Talk:Alternating current

message: The current in a 110 volt line pulses into the neutral line.
The current in the 220 and higher 3 phase lines pulses from multiple lead lines into the neutral line.
All the current travels from the lead line into the neutral line.
To prove this DIODES are used to convert AC into DC.
The current cannot travel from the neutral line into the lead line.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.36.16 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your book is correct.  The heading of this discussion section is wrong. The op text does not make any coherent argument regarding this. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternating Current does NOT reverse direction 

message: I was going to put that unlike DC, AC does not need to return to its source, as it can flow to ground.  However, I may be wrong on two counts... Can DC flow to ground as AC can?  And also, am I wrong about AC somehow?  I think I'm confused... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReignMan (talk • contribs) 11:01, 1 December 2007 
:  I wouldn't add anything like tis to an article unless I was quite confident in the matter. If you're confused, perhaps you should not edit the article until you've read and understood some good references on the subject. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sine wave is the most efficient for transforming voltages with least loss.  That's why it is the most efficient for energy transfer.  Dbfirs 20:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC to ground? 

message: Why is this discussion done in terms of voltage? I realize that ac voltage often accompanies ac current, but seeing as how this is an article about ac current it seems better to just stick to ac current. The math won't be any different, so I just don't see the reason to switch to voltage for calculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.120.149 (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2006
:Good question. The example provided in the section uses voltages because that is what can be measured from the wall's outlet. The amount of current depends on the load resistance, but the RMS voltage is more or less a constant (the instantaneous is obviously oscillatory). Mr. PIM (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics of AC Voltages 

message: The wording "His design was a primitive precursor of the modern transformer, called an induction coil" is not very NPOV.
I'd like to see some pictures of AC in action words can't describe it well enough. --Cyberman 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good, but perhaps it would be more appropriate in the HVDC article under "Rectifying and Inverting". You could add a link from this article to that one. -- Heron 17:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Primitive" induction coils? 

message: The article currently has a lot of stuff that is covered in other articles; three phase, grounding, etc. I think the discussion here could be compacted since details are only a mouse-click away. I also cleared up some leading spaces in the talk page - not everyone is signing contributions - use the button for signatures in the editor or else manually put  --~~~~ at the end of your comments. --Wtshymanski 17:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: == I thought the "links" part of the article were to link one article in Wiki to another relavent article. And I appology for being picky, I think that the pictures in the Transformer article are informative to inquisitive readers trying to understand the current technology etc of AC.WFPM18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus

message: I consider the concepts of electrical current/voltage, resistance/reactance and power to be sufficiently different that they should not be merged, otherwise the combined article will become too long and very difficult to organize clearly. I note that there is inadequate discussion in these articles of non-sinusoidal waveforms, particularly of the substantial 3rd and 5th harmonics generated by the non-linearity of standard power transformers - that would make a combined article even longer. Then there are the square and 2-step waveforms of DC-AC power converters. I recommend keeping these three separate but consistent, with appropriate cross links. As a retired electrical engineer, I could try to start this process, but would do so only when agreement is reached on separation. JohnSankey 15:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for an offer :-( JohnSankey 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: == I didn't know Engineers ever retired. I thought they just grew old, and "faded away" like Mcarthur. But Engineering is "applied science" and in Wikipedia you have to not have original ideas, but to explain everything in historical and physical and even mathematical concept terms that you and I know that weren't even discussed when you took electrical engineering. So that's the way it is, and good luck. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging everything AC into one article 

message: Why do these articles simply redirect to this article, when this article makes no mention of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.57.235 (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2005  
* Real power does the work for you, while apparent power is returned during every cycle and cannot be used. 70.27.152.243 (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Power / Apparent Power 

