Talk:Electric arc

message: Can melt or vaporize "virtually anything?" What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like a magic weapon! Maybe be specific on hardnesses of things it can't melt? I don't know enough about it, but that made me laugh.
:This is a little late I guess, but what it means is that an arc's temperature is typically anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 degrees F, or greater. In other words, a temperature ranging from a yellow star to a blue giant. That is well beyond the vaporization point of any material, including carbon (even in the form of diamond). Zaereth (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A glow discharge is not an arc. Discuss current vs. voltage characteristics of arcs; higher current arcs need less voltage to sustain them, so there is an incremental negative resistance (source of many interesting properties).  Discuss the regieme of currents - arcs only appear at fractions of an amp and upwards; microamp and nanoamp discharges aren't arcs. I'll have to read A. H. Howatson, An Introduction to Gas Discharges, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965  again this weekend. --Wtshymanski 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical properties 

message: Removed a paragraph from the Undesired arcing section. Copied from this source provided as a citation, which doesn't make it okay.  I don't have a grasp of the material adequate to attempt a rewrite. Richigi (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph for copyvio 

message: Lightning IS NOT an arc discharge as your photograph states, it is an electrostatic discharge, a spark.
Here is your own article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning
Does anyone check this stuff?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morzh (talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lightning not an arc

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electric arc. 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/20050731082248/http://205.243.100.155/frames/longarc.htm to http://205.243.100.155/frames/longarc.htm
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) 01:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The role of Petrov is a little questionable. Even in Russia it was already debunked as Russian propaganda, and uncovered that it was British, who actually discovered electric arc, while working under Petrov, who just appropriated his discovery:
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2289495
>Русский ученый Петров никакой электрической дуги не открывал. Дугу открыл Мейджер — россиянин, но английский подданный, поэтому его, конечно, по боку, а Петрова назначили первооткрывателем...
It is a common trope in Russia, when all discoveries are duplicated and named after Russian scientists. I heard France had similar practice.
--NikitaSadkov (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The discovery is wrongly attributed to Vasily V. Petrov