before 1893. Don't think that passes as reliable.

• "Edison, Tesla, and Electrocution". Physics 10. Lawrence Berkeley Labs, un-attributed, un-sourced out in the web somewhere source, misspells Tesla's name, falls off my curve.

• AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War, Makes a statement this was Edison sticking it to AC (Opinion? or is there supporting material?)

• The Instant Physicist: An Illustrated Guide - "In 1903 Thomas Edison was in the midst of a dispute with Nikola Tesla" ---- FAIL.

Writing "fail" in all caps is counterproductive and not conducive to collaboration. Especially when we've been known to cite juvenile nonfiction and edisontechcenter.org.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So we have a published secondary source against a published secondary source, Don't think we can list this as Tom McNichol's opinion. Need better.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Smithsonian article is unreliable against what? I'm not one to insult another's intelligence but you have not supplied a source backing up your claims. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And in this article it states, "On Jan. 4, 1903, Edison filmed the electrocution of Topsy the Elephant to demonstrate the dangers of (AC), which threatened the profitability of his DC method of electricity distribution." or in other terms the War of Currents. This article also states that the electrocution of Topsy was the "... last, tasteless propaganda exercise..." of the War of Currents. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War

Author: Tom McNichol

John Wiley & Sons, Jan 6, 2011

Chapter 10, "Killing an Elephant"

quote

Edison’s DC standard was rapidly slipping into irrelevancy, but the Old Man still had some fight left in him. Even though General Electric had become just another firm hawking the “deadly” alternating current, Edison longed to fight another round. Seeing DC all but lose the war of currents was a rare and unsettling defeat for the Wizard, and Edison kept a sharp eye out for an opportunity to stick it to his AC opponents. Early in 1903, he got his chance. The situation was appropriately circus-like” Edison agreed to lend his technical expertise to the public electrocution of a rouge Coney Island elephant named Topsy.

By this point Edison had already lost, but he was feeling vindictive.

There wouldn't be a whole chapter on Topsy if she were not a War of Currents casualty. She gets her own chapter because she's arguably its most notable.

McNichol's credentials are solid, Wiley & Sons' are solid. There's no argument here.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

We are getting into sources again that fall off as far as WP:RS re: "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" getting us claims such as "Edison filmed the electrocution of Topsy the Elephant to demonstrate the dangers of (AC), which threatened the profitability of his DC method" - Edison was in the AC business at that point (nothing to do with "profitability") and mostly forced out of his own company, General Electric, but I repeat myself. What seem to be reliable sources show Topsy was killed as an attraction to draw costumers to and amusement park (it drew 1500) and as something Edison could film per Tom McNichol and Michael Daly. Daly specificaly notes this was not part of the War of Currents, the execution and maybe even the choice of electricity was arranged by the owners, Frederick Thompson and Elmer Dundy and McNichol states electrocution was chosen before Edison offered his services. They draw an opinion that this may have been an anti-AC "spite" gesture by Edison in 1903 ten years after the "War". Are there any sources per a "spiteful" Edison?Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to quibble. The consensus is that Topsy was consequence of Edison's dispute with Tesla and Westinghouse. That's why there's a chapter on Topsy in McNichols.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

FOBM, peruse the wikipedia article on WWI. You will see there is discussion of the reparations Germany was required to pay following the war. This is because reparations were a notable consequence of the WWI. Topsy was a notable consequence of the War of Currents.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverting to an earlier version

Binksternet, you're more familiar with the history of this article than I am. Petri Krohn and Reddi seem to think it underwent some revisionist rot in the last year or two. Would you say that's a fair assessment?

MrScorch6200, Ɱ, and Fountains of Bryn Mawr, instead of spending all summer re-inventing the wheel, how would you feel about reverting to the earlier version that many people seemed to have been happy with? If it's a little over-heavy on the Tesla lore we can moderate it, but it might save us a considerable amount of time.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the exact diff of the reversion you had in mind? I'd like to compare it and the current version side-by-side. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_Currents&diff=510008936&oldid=509497542

We will need to add sources to it, but it's a much more conventional and I'd argue readable telling of the War of Currents than the current version, which is tedious and reads like an ode to DC. I think it will be much easier to work with.

Neither version mentions the World's Columbian Exposition, which is a pretty glaring omission.