message: I don't know what you mean by power lost = I^2 * R.  This is supposed to be the equation for power transmitted, and since V=I*R, power = V*I also.  Therefore, I don't see why the power equation explains why current affects power lost and not voltage.  Can someone clarify this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.127.141 (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2005 
:It depends on which R you are referring to.  Power lost is I^2 * R(of the conductor).  Power delivered is I^2 * R(of the load). pstudier 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see a problem with formulas however. P=I^2R and P=IV of course, but coupled with introduction of "This implies that in the same wire, if the current is doubled, the power loss will be four times greater", to some readers this might suggest that if the voltage is doubled, the power loss will NOT be four times greater, which is certainly not the case because P=V^2/R too. Something should be done about this, but I am not sure what. Nikola 09:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You have to be careful, when you are using P=V^2/R, to specify what V you are referring to.  Your statement above suggests that you are talking about the voltage drop across the wire.  Doubling this would indeed cause a quadrupling of the power loss.  However, the V usually referred to in this context is the transmission voltage.  Doubling this causes a quartering, not a quadrupling, of the power loss.  I'm reluctant to explain this in the article because it would just add confusion where there is presently simplicity.  However, I'm open to ideas. --Heron 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The V in your V^2/R is measured between the ends of one wire - perhaps about one volt, not the supply voltage, but the I is (almost) the same in both the load and the transmitting wire.  Doubling the supply voltage will actually reduce the V across the wire by half (approx), because it means that I (the current) can be halved, and V=IR across the wire.  Does this help?  (I need to draw pictures to make it clearer)  Dbfirs 23:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power equation problem 

message: ::Note: The section heading was added by 156.63.21.11 on 14:35, 28 November 2005 without any content. The comment below is therefore a response to the question posed by this anonymous user in the section heading. Mr. PIM (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is AC and DC and what do they do? 

message: Volt-amp redirects to this article, but I don't see any mention of it here. In particular, I'd like to know how volt-amps are related to watts. (I thought were the same, but then why is a UPS I'm looking at rated at "500VA" but "300W"?)   - dcljr (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i've just changed the redirect to point to AC power. enjoy ;) Plugwash 04:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volt-amp 

message: See my comment above.  I'm deleting the following passage and replacing it.  Included here in case someone wants to rollback or merge.  --Psm 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just an issue of selecting the right gear ratios. For 50Hz a motor rotating at 3000 rpm through a 50:1 gear ratio is also 60rpm... -- RTC 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of 60 Hz vs 50 Hz 

message: I forgot most of what i know of AC's history, but im pretty sure Edison hated it... I don't really remember, so I came here. I am dissappointed to find that this info isn't here, so I'll have to look elsewhere for now! Maybe I'll do some research and write it myself if I have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.112.57 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2006 
:What you're looking for is probably under War of Currents, but there may be room for some more info in this article. --Heron 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone more in the history section? 

message: I think this article needs a section on how the alternating current is generated and one on how direct current can be transformed into alternating current. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.226.140.133 (talk • contribs) .
:This sounds like the perfect opportunity for you to be bold and improve the article!
:Atlant 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look through the history of the article to see if any sections have been deleted.  Evidence of a deleted section may be indicated by a significant decrease in the number of bytes from one revision to the next.  Usually vandalism is reverted, but sometimes it is overlooked and other editors start editing on the vandalized version.  Users scanning for vandalism to revert usually look only at the last couple edits.  H Padleckas (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing sections 

message: You have twisted pair but what about the twin lead we used to use for TV antennas? Some people used forms of twin lead for ham radio. Knob and tube and romex could be concidered twin lead as well. --Gbleem 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not following what does twin lead have to do with Alternating current. The twisted pair was shown to be a technique for reducing radiation loss, a by-product of alternating current. --Asbl 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin lead 

message: The article makes no mention of who first developed (or experimented with) the theory of alternating current...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.179.132 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2006  
:re: Tesla was the first person to technically invent poly phase transformers which use AC, unless the lightning hitting the kite with a jar and key is counted as AC, so Tesla..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.100.235 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who originated AC theory? 

