Talk:Electricity/Archive 1

message: TO: Australian Institute of Ciminology,
GPO Box 2944,
Canberra ACT,
AUSTRALIA.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Does anyone know if electricity can ‘leak’ into the body?  I am updating a book called The Bread Perspective © Leeds 2003, and one of the things I am focusing on, is ways people cope. I have found most people cope in fairly predicitable ways, however I have found a few instances where people have to cope with things they cannot explain. For example:-
	Jane was reacting to doing something unnatural [she kicked someone and was distressed because it was an expert karate kick and she doesn’t know how to do karate]. She coped by collecting information from a wide variety of sources like television programs, books and the environment. These sources showed people having their muscles stimulated by ELECTRICITY to make them smile, kick ect. Then she likened this to a player piano and deduced it was possible to use technology to play the brain like a player piano. The conclusion she came up with was with all the technology floating about [eg., like programs on self defence], some of it may have hit her and enabled her to do a karate kick.
	Bob has had quite a few gall bladder attacks in the last 5 years. The pain starts and gets stronger until he vomits and goes into shock. The pain abates with analgesics, but is chronic for about a week. The important factor is the pain comes first then the shock and the shock is induced by the pain eg., On the last occasion the pain only lasted for a few minutes, the shock however, went on and on until he could no longer stand up. There seemed to be no cause for the shock to continue without the pain. Bob thinks when his body went through the experience of the gall bladder attacks, his brain took a chronicle of his experience. Then when exposed to something {he thinks it is ELECTRICITY} his brain ‘replayed’ the chronicle. He feels this last attack was artificial.
Can anyone expand on this?
Kind regards,
Christine Leeds. (Jan 14) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.88.154 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While electricity could cause a muscle contraction, it could not cause a kick to be accurately aimed.  Electricity could not float around and cause someone to be suddenly educated.  As to your second question, don't ask online for medical advise, consult a licensed doctor instead.  --ssd 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RESEARCH 

message: Many of the pointers to this page seems to mean electricity in the meaning electrical energy. Perhaps there should be a separate article about electrical energy, with all relevant pointers so directed? -- Egil 07:46 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
If I had started this article, I would have made it a disambiguation article with links to "electrical energy", "electrical power", "electric current", "electric charge" and all other electrical phenomena.  The present article is about electric charge, so it could perhaps be merged with the article of that name. -- Heron
I believe this article should focus on the commonest meaning of electricity, i.e. electric current.  One proof of this is to look at the articles that link to here: most take the "electric current" view.  It should start with a disambiguation paragraph linking to other electrical phenomena. Pcarbonn 19:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely with Bill on this one!--Light current 18:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, you really can't synthesize these separate topics, and it's wrong to pretend that a single overacrching "electricity stuff" exists. (It would be like pretending that sound, wind, and nitrogen are really just one thing.)  On the other hand, book titles such as "Optics" and "Acoustics" and "Electronics" exist.   Electricity is a subject in the same way that Electronics is a subject, and Electricity can serve as a section heading, although it still will mislead some.  What would you think if people assumed that Electronics was a form of energy?  Or, what if they thought that air was made of Meteorology rather than nitrogen?  That's the situation at present with the "Electricity" concept: the chapter title has been mistaken for the substance-like entities being studied.  We want to tell our audience that "water" flows in pipes, but "Hydraulics" never does.  --Wjbeaty 04:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Main focus of this article ??

message: Electricity kills in either of these ways:
* Current of at least 50 miliamps passing through the heart can cause it to stop.  To get 50ma to the heart, there must be sufficent voltage to overcome the body's natural resistance.
* The body's natural resistance can cause it to absorb the electricity and convert it to heat.  Given enough power, this heat will cause the body to cook.  For this, it does not matter if it is low voltage or low power, as long as the product of the two is high enough for the power to heat the body faster than it can dissipate the generated heat.
: "Electricity" doesn't kill.  That would be as wrong as saying that "geology" kills.  Or alternately, first you have to settle upon a clear and narrow definition of the word Electricity.  If you don't, then "electricity" doesn't exist, and the phrase "electricity kills" only seems to mean something, and yet it really does not.  Or in other words... what is electricity?!!  --Wjbeaty 04:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How electricity kills 