The Genesis of Industrial America, 1870–1920 pg 95

Maury Klein

Cambridge University Press, Sep 3, 2007

The World's Fair is also discussed in McNichol's pp 134 -150. You just can't see it in the google books preview.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to revert to a two year old version but I do see value in trimming (gutting?) the technical and fixing the focus of this article. This article (in all of its iterations) kinda fails on basic "who, what, where, when". We have allot of "who" (although the Thomson-Houston Electric Company is missing in action). The "When" such as Edison's DC start 1882, Westinghouse's AC start 1886, the competition into 1887, animal electrocutions per date 1887 - 1888, the 1892 merger of General Electric / Thomson-Houston with the push to AC and the pushing out of Edison and DC, World's Columbian Exposition in 1893, etc are soft stated or missing. That should be the hart of the article. As pointed at by The Power Makers: Steam, Electricity, and the Men Who Invented Modern America By Maury Klein re: this was a narrow, sometimes media driven, event that spanned 1886 to 1893 more than the description we have of a broad technological shift. That source points out this was a fight between electric companies and their owners, a media debate over electric execution, and a (media driven?) fear of electrocution from electricity in general. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was bold and reverted the article to version of 30 August 2012. It seems that Wikipedia had its best days some years ago. Many articles are now suffering WP:WIKIROT – a constant decay caused by persistent POV-pushing. This article may be another case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I have to agree that the old version is quite a bit better.ɱ (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Petri Krohn. I was starting to miss being able to come here on occasion and collaboratively edit electronics-related articles. Hopefully going forward this can be the case again.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted it back per WP:BRD. Claims such as "it was better before", "persistent POV-pushing", with counter sources, and even WP:WIKIROT? need to be explained. You can always confer with Wtshymanski about some of the major edits recently if you need input. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We've got four people who prefer the 2012 version. Let's not edit war.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Errrr.... no, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We are not voting on versions. You actually have to support content with references. I have left it at 2012 and fixed the erroneous parts with referenced material. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

^Please see Wikipedia:Consensus.--ɱ (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Seen it many times. You are supposed to "persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". WP:ILIKEIT is not one of those. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources for advantages of AC over DC

Fountains of Bryn Mawr is keen to remove unsourced material. I'm afraid we have a lot of unsourced information in the article that will render it unintelligible or POV should it be eliminated. I'm busy today, but I can start this tomorrow. Help would be greatly appreciated.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Er...no, Wikipedia is keen to remove un-sourced material (WP:V) and has a ban on editor created "analysis" per Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves (so important they put it in the nutshell). The section labeled (and containing) Early transmission analysis was simply integrated into the rest of the article in encyclopedic form [4]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Tag for OR added to the section. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't analysis and it was repetitive with the rest of the contents, mostly. Just because something calls itself "analysis" doesn't mean it is. It would be a good thing to recap Edison's arguments (not just about the benjamins, he was plausibly opposed to high voltage on safety grounds, and he knew that 70% efficient transformers would make electric lighting totally uneconomic) and Westinghouse's arguments. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Details of Edison's system

I think we need a sub-page that describes the details of the Edison DC systems. Such as, the outlets and the different voltages used. The article says there was a different voltage used for motors, but does not say what it was. Zginder 2014-07-04T14:46:33Z

A subpage for the Edison DC system is a fabulous idea.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Source Anachronism

The article states "Low-frequency (50–60 Hz) alternating currents can be more dangerous than similar levels of DC since the alternating fluctuations can cause the heart to lose coordination, inducing ventricular fibrillation, a deadly heart rhythm that must be corrected immediately." and then cites as reference something offline from 1940. Without wading into the modern dispute about AC, health hazards from EM fields, etc, and speaking only from the POV of a 'War' which was almost certainly over by 1940, should this statement be allowed to remain? I am hesitant to do it myself as I see prior discussion about this bit of the article. Tinfoil666 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this wasn't the issue at the time, purely the perceived hazard of 1000+ V on pole lines vs. 110 V - it's not like there's enough difference between 110 V DC and 110 V AC of any frequency to say that one is safe and the other is dangerous. Took it out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Demise of DC power Transmission Couldn't be more wrong

High energy DC power transmission is currently in use as documented in the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

A few clear examples for the Pacific NW:

http://www.bpa.gov/transmission/Projects/line-projects/Pages/PDCI-Upgrade-Project.aspx

http://www.bpa.gov/news/newsroom/Pages/DC-intertie-pioneer-reflects-on-BPA-technology-innovation.aspx

As used in this article Power Transmission appears to be talking about what is typically considered to be Power Distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. KnowItAllToo (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edison did not "lead to the invention" of the electric chair

This article states: "Edison opposed capital punishment, but his desire to disparage the system of alternating current led to the invention of the electric chair." This is contradicted by both the Electric Chair and William Kemmler articles that state that the electric chair was invented by Buffalo, New York dentist Alfred Southwick, who did not appear to be influenced by Edison in any way.192.249.47.204 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Raises hand as guilty of updating the other articles. Good catch, its now out of WP:SYNC with the other articles and could be fixed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The update of the article should have answered the question re:"Edison's roll in the chair" more clearly. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Major expansion