message: does alternating current have positive and negitive like direct current?--Falcon866 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Every part of an AC circuit alternates continually between negative and positive.  If you look at the symbol for an AC generator on a circuit diagram, you will see that it does not have + and - markings like a DC generator.  In simple cases, the two wires coming from an AC generator are interchangeable.  There are complex cases where they're not, but I won't go into that here. --Heron 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if both wires carrying AC are equivalent, what's the difference current and neutral blades on a polarized plug? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.18.43.225 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "hot" wire is connected to the smaller side of the polarized (American) plug.  It carries a signal which oscillates between positive and negative with an RMS amplitude of about 120 volts.  The larger plug is connected to the "neutral" wire which runs back to the electric companies generator where it is grounded. -AndrewBuck 22:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  positive and negitive 

message: The article on DC has an image showing the DC "symbol" that is used on electronics and such.  I would assume there is a corresponding symbol for AC.  I think it would be a good addition for the article to contrast it with DC.  -AndrewBuck 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think this would be very useful. The corresponding symbol for AC is a tilde (~).CCW1946 (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested picture

message: Here on the Wikipedia, where a dozen articles go into great and varying detail on the standardization of European utilization voltages, we (used to ) find the light-hearted statement that American utilization voltage is 3 phase 110 volts.  Sorry, it's not - not three phase, and not 110 volts. You won't find a reference for this because it doesn't exist. I've taken it out again, it's not relevant to the example.  There's no salvaging the commented-out paragraph and I recommend it be deleted. --Wtshymanski 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And it's still wrong. A better place to discuss this would be electricity distribution, anyway. There are *very many* standardized sets of AC voltages, only a few of which appear at wall plugs. --Wtshymanski 17:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in fairness, in the United States, your most basic delivery to residential neighborhoods is 3 phase.  If you look at the poles, they have 3 hot wires, 120 degrees out of phase, and a ground.  If you try plugging in 2 metal grounded devices from 2 houses, or opposite sides of a large one, you'll get a shock.  I'm no expert on delivery systems, but that's just what I'd consider the norm in the U.S.  So perhaps the author thought that that was all there was...  But as for 110 volts, that's only after the local step down transformers, the current on the wires is (in my area I believe) 7800V. ReignMan (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three phase voltage just wrong

message: The equation Vrms=Vpeak is only true if centered about the x-axis. If a dc-offset is considered the equation is invalid. Duty cycle must then be taken into account. Consider a square wave with 50 percent duty cycle, peak voltage of 1 volt, centered at half a volt. Rms voltage is then 0.707...  Someone tell me I have had too much coffee tonight, and that I am in error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.208.230 (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fairly clear from the article that unless otherwise specified, the discussion is about pure AC voltages. Mr. PIM (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: OK,  I added a couple of words to emphasize that were talking about the case of no DC offset. Mr. PIM (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the EE taught whole concept that AC power involves the delivery of an alternating polarity electrical power impulse, which can be altered by the addition more than 1 frequency of supply resulting in a power impulse supply voltage that vary in voltages and frequencies up to and including square wave supply impulse power. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Square-Wave equation is misleading

message: Why doesn't this article say which is battery power and which is wall-plug power. I always forget. I can't be the only one can I?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.12.194 (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't explicitly put it in those terms but if you read this article and the direct current article it is made pretty damn clean what each is used for. Plugwash (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall-plug versus battery 

message: The date of the first modern A/C station is wrong.  The first such station was built by Ferranti at Deptford near London in 1891. It produced an A/C 10Kv supply, with transforner stations for each street served. 
Chasnor15 (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating wrong

message: Hey, just added  to article. I noticed there were no citations. Please add some. Thanks! 68.175.84.142 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I appreciate the Wikipedia requirement for confirmation of information from recognised sources, I really don't see the point of adding the tag to this article. There are literally thousands of textbooks which confirm the information given, and it can readily be checked from the external links.  If there is a particular point in dispute, then a citation should be provided for that point, otherwise the article is just common knowledge, checkable from thousands of sources (including many of the links stated at the end) - does Riotrocket8676 want us to list them all?  Dbfirs 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced 

message: Due to the postion of the 'city lights' picture, there was a lot of white space, so I've moved it down, below the 'History' sub-heading, and slightly enlarged the default size of the 'Westinghouse Early AC System' diagram so they match.
This isn't ideal but I think it looks a lot better.<BR>In a general observation, I find in the Wikipedia technical articles that a lot of pages have poor layout, and this makes them harder to read.
Ideally I believe all text should be aligned on the left margin and graphics generally on the right side, if they're not wide enough to be centred. 
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Layout Improvement 