message: I was surprised to see how the focus of the article changes rapidly as you read into it. I'd suggest putting all the electric power discusions as links to those articles, and leaving "electricity" as more of a discussion of the fundamental physics.  Static charge, dynamic charge, all the pith-ball-and-compass-needle history, etc. - and leave applications to other articles. --Wtshymanski 22:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed focus

message: *Perhaps convert Electricity into a disambiguation stub
:I think this would be a disaster. Electricity is a major concept in science. Readers will expect to find a substantial article with that title. If they find anything else, they will think we are wasting their time and will go somewhere else. [I haven't edited the Pending Tasks list yet, because to do that without prior discussion might have seemed arrogant]. --Heron 16:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Scientifically, electricity is a number of different things, but what people usually mean when they say "electricity" is a combination of these different things out of a practical point of view, and that is what this article should be about. --HymylyTC 21:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can I delete a pending task, please?

message: Was the word "electric" or "electricity" coined by anyone named "Electra"?
:No. See the "Antiquity" section of this article. --Heron 20:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word coinage 

message: We have an article Electric power, there's no need to expand this section in the "electricity" article and it would seem more logical (to me, anyway) to work on the electric power article as required, instead of duplicating content here. We don't *have* to put every electrical fact we know into *every* electrical article, when we can organize things so that additional explanation, where required, is only a mouse-click away. --Wtshymanski 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Electric Power

message: Shouldn't all this terminology stuff be up at the top to try to disambiguate all the diffrent meanings of the word?--Light current 13:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Would people interested in this page please view the modified version and post their comments on it as it stands now (maybe compared with how it was) Is it better or worse? --Light current 04:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is commonly applied to any and all subjects," ...is not correct.   In truth, the word "electricity" is wrongly applied to any and all subjects.  For example, people say that an electric current is a flow of electricity.  Then in the same breath they say that flows of electrical energy are flows of "electricity."  We have a word for this situation:  "a direct contradiction."  Electric charge and electric energy are two different things.   The problem is simple, if the charges which flow during an electric current are defined as "flowing electricity," then it's wrong to state that electricity is a form of energy.  Charge is not energy.   Or the other way round: if "electricity" is a form of energy, then an electric current is not a flow of electricity.   Yes, people may insist that electricity is energy and also insist that an electric current is a flow of electricity.  But if they do this, they are wrong.   If Wikipedia implies that electricity is energy and that a current is a flow of electricity, then Wikipedia is wrong.  This problem involves the difference between scientific terminology and non-scientific words.  Specifically: if millions of people misuse a non-science term, then the misuse becomes slang use and eventually evolves to become the correct use.  Majority rules.  Language evolves.  But if millions of people misuse a scientific term, it remains a misuse always.  I.e. if millions of people say that one plus one is three, or say that energy is measured in coulombs... the majority doesn't matter: they remain wrong.  Majority doesn't rule.   So, if "electricity" is a science term, then it has a narrow definition, and any usage which conflicts with the scientific definition is wrong.   Big Question: when people come to Wikipedia and ask "what is electricity?" are they asking for a concise and scientific definition?   If so, then we'd better not give them the widespread and muddy misusage, and then pretend that we've answered their question.  Let's cut to the chase: if quantity of electricity is measured in coulombs, then electricity is very definitely not a form of energy.   If quantity of electricity is measured in coulombs, then any reference book is wrong if it claims that electricity is a form of energy.  And how do scientists use the term?  They avoid it!  But this wasn't always the case.  See Scientists definition of Electricity --Wjbeaty 05:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Page version 13 Sept 05 