Major expansion/reorganization of the "Current Wars", bare outline expanded to cover the main aspects of the War of Currents, and section moved up (its the main topic of the article). Lead edited to summarize body content. Other material left mostly as is but I am noticing the "Remnant and existent DC systems" section is off topic i.e. not about the 1888-1892 War of Currents, its a "History of DC section" so in the wrong article, it should probably be moved to History of electric power transmission or Direct current. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on War of the currents. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coned.com/newsroom/news/pr20071115.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322223457/http://www.institutoideal.org/conteudo_eng.php?&sys=biblioteca_eng&arquivo=1&artigo=94&ano=2008 to http://www.institutoideal.org/conteudo_eng.php?&sys=biblioteca_eng&arquivo=1&artigo=94&ano=2008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206042832/http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/tl_to_htm.pl?section=technology&item=144 to http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/tl_to_htm.pl?section=technology&item=144

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) 07:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Remaining DC

"Hybrid and all-electric vehicle propulsion with internal power-supply"

This is highly misleading. Although of course the HV battery is DC, the power distribution level e.g. of a Toyota Prius isn't, and definitely not propulsion. The energy transfer grid of Prius and similar hybrid and/or electric cars operate at three-phase AC, and definitely the motorgenerators do. Roughly: Battery 200 V DC, transfer 400 V three-phase AC, motorgenerators 600 V three-phase AC.

Electric DC motors are inefficient and high-maintenance, single phase AC motors are inefficient.134.247.251.245 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead/Lede

I was just casually browsing one fine evening, quite curious about this topic. But the bulky lead/lede just put me off immediately, sorry. It should be shorter and more to-the-point, IMHO. I've put up the relevant template - hoping things can be trimmed. I might find some time & work on it myself for a little bit, but in the mean time, let us try & improve nonetheless... 16:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Feer 16:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Its a 53,000 charter article so a 4 paragraph lead is not very far off, and that is pretty much what we have. The two extra lead paragraphs and their corresponding body sections, "Larger developments" and especially "Electric power transmission", are more about the history of electric power distribution than War of Currents so they tend to bloat the article a bit. Lead is overall wordy though, so yeah, could use a few whacks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved some of the post-war items to History of electric power transmission and removed some resulting redundancy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Umm. Isn't it a proper noun, The War of the Currents?

I get that we don't normally capitalise stuff, but googling it seems to indicate it's a proper noun in multiple references. In 2017 Dicklyon seems to have taken it upon himself to just rename the article and heading without any obvious discussion at all (unless I missed it, which is possible, it could even have been discussed on another page).

I mean it's not a general thing, there's not multiple current wars. Or are we planning to remove capitalisation from stuff like 'Wars of the Roses' too??? It all seems a bit odd. With all due respect I think this got messed up. Everyone makes mistakes, but what do others think? GliderMaven (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've neer been really comfortable with Wikipedia's house style for capitalization in general; I'd hate to have to explain it to anyone, especially anyone in the publishing business. --Wtshymanski (talk)

Hundred Years’ War. There it is again! Dolphin (t) 21:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a good example of one that is consistently capped. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't find references with different capitalisation, but so far as I can tell, it's usually capitalised, and further it's a proper noun, and per WP:MOS, they get capitalised. GliderMaven (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And I'm not saying you can't find references where it is capped. But did you look at the stats that I linked? Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it's nowhere near consistently capped in sources as MOS:CAPS requires. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Compare for War of the Roses. Dicklyon (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately no-one cares what DickLyon thinks (we already know what you think, it's the same no matter what the question) and Google searching a corpus of material a century too late doesn't carry any weight either. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And a happy new year to you, too, Andy! Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Andy Dingley's comment (aside from being a tiresome ad homimen distraction) doesn't even make any sense. WP is written in contemporary English, not late nineteenth-century English. The only problem we'd have is if someone were trying to capitalize this based on how it was written about a century ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a proper noun phrase and it should be capitalised. Obviously so: the term was minted specially as a single phrase, it's not as if it was an actual "war".

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Capitalisation_(yet_again) where he's at it again. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS, WP relies on empirical evidence to determine capitalisation: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. This is done on a case-by-case basis, so capitalisation of Hundred Years’ War and Wars of the Roses are separate cases for which the evidence supports capitalisation. Coining a phrase does not make the phrase a proper name nor confer upon it capitalisation ipso facto and definitions of war are not limited to armed conflict; hence, a war of words. The phrase is descriptive and thereby does not satisfy one theoretical requisites of what a proper name is. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly right. I've decided that my kitchen (in a house will 8 people living in it) is the grease fire waiting to happen. That doesn't magically transmogrify into The Grease Fire Waiting to Happen just because I think I'm clever. Whether someone coined a phrase is irrelevant; otherwise every single novel expression would be capitalized. Shakespeare alone coined hundreds of phrases we use every day, from "the be all and end all" to "one fell swoop" to "strange bedfellows"; show me anyone capitalizing those.

