Talk:War of the currents

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why Not Have a New Section Within the Article on Bias? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Edison

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  First Transmission between Cities? 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV Removal?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irony? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  A few points: 

message: 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)
thread_title: AfD nomination removed

message: Look at  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)
thread_title: Former FA candidate

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Future DC Grid?

message: 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)
thread_title: Source?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Modern use of DC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edison may have the last laugh

message: 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)
thread_title:  Electrocution of animals not properly sourced 

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

message: 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: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:War of Currents]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Early transmission analysis? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Meanwhile in Europe

message: 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)
thread_title: dubious paragraph about Bankside, can someone check?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag for OR added to the section. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources for advantages of AC over DC

message: 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)
thread_title:  Details of Edison's system 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source Anachronism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Demise of DC power Transmission Couldn't be more wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edison did not "lead to the invention" of the electric chair

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major expansion 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Remaining DC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead/Lede 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--ChetvornoTALK 04:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

text: 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. --ChetvornoTALK 20:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tesla template, should this page be listed on it?