message: For historical reasons, electric current is said to flow from the most positive part of a circuit to the most negative part. The electric current thus defined is called conventional current. It is now known that, depending on the type of conductor, an electric current can consist of a flow of charged particles in either direction, or even in both directions at once. The positive-to-negative convention is widely used to simplify this situation. If another definition is used - for example, "electron current" - it should be explicitly stated.
I'm a trained and (until recently) practicing electrician for 20 years and have no idea what this passage is intended to convey. Conventional current flows positive to negative. Electrons actually flow negative to positive. What are these "charged particles"? Cosmic rays? Either this is a very confused passage, or if it's intended to discuss something more obscure like charge distribution on the surfaces of insulators, charges in semiconductors or Cooper pairs in superconductors or whatnot, it surely has no place in an article generically entitled "electricity". --82.71.30.178
:I agree. If positively-charged particles are involved, then certainly there can be flow from + to −, but without a specific example, that passage is confusing. Actually, it's poorly written and so confusing in general. (I added "82.71.30.178" to the above for clarity.) —BenFrantzDale 03:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm a double-E and a physics person, so does that mean that my creds trump yours?  (Why even mention such things?!!)  But seriously, a general article on electricity is exactly where a general definition of electric current and direction of current belongs.  A general definition of "flowing electricity" includes all possible charge flows.  (I hope you're not one of the folks with the misconception that that electric current is a flow of electrons.  If you do have this misconception, then certainly the correct information is going to appear confusing to you.)  Perhaps that statement is too short?  Here's the full-blown story: during electric currents in ocean water, and currents in electrolytes such as battery acid, and in human tissue, the electric current is entirely composed of negatively-charged atoms flowing in one direction and positively-charged atoms flowing simultaneously in the opposite direction.  No electrons can flow in salt water (the lifetime of bare electrons in salt water is measured in nanoseconds.)  When in ionized gases (such as fluorescent tubes, sparks, neon signs,) electric current is partly made of bare electrons flowing in one direction, and some of the current is made of positively charged gas atoms flowing opposite, and some is made of negatively charged gas atoms flowing in the same direction as the electrons, but at a much lower velocity.  In other words... the direction of the flowing particles depends on the type of conductor.  A very simple statement. And in my opinion only confusing if for some reason you think it's wrong.  Even more important as a concept: ELECTRIC CURRENT is defined as FLOW OF CHARGED PARTICLES.   Which charged particles?  Any.  Any at all.  We don't have to say which.  Electric current MEANS "flowing charged particles," period, end of story.  But here are examples: if we have some charged dust blowing in the wind, THAT is an electric current.  If we have some positive hydrogen ions flowing through frozen water (e.g. bare protons flowing through ice,) THAT is a "flow of electricity".  Back in the days of Ben Franklin the scientists thought that there might only be one kind of "electricity" flowing inside conductors.  They were wrong.   So to compress all of this into a couple of sentences:  "It is now known that electric current can involve charged particles flowing in either direction or even both directions at once.  It depends on the type of conductor involved."   The statement is brief, concise, and correct.  Can you further explain why you think it's confusing?  This is a general article, and I think a list of examples is inappropriate and should only appear in specialized articles about electric charge or electric current. --Wjbeaty 04:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When teaching I worked with a lot of military trained people, who used the less common "hole flow" convention. They drew arrows representing current in the opposite direction as "electron flow" convention. In the "electron flow" convention, current is drawn from a positive voltage to a negative one. The quantum view Wjbeaty was trying to show is a lot more complicated for the layman than it needs to be. Charge movement and power flow are two different terms and are abstractions of the actual motion of electrons and positive ions. Dominick (TALK) 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't that backwards?  In my experience it's the military people who commonly use "electron flow," while science and engineering people use Conventional Current assumed to have positive charge flow.  You're also backwards in claiming that electrons flow from positive voltage to negative.  And about "quantum," I think you're using distorting labels, since this has nothing to do with complicated concepts in QM, and everything to do with standards.  As with metric measurements, things are easy if we adopt a single standard, but they become confusing if we try to switch back and forth between two competing standards.  As far as most circuit calculations are concerned, it doesn't matter whether we assume that the standardized charge carriers are positive or negative.  So what ARE the standards?  Scientists and engineers use Conventional Current.  Technicians (especially vacuum tube technicians and military ones) go the opposite, assuming that the only mobile charges are the electrons, and they reject the use of Conventional Current.  This creates a sort of "religious war" where one side claims intellectual superiority and develops hatred for the competing belief system.  I've encountered this personally many times.  Many technicians trained in "electron flow" worldview actively hate engineers who use Conventional Current.  Further... if this was to be an argument over which view is really correct, then neither view is correct, because neither view is real.  During actual electric currents, flowing particles can include both polarities of moving charges depending on the material doing the conducting.  In other words, whenever we deal with vacuum tubes, semiconductor currents, electrochemistry, and particle accelerators, we must abandon our simplifying assumptions such as Conventional Current or "electron current", and instead must deal with the real motions of real charged particles, whatever they may be.  It's only when we deal with groups of connected black-box components that we can pretend that all charge carriers have the same polarity.  But when analyzing what occurs inside any particular component, confusion will be caused by any assumption that charge carriers MUST be positive, or MUST all be negative. --Wjbeaty 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Hole flow current from neg to pos. Electron, conventional flow from positive to negative. Those guys get uppity about hole flow, I know it. Dominick (TALK) 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above.  This has nothing to do with hole flow at all!  If we want to deal with REAL particle flows, then the current in electrolytes and plasmas is always composed of positive and negative charges flowing in opposite directions.  Only in metals and in vacuum tubes is it nice and simple single-polarity particles.  So, whenever we say that there's 10mA flowing in a human body during a shock, or there's 10 amps in the liquid in your electroplating tank, what the hell are we talking about, since in both those situations there is a certain amperage of negative charges going one way, and a different amperage of positive charges going the other way.  Yet we insist on simplifing this, and we say that there's just one current (it's the current measured by an amp meter.)  That single current simplifies everything.  It lets us think about circuits in sensible terms, without having to confront the REAL particle flows.--Wjbeaty 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exactly What Is This Intended To Convey To The Reader? 