It takes only a few seconds to prove that sources are not consistently capitalizing this: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], all from my first page of search results. It's clear that capitalizing it is fairly common, yet: A) It's most common in entertainment and news publications, in reviews of a recent film about this, and both are genres apt to over-capitalize anything when in doubt, most especially when there's any kind of entertainment-industry connection. B) However, even many of those publications do not capitalize this phrase or its variants (except The Current War in reference to the film); if the "bastion of over-capping" isn't over-capping as much as some people above think they are, then this obviously does not rise to the WP:MOSCAPS and WP:NCCAPS standard of not applying capital letters unless the sources do so with near consistency. The clincher is the Google Scholar results: the phrase is much more frequently lower-case, even in titles (academic journals tend to use sentence case like Wikipedia does) [20]. This case is basically the same as war on women and war on poverty; it's a catchy and polarizing and hyperbolic phrase, but not a proper name. See in particular Talk:War on cancer#Requested move 16 November 2019 (a mass RM), and Talk:War on drugs/Archive 2#Requested move 24 September 2017. That last had a weak claim to being a proper name, because of "official" use of the phrase by various governmental bodies who tended to capitalize it. Nevertheless, many sources did not, so WP does not.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement added to article gives undue credit to ZBD for developing core lamination

Recently Liltender has been repeatedly [21], [22] adding the statement

"In early 1885, the three engineers [Zipernowsky, Bláthy and Déri, or ZBD] also eliminated the problem of eddy current losses with the invention of the lamination of electromagnetic cores."

I think this statement gives WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to the three engineers ZBD, as the 'divided' or laminated iron core was developed over the previous 50 years by a number of researchers:

The first transformers were induction coils and the principle of dividing their iron core into a bundle of iron wires to reduce losses was discovered in 1837 by G. H. Bachhoffner and William Sturgeon. Iron cores made of parallel wires work on the same principle as laminated cores to reduce eddy currents. For 50 years before ZBD all induction coils were made with divided iron cores.

• "Bachhoffner observed that a bundle of fine iron wires used as a core in Sturgeon's coil gave far better shocks than when the solid iron core was employed. We must therefore credit Bachhoffner with being the first to recognise the value of the divided iron core." (p. 11) "W. Sturgeon noted... that with a bundle of fine iron wires the shocks were still more increased." (p. 12) John Ambrose Fleming, 1893, The Alternate Current Transformer in Theory and Practice, Vol. 2, Van Nostrand

Laminated iron cores were used from the late 1870s in generators, and long before ZBD the engineering community understood how laminations prevented eddy currents:

• Auguste de Meritens 1878 generator: "The cores... do not consist of a solid mass of iron, but are composed of a large number of thin laminae... of sheet iron... The advantages [of this construction are]...breaking up and otherwise preventing cross-currents..." James Wylde 1881 The Industries of the World, The London Printing and Publishing Co., p. 570
• "The apparent magnetic sluggishness of masses of iron is due to... internal induced currents, and no one uses solid iron in armature cores for this very reason. ... There is no magnetic lag in properly laminated iron cores" (p. 40-41) Sylvanus Thompson, 1884 Recent Progress in Dynamo-Electric Machines, Van Nostrand
• "Another suggestion... was of laminating the pole-pieces, to prevent the production in them of wasteful Foucault currents. [Generators using this technique include] the disk dynamo of Hopkinson and Muirhead. ... This was also done in the Weston machines made by US Electric lighting Co. See Weston's patent No. 211,311 January 14, 1880." Sylvanus Thompson 1883 Dynamo-Electric Machinery, a series of lectures, Van Nostrand, p. 98
• The Brush dynamo used a laminated core from 1883: "The new armature...is formed by winding up a volute spiral of iron strip. ... The improvement effected by the new armature is due to the almost complete elimination of eddy currents." W. M. Mordrey (2 October 1885) "Dynamo-Electric Machinery" The Electrician, Vol. 15, p. 29-30

ZBD were not the first to make transformers with closed laminated cores:

• "Cromwell Varley obtained a British patent in 1856 (No. 3,059)... in induction coils... making the iron core a 'closed magnetic circuit'." of iron wires (p. 63) "In 1881, Hopkinson took out a British patent (No. 3,362)... on a choking coil constructed with a closed magnetic circuit of divided iron. ... In 1884 a specification was filed by John and Edward Hopkinson for... induction coils... having closed, or approximately closed, magnetic circuits of iron, divided in planes parallel to the magnetic field" (p. 89-90) John Ambrose Fleming, 1893, The Alternate Current Transformer in Theory and Practice, Vol. 2, Van Nostrand

