Talk:Alternator

message: It seems to me that an alternator, as described on this page, is just a local definition for an electrical generator.  Steam turbine generators are called "turbogenerators" in North America.  Additionally, Gas turbine generators are also called turbogenerators.  Alternator is an archaic term in North America for this kind of industrial machine.  The "alternator" term is reserved for car and truck electrical generators.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.74.181 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Electric generator

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternator&oldid=211659249
Here is the culprit that did it.
(cur | prev)  00:37, 14 May 2008 Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) (17,030 bytes) (copyedit - why are we talking about motors here? two phase can be symmetrical, too - link.) (undo)
(cur | prev)  14:01, 11 May 2008 TubularWorld (talk | contribs) (17,805 bytes) (Undid revision 211659222 by 76.226.25.243 (talk)) (undo)
--Ericg33 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are supposed to be about their topics. This article is about alternators, not motors.  We don't need the table of speeds twice.  It's very confustion to talk about a rotating magnetic field produced by three-phase stator windings in the contest of an alternator, that description is more usefully given when talking about motors. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were these amazing images removed by some troll? Someone restore them. 

message: I notice that the issue has arisen on this page several times since 2006.  I propose that this article be rewritten into two pages: automotive alternator and AC electric generator with appropriate cross-links.  When both articles are in good shape, alternator can become a disambiguation page.  I'm willing to work on this if others think it's a good idea. M Carling 08:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm neutral on the names.  Either your or my suggested names are fine with me. M Carling 15:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring organizational issues regarding automotive alternators versus AC generators 

message: This article has been tagged for merging. Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not a merge, but perhaps refactor any content that talks about AC machines in general and then specialize this to automotive alternators. It would be very rare to find a machine described as an "alternator" that wasn't used in a vehicle; larger machines are nearly always called "generator", so we have "standby generator set", "diesel generator", "turbine/generator unit", and so on. Automotive alternators are quite enough for a free-standing article by themselves. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although 'generator' is more common now, back in the war of the currents the two terms dynamo and alternator were widely used, as appropriate, and generator was rare. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but we don't get a lot of users telegraphing from 1890. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have a perfectly good article title at electrical generator to cover whatever one might wish to say about generation. Alternator and dynamo are clearly distinct, identifiable topics with clear scope that is separate from each other. Why should they be merged, and (given that anything we want to say about generation can be said there already), effectively deleted? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --ChetvornoTALK 12:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Electrical generator]] 

message: Permanent magnet synchronous generator contains a paragraph or two that would be useful here - that article has no references or links and rather than fix it in place, perhaps it should be redirected and merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as long as you don't merge it and redirect it and half do the job as you usually do. 86.145.244.183 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Permanent magnet synchronous generator]]

message: You will not find a better multimedia effect on wikipedia.  If you can then tell me.  Below is the edit that removed it.  
(cur | prev) 14:17, 12 December 2012‎ Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,196 bytes) (-3,490)‎ . . (linearity not required and this whole discussion is beside the point for alternators anyway) (undo)
'''
REVERT IT!--Ericg33 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was valuable moving gif Alternator image removed? 

message: This section seems quite extensive to me, enough to merit its own article. While archiving this talk page, I had a quick glance and noticed some debate over this, but I didn't spot any definitive votes over what should be done (as I said, it was a quick glance, so I apologise if I overlooked such a vote). For this reason I'm inviting a vote below on whether this section should create its own article and how.
* Split as a new article named 'Automotive alternators'. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of automotive alternators to new article 

message: The diagram in the Principal of Operation section looks really great and it makes easier for readers to follow. However, I'm not sure if it is based on a reliable source somewhere. All sources I have searched point out to another design where the poles are in rotation similarly to this design, but they use two coils, one on the top, the other on the bottom instead of this rectangular armature loop. The two coils are wired serially but having the winding in the opposite direction between the two coils. An example of what I'm talking about is here. My feeling is that the design shown in the diagram in this article would work also, but I couldn't find a reference for it. I hope it is not WP:OR. If anyone know any sources that mention about this simple design, please share. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's complete crap (it's a motor not an alternator). However whenever it's removed, it gets re-added. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram of a simple alternator with a rotating magnetic core 

message: Why is there a long section in this article about multiphase ac motors? It has nothing to do with alternators and seems completely out of place. If there's meant to be some relevance perhaps it could be made somewhat more explicit.
84.93.97.179 (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternator not motor ... 