message: Please do not delete additions unless you are an expert in the subject.  "Seems dubious" is not sufficient grounds for vandalism.  But I will resist the temptation to play silly games until I have found a proper reference :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaxial Cable 

message: I added a link to Garyfallidou.org/en_electricity.html, a page containing a video which explains (to kids) how free electrons act in a simple circuit.
In case of:
No current, DC current and AC current. 
The link removed by Wtshymanski.
I believe that Wikipedia (any encyclopedia) is for people (specially kids) who are trying to get knowledge and not for people who already have the Knowledge.
The link added to Electric current-Direct Current-Alternating Current.
Removed from Electric current - Alternating Current.
Lambrosus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambrosus (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About a link 

message: What is the reason for an AC circuit to have a neutral wire (0)? I mean the alternative current is passing through the consumator and returns usually 50 times per second (50HZ) but why it won't work if the signal don't return? Does the return signal contains an unused energy (like some watts which the consumator don't need)? 
Also if I touch a phase/line cable where AC or DC is applied and I am in air will the current hit me and in what situation? Or if I am on the ground but with a STRONG ISULATOR which don't allow current to pass through my body to the ground. As far as I know the current always needs a return path and if lets say 300 kilovolts and 100 ampers of current is applied will it do me something if it cannot return anywhere? Even if I am in space (vacuum)? :)))))))) =) --Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk pages are about improvements to the article. You can ask questions at the help desk. You may want to pick up a fundamental textbook on electricity in your primary language, a review of which would probably save you hours of typing questions here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation about neutral 0 and electrocution 

message: Although the voltage of a sinusoidal wave varies continuously with time, still we don't observe any change in the intensity of the visible light sources.Why?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.65.225 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most visible light sources operate at too high of a frequency. Even if the visible light were coherent, as in a visible light laser, the wavelength is much too small for the spatial variations of the voltage to be optically discerned (except with very specialized equipment). Also, please note the existence of periodic variable stars. It's not technically true that visible light sources don't vary in intensity, though at a macro-level, any correlation between intensity of fluctuations and ideal sinusoid AC waveforms tends to be rather weak.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 19:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation of AC voltage with time 

message: It appears that little is said about the role of the E and B fields of alternating current in this article. Furthermore, analysis reveals that displacement current (based on time variations of the electric field) actually corresponds to the jerk (physics) of electrons (based on time variations of force on each electron, as determined by the time-varying electric field). If sin(x) is the velocity in arbitrary units, then -sin(x), the second time derivative of sin(x), is jerk in arbitrary units, given that we set t'=1. As it turns out, for an alternating current system, the derivative of velocity, cos(x), and the derivative of jerk, -cos(x), cancel out exactly, meaning that their variations compensate for each other directly. Displacement current and electron current can be seen as flowing in opposite directions at a given point in an alternating current system. Please advise on the possibility on incorporating source material regarding E, B, D, H, P, and M fields in alternating circuits. Sincerely, siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 19:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric and magnetic field time variation of an alternating current and the role of displacement current 

message: 1. The use of batteries for backup and load leveling.  This needs a citation showing that batteries were used for this purpose in the days of early AC systems.
2. Direct-current generators could be easily paralleled.  I don’t dispute that, but I’ve seen a technician bring an AC generator on line.  You had to know what you were doing, but it was not hard. He had a phase meters and volt meters and there were three light bulbs for backup.  Actually, he used the three light bulbs and then fine adjusted with the meters.  This needs a citation saying that AC generators are harder to parallel than DC generators.  Maybe the governors on the prime movers then less steady.
3. AC systems used series circuits for lighting with the attendant problems.  No dispute there, but a citation is needed saying that DC systems worked differently.Constant314 (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a reader could check out "Networks of Power" which goes into this at a little more depth, if this needs even more little blue numbers. One of the most exciting moments in commissioning a new hydroelectric plant generator is the first time it synchronizes to the grid - this is often a major milestone and may literally be a time to break out the champagne. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Advantage of DC systems over the early AC systems needs citations 