I'm still asking you, where are your proofs for these relevations? None of your links can show your statements. Divided iron wires are not equal with laminated iron plates (the real lamination). Only plate form is very effective, iron wires can reduce eddy current only slightly. So the real laminated iron plates (which were effective) were invented by the ZBD team.--Liltender (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

What's your basis for saying that a core of wires doesn't act to reduce eddy currents? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Liltender: Did you see the 4 sources (Wylde, Thompson, Mordrey) in the center above, beginning with de Meritens generator? Cores of laminated iron "plates" were in use at least 7 years before ZBD's transformers. Several of the sources have drawings that show the laminations. And where is your source for saying that cores of wire are less effective than laminated cores? --Chetvorno^TALK 00:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Not all induction colis are transformers, but all transformers are induction colils. I suggest take a research about the pictures of your above mentioned patents.--Liltender (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you have it the wrong way around. Induction coils are transformers, as it says in the lead sentence of Induction coil. Not all transformers are induction coils. An induction coil is a transformer with a device called an interrupter which allows it to operate on direct current. Not that it matters; the quotes I gave above clearly state that laminations were used before 1885 when ZBD's transformers came out. --Chetvorno^TALK 11:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Induction colils are not automatically transformers. Induction as a phenomenon was discovered long before the suspection of the idea of AC current, and itself the idea of the transformation of AC current. So early experiments of the induction coils did not use the coils to change any voltage of the AC, so they did not TRANSFORM the voltage!!! In short, these early induction coils were not even used for the transformation of AC! Ganz company have never built a single Direct Current system, when American, British or German companies produced exclusively DC systems. The first commercial AC power station statred to build by the GANZ company in Rome and Vienna in 1885, when Westinghouse and any other companies had still no viable AC solutions. (in 1886 Stanley of Westinghouse still experimented with open-core non laminated "transformers". See his patent from 1886. Moreover, other companies had no clue about parallel circuits. They used series circuit systems.--Liltender (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE read that book:

Title United States Congressional Serial Set, Volume 5795 Contributor United States. Congress Publisher U.S. Government Printing Office, 1910

PAGE: 44-50

LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=B-RGAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA3-PA45&dq=austria-hungary+%22000+horsepower%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf77LL1vfnAhWwmIsKHdQqDbIQ6AEISDAD#v=onepage&q=austria-hungary%20%22000%20horsepower%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liltender (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, Gaulard and Gibbs did not use their induction coils to change the voltage of their system, but they increased voltage with usage of series circuit connection!!!! You can read about it here:

"Gaulard and Gibbs created high voltage by utilizing connection in series, rather than changing voltages through the use of their transformer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liltender (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Power Makers: Steam, Electricity, and the Men Who Invented Modern America By Maury Klein PAGE: 220

https://books.google.com/books?id=w0o5Ld53wAEC&pg=PT220&dq=ganz+alternator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi39ri5tZ_oAhXhlIsKHbV9DMs4ChDoAQg4MAI#v=onepage&q=ganz%20alternator&f=false

Before the ZBD team nobody understand the Transformer principle: Vp/Vs = Np/Ns

So earlier inventors did not use it to transform the AC current. They decreased the voltage by decrasing the efficiency of the device. So they simply decreased the magnetic induction, thus they decreased the Voltage and the amperage of the system at the same time!!!! Crazy and very stupid, isn't it?--Liltender (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Again @Liltender::

• A) You are trying to add way too much detail to the wrong article. War of the currents is an article about a financial and media event. Details about the history of electric power transmission may be better taken up at History of electric power transmission.

• B) Sources such as the 1910 United States Congressional Serial Set, Volume 5795 are too old. We can not make any kind of synthetic claims with such sources.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but even modern researchers also use old scientific gazettes books and magazines, which were close to the disputed era. It is called original source.--Liltender (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Not to mention that the Congressional Serial was a general economic reference and is not a WP:reliable source on the details of what were then high tech devices like transformers and generators. Neither is Klein. Irrelevant, of course, as neither source has anything that makes his case. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"researchers" errr, @Liltender:, we are not researchers, please read WP:CCPOL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean original old gazettes and publications can decide most of the debates among experts. What is your problem with Maury Klein? He is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Rhode Island. Are you a university professor too, whose opinion is relevant on this field, or you are just a typical Wikipedia layman editor without any high academic career, who tries to dispute the opinion of professors?--Liltender (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