message: I would like to propose reorganization of this article a bit to help readers in the navigation. No information is removed (brushless alternators is moved to the right sub-section). Also I would like to add some more info on classification of alternators from a public domain document. I put a draft version of my proposed change in User:Z22/sandbox/draft. Here is the diff . If there is no objection, I will populate the change to this article. Feel free to suggest further changes or edit directly to that sandbox page. When we are comfortable, I will copy the final to the article page. I will put a proper attribution for those contributors. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no objection to the proposed change, I am populating the change from the draft space to the article. Further improvements can be done directly to the article. Z22 (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to the article 

message: This article has long had a section on applications with a sub section for Radio alternators. They're not an important means of transmitting radio, but they are an unusual and significant application for alternators, indicating an upper frequency limit and requiring novel construction techniques.
This section is now being repeatedly deleted, despite opposition, by that regular merger and hatchetman of articles, Wtshymanski.  Anyone have any thoughts as to whether this section should stay?  Andy Dingley (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd forgotten the Wikipedia policy that anything in an article for 6 weeks is revealed truth and can no longer be revised.  Some articles need editing with a hatchet. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  And your point is?  Andy Dingley (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of radio as an application? 

message: can a 2002 pathfinder alternator work on a 1997 pathfinder  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.51.141 (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  can a 2002 pathfinder alternator work on a 1997 pathfinder 

message: I don't see the point of mentioning Tesla's alternator in the History section.  It was not the first high frequency alternator - Elihu Thomson invented the high frequency oscillator in 1889., , ,    If we're going to mention radio alternators, it should be either Thomson's or the most notable: the Fessenden or Alexanderson alternators. --ChetvornoTALK 03:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Its another one of those "Tesla did something" statements you find Tesla fans have sprinkled throughout Wikipedia (I noted a similar statement at Radar). Usually referencing RS on the topic (instead of books on Tesla) cleans up whether Tesla had any significant roll. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Tesla mentioned? 

message: Presently the 'Synchronous speeds' section states:
One cycle of alternating current is produced each time a pair of field poles passes over a point on the stationary winding. The relation between speed and frequency is N = 120 f / P {\displaystyle N=120f/P} N=120f/P, where f {\displaystyle f} f is the frequency in Hz (cycles per second). P {\displaystyle P} P is the number of poles (2,4,6...) and N {\displaystyle N} N is the rotational speed in revolutions per minute (RPM).
I'm not sure that this statement is correct. My understanding is that one 360 degree rotation of a rotor pole pair generates one cycle in a stator coil. I suspect that the factor of 2 relates to the ripple after full wave rectification (full wave rectification doubles the frequency).
Also the title, 'Synchronous speeds' is meaningless and does not relate to the contents of the section.
I also suggest that the frequency of the field wave form should be the subject of the formula:
Fs = (N * RPM)/60
Where:
Fs is the frequency of the stator coil signal in Hz.
N = the number of rotor pole pairs.
RPM = the rotor speed in revolutions per minute.
This formula is simpler and easier to follow.
CPES (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Formula wrong?

message: The practical energy conversion efficiency of alternators neds to be mentioned, perhaps with a comparison against d.c. generators. EEye (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Dependant on size, bigger more efficient, single, polyphase, frequency or DC. Therefore no one figure. A commonly used value in the rail industry for large diesel/electrical loco gens is 94%.Suckindiesel (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency

message: Why does the caption for the first photo mention the Russian empire? To my knowledge Budapest was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1909.Wikigreenwood (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo caption accuracy