message: I read the article and I didn't like it because it's not very well written. It is also somewhat unorganized. Most of all, I don’t like the order of the sections that make this article because they do not flow properly and they are not conducive to learning, especially for someone that does not know much about alternating current. Of top of it, I feel there are unnecessary disquisitions that lead to hard-to-understand concepts that are not that complicated.
Personally, I think this article should be reorganized: history should be first, mathematics second and transmission third. The discussions about frequency should be merged in a single section and could be placed between mathematics and transmission.
I have a few comments:
1. The sentence "This means that when transmitting a fixed power on a given wire, if the current is halved (i.e. the voltage is doubled), the power loss will be four times less." is not clear. It's clear that if current is halved power will be four times less but it's not clear to me how you can half the current by doubling the voltage if V=R*I. V and I are directly proportional. I think a clear explanation is required.
2. The expression "Mathematics of AC voltages" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as alternating current voltage but only alternating current or alternating voltage. This is somewhat awkward, even more when the article is about alternating current but the equations in it are for alternating voltage. There should be consistency.
3. The first equation under the section "Mathematics of AC voltages" only applies to sinusoidal functions. This is not stated explicitly so the statement cannot be considered true in general. The equation should use f(t) instead of sin(ωt).
4. The subsection entitled "Power oscillation" is not clear. I don't even know why it's there.
5. Something is wrong with "In their joint 1885 patent applications for novel transformers (later called ZBD transformers)". 
I think the sentence is missing a word between "for" and "novel" which is "their".
ICE77 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and suggestions 

message: Next to the figure of a single sinusoid cycle (1 crest followed by 1 trough of the curve), the text says "t is the time (unit: second)." The problem is that single cycles of alternating current are 60ths of a second, not seconds. Shouldn't it read "unit: 1/60 second"? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, correct as written - the formula applies at t= 1/60th of a second, t=1 second, t=32767 seconds, etc.,  over many multiples of one cycle...the sine function repeats every 2 * pi/omega  seconds. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, alternating current normally cycles at t=1/60 second. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The world is a very large place.  In some foreign lands, they reverse the flow every 1/50th of a second and consider that to be "normal".  Crazy, eh? I hear some of these places don't even pay taxes to Washington. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say anything about paying taxes to Congress in Washington. I'm well aware of varying international standards for voltage in the consumer grid (that is, after passing through a residential substation), but that's voltage, which is an entirely different matter from cycle time. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, voltage and frequency are different things. This is either unutterably profound or bleed'n obvious. Just in case you're not shining me on, you are aware that a lot of the world used 50 Hz?  And other frequencies are, and have been, used?  See Utility frequency. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time unit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Alternating current. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/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  tag to http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/tl_to_htm.pl?section=technology&item=144
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003002335/http://www.mosi.org.uk/collections/explore-the-collections/ferranti-online/timeline.aspx to http://www.mosi.org.uk/collections/explore-the-collections/ferranti-online/timeline.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028183613/http://www.apcs.net.au/nav/article/fg40400.html to http://www.apcs.net.au/nav/article/fg40400.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040206165242/http://www.tpub.com/neets/book2/index.htm to http://www.tpub.com/neets/book2/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040405163938/http://www.jcphysics.com/toolbox_indiv.php?sub_id=17 to http://www.jcphysics.com/toolbox_indiv.php?sub_id=17
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607042254/http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2003/sep/peshistory.html to http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2003/sep/peshistory.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alternating current. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325121254/http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat373035.pdf to http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat373035.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wikipedia is an encylopedia.  This article is written for people who already know what Alternating Current is and how it is generated.  The main article should be simpler and should explain to a common lay person, how alternating current is generated and functions.  Advanced discussions should follow or be spun off to another article.  And, no I can't be the one to fix it, I'm not qualified to explain the concept, I came to this article to firm up my own understanding. Gdewar (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but some more specific comments would be very helpful; all the people who've been editing to this point seem to think they've explained the subject clearly and if we *haven't* then your specific criticism will be valuable. What,specifically, is wrong? Start with the introduction. When do you start throwing your hands up in the air? C'mon, help us out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: For three-phase at utilization voltages a four-wire system is often used. When stepping down three-phase, a transformer with a Delta primary and a Star secondary is often used so there is no need for a neutral on the supply side.
What I came to this article hoping to find out was: how the electrons move in the wire, what's happening at the power station to make them do that, something about hot and neutral, and what's the deal with the two different legs coming into my circuit box. And maybe something about how that back-and-forth electron motion is used to make appliances go. A good starting point for explanation may be to assume knowledge of DC, since that's simpler and easily understood by analogy to plumbing. The distinction between hot-and-neutral vs. negative-and-positive might also be worth a mention. Brock (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I understand your need for a simple explanation, but quite a lot of what you have written above is simply not true (though some is).  I will try to insert a brief paragraph containing just the true bits, so that we don't upset the experts.  One difficulty is that the numbers you quote are not true for my country, and this is an international encyclopaedia.  Dbfirs 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (later) I'm struggling to improve on the introduction.  I'm not sure that even experts fully understand the quantum mechanics of electron flow. The plumbing analogy is an over-simplification, even for DC.  It is good for a children's encyclopedia, but would not be appropriate in this article.  Perhaps we should have a new article: a simple explanation of electricity?  Dbfirs 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I just had a look and the two equations are not identical.  The variables are explained in the text; that could probably be improved. I think that it needs a picture.Constant314 (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a picture to explain the variables.  Hope that helped.Constant314 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is written ONLY for experts 