message: Thomas Edison has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for this article and help improve it to featured status. --Fenice 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: Can we specify it somewhere. I believe it is almost equal to the speed of electromagnetic waves. Charlie 08:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Electric current#The speed of an electric current. --Heron 14:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See also Velocity of propagation.  It's a per-medium thing, and affects impedance and refractive index. --ssd 07:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that the "speed of current" is incredibly slow.  This is a cause for confusion because most people don't recognize the difference between the stuff that flows, versus the motion of that stuff.  For example, when a water-filled hose is attached to a backyard faucet and turned on, the water flows quite slowly, yet a *wave* of motion will propagate almost instantly to the far end of the hose, and water will squirt almost instantly from the end.  Obviously there is a great difference between water and "propagating waves of flow-initiation."   Things are similar in electric circuits:  an electric current is a very slow flow of electric charges, yet the charge flow begins almost instantly.  The "wave of flow-initiation" propagates along wires at a large fraction of the speed of light.--Wjbeaty 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed of electric current

message: Are these all shown correctly (usually in upper case)? I have seen v for volt. I thought W meant west, while watts were w.
:West and Watts are used together so infrequently that there's not much harm in using the same symbol for both.  Electrical engineering uses so many different variables that they ran out of normal letters and then ran out of greek letters too.  Symbol reuse within EE is a problem that must be danced around carefully.  It happens. --ssd 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to the question, yes, they are all shown correctly. W is for watts, V is for volts; any other variations are wrong. --Heron 20:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been told that units (such as Kelvins K and Volts V) named after people (such as Lord Kelvin and Voltaire) are capitalized. Other units (such as meters m and seconds s) are lowercase. But perhaps I'm mis-remembering. I do know that in some classes, teachers use lowercase variables (such as i) to represent instantaneous values (such as current at a particular instant), uppercase variables (I) to represent average values (average current). Distinguishing i from I, both measured in Amperes (A) wasn't too bad. But distinguishing v from V, both measured in Volts (V), was a bit tricky, especially for someone with my handwriting. --DavidCary 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you're not right.  The full names of all SI units are in lower case, whether they are named after people or not.  See the official SI brochure.  --Heron 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The SI unit of Celsius temperature is the degree Celsius, with begins with a small d.  It is equal in magnitude to the SI unit of thermodynamic temperature, the kelvin, which begins with a small k.  It's all in the SI brochure. --Heron 17:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  abbreviations for electricity units 

message: What exactly is this picture intended to show?--Light current 03:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For that matter, what is Wires.jpg supposed to show? This photo was obviously taken because of the unusual fluff balls on the power lines, but the caption completely glosses over them. —Deadcode 07:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead picture 

message: I think this article is getting near to FA standard but we need more references and citations. Any offers?--Light current 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article nomination 

message: Now heres a question I'm not sure if it can be found elsewhere, but does electricity travel in cold weather like under 20 degrees celsius? please someone edit this page with an answer!!! Much appreciated in advance. Question from 87.228.136.253 moved from article page. --C J Cowie 16:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Electric current does flow in cold weather. There is generally less resistance to current flow at colder temperatures. At very cold temperatures, some materials become superconductors and their resistance is nearly zero. --C J Cowie 16:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I remember hearing somewhere (perhaps more than one place) a while ago that there is evidence that the ancient Egyptians may have actually discovered the secrets of electricity. I heard that they found copper wiring in some of the buildings or something like that. Is this true, or am I confusing it with something else, or what? bob rulz 19:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be thinking of the Baghdad battery (not in Egypt, but possibly an ancient battery) or the Dendera light (in Egypt, but only nutcases believe that it was an electrical device). --Heron 20:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks, that answers my question. bob rulz 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Egyptians 