[23] nuf said. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

First, you must prove that induction coils before the ZBD (not transformers) were used for the up/down tranformation of voltage, and about the existence of the knowledge that how the number of turns of windings of the primer and secunder coils can effect the voltage. Of course you can't. As in the example of Gaulard and Gibbs, they make adjustable (movable) iron cores in their coils, which can reduce the whole EMF and magnetism, thus they decreased voltage with the brutal descreasing of the efficiency.--Liltender (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to prove anything. It is your responsibility as the editor adding the content to provide WP:reliable sources for your content "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The two sources you mention, the Congressional Serial and Klein, are not reliable sources on electrical engineering advances, they were not written by scientists or engineers. In addition, they don't even support your statement; The Congressional Serial does not even mention lamination, while the only thing Klein says about it directly contradicts your contention that ZBD was the first to make laminated cores "Weston... was the first manufacturer to develop a laminated armature." (p. 127). Your original source, Bedell, "The evolution of the transformer", Proc. of the Electrical Society of Cornell University, Vol. 3, 1896, p.38-39, says that ZBD used a laminated core, but not that they were the first to use one or invented it. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

First concentrate on the question, did real transformers existed before ZBD, which up/down transformed AC. As far as I know, the pre-ZBD era induction coils (they are not real transformer) lowered the voltage by paceing the iron core further from the coils, thus they decreased efficiancy and EMF to lower the voltage. That induction coils were not transformers.--Liltender (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Tesla template, should this page be listed on it?

After adding the Nikola Tesla template, where this article is listed, to this page, and receiving a revert with language about Tesla being irrelevant to the topic by the time of the current war, I had a closer reading of the article and talk page. Wikipedia's present take on Tesla's influence on the topic has me thinking, at least on paper for a few seconds, if I saw a fake film about this last year, which centered on Tesla, Edison, and Westinghouse (remember going to the movies? popcorn, a screen the size of a mountain, and maskless people everywhere actually opening their mouths to laugh). Finding the lack of Tesla in this article strange, and having little more than a layman's knowledge of Tesla (including the Niagara power station), I thought I'd bring the question here: Should this article be removed from the {{Nikola Tesla}} template? If not, well, then the template should be placed back on the page. And save your film ticket stubs, as your grandchildren will sit on your lap at a distance and ask through their masks, "Gramps, did Tesla really invent movies, the jet airplane, and Covid-19?" and you will answer yes, yes, of course he did. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Its one of those popular notions on the internet that has no basis in historical fact. "War of the currents" was 1888 to 1892. Westinghouse obtained Tesla's patents in 1888 but they were vaporware until 1893 when Westinghouse engineers finally had something operational (showed it off at the Chicago Worlds fair in 1893). So any kind of "Tesla system" missed the end of the "War of the currents" by a year. So, yeah, should be removed from the template. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, your detailed reply appreciated. You make a good case for removing it from the 'Other' section, but...might it still fit the 'Related' section (which would still put it on this article)? Or would you say Tesla's involvement to the entire topic of 'War of the currents' remains so tangential to his life and work that not even a 'Related' listing should show up on the template. From my limited reading, understanding, and seeing the film (remember movie theaters? those were the days) it seems like Westinghouse relied on the hopes of Tesla's motor working as his major artillery in the current war, and got some result out of him but not enough in the defined time period of the topic. Am I mistaken in that assessment? I honestly don't know, this isn't a field I've made enough of a mental map of to know for sure if it has crossed the deliberately high bar of entry to Tesla's template 'Related' section. The same question would apply to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, which probably should be moved from 'Other' as well but may or may not fit as 'Related'. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Tesla's inventions contributed, the outcome of the War was predetermined, because AC power can be distributed at a small fraction of the cost of DC. There are a half-dozen or so other engineers, mentioned in the article, which should go in the 'Related' section ahead of Tesla. The only reason Tesla is connected with the War of the Currents is the myth perpetrated by Tesla fansites that he "invented AC power". Tesla invented multiphase transmission and the induction motor, only two of many ingredients that made alternating current power systems practical. If we want to recognise the inventors of the AC power technology which won the War of the Currents and today provides electricity to our civilization, that would be Károly Zipernowsky, Ottó Bláthy and Miksa Déri, mentioned at top of the article, who invented the closed core transformer, the key advance which made AC power possible, and built the first modern parallel AC distribution systems.--Chetvorno^TALK 04:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Haven't seen the movie and I would take it with a grain of salt. Poly-phase motors and related power systems (a-la Tesla) were a pipe dream all through the late 1880s and 1890s, and Westinghouse's investors knew it (almost pulled his plug). Westinghouse's potential customers were not about to go out and buy all new Tesla induction motors even if they were available, they wanted power for their already existing arc lights, light bulbs, single phase AC motors, and DC motors (there were street cars out there that needed power and that wouldn't change for 100 years). So the real invention that made the Westinghouse system feasible was the rotary converter, it powered everyone. It ain't sexy and it ain't Tesla, but it got the job done (would make for a boring Tesla movie though ;)). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know the rotary converter was that widely used. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Haven't seen the Tesla movie either, I'll probably go if I can find a matinee with enough empty seats. Yeah, the reviews I've read sounded like it didn't portray him very accurately (in addition to outright fantasy sequences like the ice cream cone fight). As it's a biopic, somebody should probably add a section to the WP article detailing the inaccuracies. You would seem to be the ideal person, with your knowledge of Tesla. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct biopics? Don't think Wikipedia has that much server space ;). People editing Movie articles seem to think "Historical drama" covers about all you can say about the subject. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternator and transformer are equally important in this topic/article