message: The common meaning of alternating current is for power distribution.  The other referred to types are sometimes technically alternating current (and usually not).    My edit trying to clarify the former was reverted as being awkward wording.......that could be true but we should try to work that common meaning clarification in.  North8000 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already has more text about electrical power than any other form of AC, which is how it should be.  The sentence which was changed, made a true statement about the waveform in AC power circuits.  But here are many other types of AC.  The sentence, as changed, unduly focused on AC power circuits. Constant314 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

text: There is a large community that considers AC includes a lot more than just power transmission.  This article is about AC in a larger sense than power transmission.  The lede should reflect the contents of the article. Google hits are irrelevant. The article should cover the most common meaning and should cover less common but still widely used meanings.  The casual reader will not be harmed by finding out that there are common uses of AC other than electric power transmission.Constant314 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 90% of your post and disagree with only one point in your post.....IMO such an overwhelming picture from a google search, and the source content of the top 20 results is indicative of the common meaning.  But, not that you have any obligation to do so, your post does not address the points in my 13:41 post.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Common meaning

message: Granted, I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that Tesla was very important in the history of AC yet he's only briefly mentioned once in the history section of this article. Does anyone with more knowledge on the subject think more about him should be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:79D6:BABB:C3E6:AE3C (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. North8000 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: It was strange re-researching some hydroelectric energy facts that Westinghouse and Edison created AC electricity but not all the others. Not sure of the story that was Sad and Ironic that Edisons invention of limited DC Energy caused him to argue against a proven better transmission of power of three wire AC power. Was it because of pride, money or envy who knows? The Diligence and life pursuit of a Syrian Immigrant Scientist backed and controlled by Edison and Westinghouse had to be like the boss who pushes for more only to get rich of your accomplishments, dedication and hard work. I agree with previous comment the whole history section needs to be expanded significantly. 2600:2B00:7420:8800:8456:59B7:9E31:C791 (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

text: @North8000 I have no problem with adding more material about AC power distribution and its development, but I disagree that "AC" is seldom applied to other signals.  It is a very common term in the world of electronics. I would not want to see that usage depreciated.Constant314 (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Tesla actually didn't have a "prominence in the AC vs. DC battle", that's a bit of a misnomer. The War of the currents was already raging before he entered the AC business (received his first patents) and there was no "Tesla poly-phase system" until 1893, a year after the War of the currents ended. The WOTC started out as the people of New York vs the arc lighting companies and morphed into Edison vs Westinghouse (who was using a William Stanley Jr. designed system at the time). None of that had anything to do with Tesla. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tesla? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Effective power. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8#Effective power until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Effective power" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]