message: There was a significant contribution by Hans Christian Oersted that is not mentioned at all in this article on electricity.
Circa 1820 he first noticed the relation between electric current and magnetic field and wrote a short paper that was widely circulated.
Much of the work of Faraday and Henry depends on this discovery of Oersted.
:Mention him!--Light current 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oersted not mentioned 

message: If we had a few, this would make a good FAC!--Light current 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Removed from page by User:DV8 2XL THey look abit like school notes. Put here in case any use can be made of them. I doubt it really.
--Light current 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals from Page 

message: The first sentence of the Electricity entry has become corrupt:
:Electricity is a property of matter that results from the presence or movement of electric charge.
It's certainly true that there is a property of matter called "electric charge," and scientists have historically used "charge" and "electricity" interchangably.  But in that case we'd say that Electricity is electric charge, period, end of story.  On the other hand, many other references insist that bioelectricity and atmospheric electricity are different "kinds of electricity."  And most children's textbooks insist that "electricity" means charge-flow rather than charge.
The present WP definition above is wrong because it's a combination of two distinct and contradictory meanings for "electricity."  If Electricity is a class of phenomenon associated with the presence or motion of electric charge, then electricity cannot be a property of matter.  Charge is a property of matter, and electrical phenomena are not charge.
Let's improve things.  One possibility is to use the scientific definition of electricity, where quantities of electricity are measured in Coulombs.  Unfortunately this definition is becoming archaic and is no longer used.  (Search google for the number of hits on "coulombs of electricity" versus "kwh of electricity" and you'll see what I mean.)  Maybe we could use WP to force everyone to start using the original scientific meaning of electricity, but it's probably a huge uphill battle.  
Since the greater world uses multiple contradictory definitions for the word "electricity," I think it would be best to avoid deciding which one is "right" or "scientific" and which ones are "wrong."  Instead we should be up-front about the problem.  We could simply be honest and point out that the word Electricity has several conflicting definitions, so Electricity is neither a charge nor an energy nor a class of phenomena.
FYI, here are the three separate and contradictory meanings of Electricity:
1. Electricity means electric charge.  Electricity is a property of matter, and quantity of electricity is measured in Coulombs
2. Electricity means electromagnetic field energy.  The quantity of electricity is measured in Joules or KWH. "Electricity" is the same thing as light and radio waves, but of much lower frequency.
3. Electricity means the flow of electric charge.  When electrons stop flowing, "electricity" goes away.  The quantity of electricity is measured in Amperes or Coulombs/sec.
4. Electricity is a field of science and a class of phenomenon similar to "geology" or "government."  We cannot measure quantities of myoelectricity or triboelectricity, any more than we can measure the quantity of optics or weather.
...and here are definitions from earlier WP entries for Electricity:
1. Electricity, also called electric charge, is a fundamental property of matter, and gives rise to many well-known physical phenomena such as lightning, electric fields, electric currents and electric power.
2. Electricity is a general term applied to phenomena involving a fundamental property of matter called an electric charge
3. Electricity is a property of certain subatomic particles (e.g. electrons / protons) which couples to electromagnetic fields and causes attractive and repulsive forces between them. Electricity gives rise to one of the four fundamental forces of nature, and is a conserved property of matter that can be quantified. In this sense, the phrase "quantity of electricity" is used interchangeably with the phrases "charge of electricity" and "quantity of charge." 
::I like #2 above the best.  I'd be bold and change it back to this myself, but perhaps the Wikipedian who began this talk topic deserves the honor, and perhaps it deserves further discussion.  Whatever the case, I agree that electricity is not usually thought of as "a property of matter."  Mass, charge, "color"--these are properties of matter: they can quantifiably be used to describe different kinds of matter.  I've never heard anyone say that a brick of gold or a glass of water had yea-much "electricity". Robert K S 13:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the sentence that's being complained about , and I accept that it's wrong because it mixes up two different definitions. Like Robert K S, I prefer #2 immediately above, which agrees nicely with the article's second paragraph, under 'Concepts in electricity'. I think I'll change it now, on the principle that removing factual errors is more important than worrying about who gets the honour. --Heron 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is electricity? 