User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr has a tendency to remove the inventions and discoveries of non-English language speaking words. He is an anglo-centric editor in the wiki. He removed the invention of the constant voltage AC generator by the Ganz Company in 1883, despite of the excellent references.--Pharaph (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

In 1883 the Ganz Works invented the constant voltage alternator, ('voltage source, voltage intensive' systems [VSVI] ) which became a determinant milestone of the alternator technology, that could produce a stated output voltage, regardless of the value of the actual load.

This is not a History of Alternating Current article. "Alternator and transformer are equally important in this topic/article" and "determinant milestone of the alternator technology" has to be supported by reliable sources that cover the War of the currents specifically. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not get a rational explanation. 1st cause: AC Generators are important in the War of the Currents article. 2nd: I have two reliable references. I would like to point out that a reference does not become unreliable just because it does not serve your own interests and views in a discussion.

Therefore I'm still waiting for a rational answer with valid reasoning.--Pharaph (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN works the other way round re: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So you need to supply references from some work on The War of the Currents re: any AC generator design was a "determinant milestone". The War of the Currents was battle of formats, not a battle of AC generator efficiency - one side was generating DC so didn't even care about that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Read about Wikipedia "I just don't like it" principle , more exactly the deletion discussions section. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don%27t_like_it#Deletion_discussions

I uphold my charge: You are anglo-centrist editor, who often delete lines on Wiki without any rational reason, just because you don't like the content. Read about it here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anglocentrism#English --Pharaph (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

--Pharaph (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So... you didn't bother to read the notice about WP:NPA? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Pharaph, as editors we should be able to discuss this without personal attacks (WP:NPA). --Chetvorno^TALK 16:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Please let's return and concentrate on the topic. What is his real problem with my edits? The Ganz Constant voltage generator (1883) gave birth to the idea of parallel connections of transformers and utilization loads. Without constant voltage type of generators these have no sense at all.--Pharaph (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is you need to base content on sources that cover the War of the currents, for example "AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War" by Tom McNichol, page 81, which notes Westinghouse based his transformer on a Gaulard-Gibbs patent, not Ganz. Ganz/ZBD systems sat out the War of the currents because Edison had bought out the US patents early on. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the Westinghouse had no other choice, Ganz ZBD patent has already bought by Edison in 1885. Here you can find all details about the history of transformer, and it clearly shows that William Stanley and Westinghouse just simply run after the events which was generated by the ZDB team of Ganz company. No wonder that Ganz remained the world's largest producer and global exporter of transformers for a considerable time (and not Westinghouse)

Read this well referenced essay: https://pp.bme.hu/ee/article/view/4637/3742 --Pharaph (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Paper does not cover Westinghouse or the War of the Currents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems you did not even read the short essay on the link, how can we discuss the topic in rational way, if you don't want/ refuse to read anything I did show you?

PAGE 13: "The chief electrician of Edison Central Station, Pearl Street, New York City, J. W. Lieb visited the Ganz Works in 1885 and was filled with enthusiasm; he urged the Edison Electric Light Company to buy the patent rights to manufacture the Ganz transformers in the United States, but the company, at that time, did not realize the commercial importance of the invention. Only one year later, in 1886, was an agreement arrived at for an option concerning the manufacture for twenty thousand dollars."

And Westinghouse and Gaulard and Gibbs followed the trednd of Ganz Company (Ganz made already AC power plants based on their ZBD patents, when the Gaulard Gibs sent a modified Transformer to the Americans:

Page 13: "George Westinghouse took a different view on the importance of transformers. It was Pantaleoni who emphatically advised Westinghouse to take up work in alternating current. The Gaulard-Gibbs patents were therefore bought, and the first "secondary generators" in the U. S. arrived in November 1885; they were, however, fitted with closed magnetic circuits already."

When Blathy asked Gaulard in Turin exhibition in 1884, "why did not used closed iron core" Gaulard replied: "It would have been harmful and uneconomical" Reference: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4500994

This article also explain that Gaulard-Gibs design did not even use the principle of different turn ratios in the primary and secondary coils to change the voltage, the turn ratio of primary and secondary coils were 1:1. Why? Because their open-core design decreased voltage (down step) by increasing the phyysical distance between primary and secondary coils (type of brutal waste of energy). So it did not used the classic transformer principle of different turn ratios of the primary and secondary coils.