message: Benjamin Franklin says: "On June 15, Franklin conducted his famous kite experiment in Philadelphia and also successfully extracted sparks from a cloud (unaware that Dalibard had already done so, 36 days earlier)". Electricity says that this story is "more fiction than fact". I suspect that the Franklin article is correct, but in any case the two should be brought into agreement. NewEnglandYankee 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Franklin and Kites

message: I think we would include information about zero-carbon electricity in Wikipedia. --HybridBoy 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is "zero-carbon electricity"?? — Omegatron 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero-carbon electricity 

message: Almost imediatelly following my last 1 week semi-protection of this page, a pattern of only anon_vandalize-revert-anon_vandalize-revert edits (re)started and persisted for almost a week. So I semi-protected it again, now for 2 weeks. - Nabla 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's going on again, obviously.  I've requested a permanent semi-protect. --Steve Pucci | talk 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protected 

message: Could it be noted that in the Kentucky-Ohio-Indiana area the adjective "electric" is often used as a noun meaning "electricity"?
(i.e. "We need to get the electric turned on in our new apartment.") ·:RedAugust 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that in New England too, but since this is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, I'm not sure it belongs. Also, it would need a source. --Gerry Ashton 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "Electric" 

message: For those of us for whom all things physics-related are complicated, could we have a laymans article on electricity? I appreciate the need for accurate technical information, but I think there is a definate need for a well-written article along the lines of 'An Introduction to Electricity'  - think middle school, not post-grad? Narkboy 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with this one? — Omegatron 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Simple Approach? 

message: Is the adage "no one really knows why electricity works true"? I keep finding it but really can't find an answer either way. Feedback and maybe adding something to the entry would be nice. Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.126.103.25 (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are fundamental theories, such as Maxwell's equations, which predict the behavior of electricity very well. The theory of quantum mechanics also applies to electricity. Both of these theories work, but intuitively, they seem very different. Some people feel that there ought to be a theory that combines these different ideas, but if there is, it has not been found yet. --Gerry Ashton 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why electricity works 

message: This is the talking Japanese originated words rather than gairaigo, but I would like to your help for definition.
For these, transmit or transmission, Japanese has two words.
"tensou 転送" literally refer to sending with roll out, apply to transmission between PC and peripheral equipment(s) without
signal form change such as without modulation, transmit anything in very proximity or short distance, or transfer mail, cargo, a thing with form or style as it is, or without change.
Another word "densou　伝送" literally refer to send or relay with telling or talking/speaking, apply to transmit signal with modulation and this "densou" apply to communication technology area only.
not use like to do "densou" the cargo.  "tensou" the cargo is correct usage in Japanese.
If engineer use "tensou" for telecommunication which send to far distance location, he is not expert in Japan, he should use "densou" instead.My question is, is there different word(s) to discriminate above two condition which Japanese does?
English term Transmit or transmission is seems used for any sending regardless of distance and with or without modulation/demodulation take place. Also Japanese have another word for
Electricity transmission, "souden" literally means "send Electricity" with two Chinese letter "send"+ "Electricity". Japanese electricity or electronics engineer use these three terms in different meaning actually reflect different property or manipulation.--Namazu-tron 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  transmit or transmission 

message: This article does not meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at this time. There are numerous issues with manual of style compliance, the lead section, overall lack of reference citations, and completeness & organizational issues. I'm not sure exactly where to begin; it appears that the article needs a complete overhaul.
The lead is mainly just a big list. The 'history of electricity' doesn't seem very accurate here. Maybe just 'history', although it's not just the history of electricity we're talking about -- it's really the discovery of electricity, so perhaps this section header should be called 'discovery'. (not 'discovery of electricity', since the article title should not appear in section headers, per WP:MSH).
The subsection under the current history section (current, potential, etc), should be moved into their own main sections. These sections actually deal more with the science of electricity than history or discovery.
The 'see also' section is very long, and many of these items would probably be better integrated into a section in the article. For example, it might be good to have a new section called 'applications', discussing how electricity is used, in both nature and in human industry.
References should be formatted per WP:CITE. There's also only a single reference, which is far from complete.
There's a lot of external links. Some of this information could be used as inline reference citations instead, which might help to prune them a bit. Review WP:EL for tips on including external links in articles.
I think there's quite a bit more that can be improved in the article, but hopefully this will provide a good starting point. I would recommend referring to one of the article's wikiprojects for assistance on the article's reorganization. Good luck! Dr. Cash 05:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review