Quote from the reference text: "The voltage was controlled by pushing in and pulling out this iron core" --Pharaph (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Using a non-laminated core wastes energy as eddy currents and core heating. Changing the coupling, that is the mutual inductance, doesn't waste energy. Less power is taken from the primary. Gah4 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the paper covers History of Alternating Current. This article is not "History of Alternating Current", its "War of the currents". That series of events did not follow any "determinant milestone(s)"/influence of Ganz constant voltage alternators, re:Westinghouse and Stanley based their work on Gaulard-Gibbs. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If Stanley's work would have based on gaulard and gibs, he wouldn't follow the the Ganz development of closed core and parallel connection of utilization loads/AC power distribution system. Let's don't forget, when Stanley first pateneted his (mostly copied) ideas about transformer, there were already existing exhibitions and even power plants in Europe, which were installed by Ganz company. Ganz patented closed core and parallel power distribution system across major European countries 1 year before Stanley patented it in the USA. Moreover, the ideas of ZBD team were already publised in many many English language tech magazines in late 1884. We can conclude that Stanley did not have any original major idea, he simply read about these things in the article scintific/tech magazines. I understand that many people want to show up an American hero in the AC technology, but unfortunatelly the simple chronology (dates) of the events break such naive dreams into pieces. We can conclude due to the chronology, that Stanley did nothing more than desperately chase after the already existing patented, tested and applied European technologies.--Pharaph (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We can speculate on this till the cows come home, but that is not Wikipedia. We can only go with what sources on a given topic say about that topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It was not speculation. You often don't even read the cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Your previous comment started with "If ..."; that is speculation. Constant314 (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any serious problems with the current text Pharaph is criticizing. ZBD are given due credit. The problems of the Gaulard-Gibbs type transformers is mentioned. Pharaph, is your goal just to include mention of constant voltage alternators? Then I think along with Fountains that for WP:DUE WEIGHT to show this was an invention important in the War of Currents, much more specific sources are needed than just a statement in the Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education that it was "a determinant milestone of the alternator technology". --Chetvorno^TALK 18:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The main problem is Stanley, he is falsely indicated as the inventor or important contributor of the Transformer. Copying other people's already published inventions/innovations is not real invention, it is just imitation. Does Stanley have any proofs for his priority related to transformers? No he has not. What did he actually invent in transformers which was not patented and published earlier by others? He is nothing more than a debunked American (false) iventor-hero of AC undergoing serious myth making in the posterior--Pharaph (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We are speaking about this generator, it used the new AC parallel connection of utilization loads. US Patent 284,110A See the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US284110A/en?q=(zipernowsky)&oq=zipernowsky+&sort=old This type of constant voltage generator led to the idea of parallel connection in Transformers, a milestone in ZBD Transformers (All other companies used the backward series connections). So this generator influenced the later development of transformers via the parallel power distribution concept.--Pharaph (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Again you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. Wikipedia is not the place to right some great wrong about Stanley and we don't make our own judgement calls about what is important in genorators . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We are speaking about this generator, it used the new AC parallel connection of utilization loads. US Patent 284,110A See the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US284110A/en?q=(zipernowsky)&oq=zipernowsky+&sort=old This type of constant voltage generator led to the idea of parallel connection in Transformers, a milestone in ZBD Transformers (All other companies used the backward series connections). So this generator influenced the later development of transformers via the parallel power distribution concept. And I found a direct citation/reference to support that https://www.google.com/books/edition/Networks_of_Power/g07Q9M4agp4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ganz+%22constant+voltage+generator%22&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover

Photo of the page 96 also available here: https://i.ibb.co/7y3xrgK/image.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Title: Networks of Power Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930 Author: Thomas Parke Hughes ISBN: 9780801846144 Page: 96 Published: March 1993 Format: Paperback Publisher: Johns Hopkins University Press Language: English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

None of this says constant voltage alternators were important in the War of the Currents. Gaulard and Gibbs, and Stanley, used regulator circuits instead. Even if they were, Wikipedia editors are not allowed to base content on conclusions drawn from two or more sources, see WP:SYNTHESIS. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Again! It seems you did not even read the cited page of the Book! I will tell you which "circuits"(???) were used by Gaulard and Gibs Transformer. Please do not laugh, because it is ridiculously primitive and contraproductive: The voltage of their "transformer" (or whatever we can call it) was controlled by pushing in and pulling out its open iron core. Reference URL for that statement: https://web.archive.org/web/20231128081004/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4500994

--Pharaph (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

References