Talk:Volt

message: Re: "water circulating in a network of pipes, driven by pumps in the absence of gravity, then the potential difference corresponds to the hydrostatic pressure difference between two points".
The "hydrostatic pressure" hyperlink is redirected to "fluid pressure", perhaps because "hydrostatic pressure" is more narrowly, and I presume correctly, defined there as the pressure of a fluid due to the weight of the fluid, which makes the "absence of gravity" correspondence to "hydrostatic pressure" on the "Volt" page problematic.  Perhaps the simple solution is to change the linked reference text from "hydrostatic pressure" to "fluid pressure"? I am new to both Wiki and physics, and perhaps there is more to this than I can see, but for anyone simply following the linked text, there is I think a problem. jauntymcd@sprint.ca Oct 22, 2005
:I changed to fluid pressure, as above. I also removed most of :  "Voltage is a convenient way of quantifying the ability to do work without having to specify the amount of charge (the number of electrons or other particles) involved.  This simplifies electrical calculations, where the number of particles that move is usually of no interest." I don't think it is helpful. The amount of charge might be relevant in talking about the voltage across a capacitor, but the voltage induced across a conductor by a changing magnetic field has nothing to do with quantity of charge.--agr 11:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Voltage is a property of an electric field, not individual electrons. See "Technical definition". An electron moving across a voltage difference gains energy, often measured in electron-volts.(hmmm maybe this belongs in the article) --agr 11:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydraulic analogy

message: The volt is a unit of voltage or (electric/electrical) potential difference.  Right now voltage redirects to volt.  I suggest that there should be a separate article on voltage, with the content split from volt.
Volt is to voltage as watt is to power, newton is to force etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wakiped (talk • contribs) 08:35, 15 December 2005.
:Wakiped is absolutely right. Ampere and Electric current have different articles; so should Volt and Voltage. I'll add the appropriate tags. Melchoir 11:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volt vs Voltage/Potential difference 

message: I was missing that in the article. That should be Tension is defined in Volts?
:Huh? Melchoir 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you're trying to say. Melchoir 07:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, right. The volt is the standard unit of voltage, aka electric potential difference. Melchoir 05:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... in Volt 

message: In the section on DC circuit equations, the following are listed:
: V = \sqrt{9PR} 
: V = \frac{P}{I} 
: V = IR \!\ 
Multiplying equations 2 and 3 produces  V^2 = PR , which contradicts with equation 1. I don't know enough physics to know if this is (somehow) right, or what would make it correct. 
Ealex292 04:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equations for DC circuits 

message: Per Talk:Voltage and the template having been up forever, I'm performing the... operation, whatever it is. Melchoir 05:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split/merge/whatever to [[Voltage]] 

message: Famous equation: P = IV, or watts equals current times voltage.
Simple math says Pt = IVt, where t equals time in seconds.
Another identity: I = C/t, or current equals coulombs (charge) per second.
Substituting back, we get: Pt = VC, or watts times time (which is energy) equals volts times coulombs: e = VC.  In other words:
V = e/C.
Thus, our units would seem to tell us that voltage is energy per unit charge, and, in fact, the electronvolt is a unit of energy equal to roughly 10-19 J.  In my simple-minded layman's brain, this says to me that another way to think of voltage is as the average amount of energy carried per unit charge, i.e., the more excited the electron, the higher its voltage.
I find this view a lot easier to get my brain around than "electrostatic pressure" or some such, but, as a non-physicist, I have no idea if it is a view that makes any sense.  I would appreciate comment from an actual physicist!
--Peterbstewart 18:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volt = Energy per Unit Charge? 

message: When talking about voltages, we usually talk about the potential difference of two potentials, for example 1.5 V in a standard AA battery. Imagine another standard AA battery with 1.5 V - how can we be sure that both battery's potentials aren't at different absolute values (that is, one battery has the potential 100 V - 101.5 V while the other has 30000 V - 30001.5 V at one of its terminals)? I hope someone understands what I mean and may give me a clever answer. --Abdull 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute voltage 

message: Sorry to tell you folks, but this article is atrociously bad. Do you think definitions like 
"the potential difference across a conductor when a current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power"
are of any help to somebody trying to understand electrical fundamentals or basic concepts? Please. Let's get real and get this thing edited fast. 
Vitamin77 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is (apparently) its definition. The volt is just a unit, not a fundamental concept. Perhaps you're looking for Voltage? Melchoir 06:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if you have a better definition or explanation, put it in. Melchoir 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is awful 

message: What would be the minimum amount of volts to kill a human? I am just comparing the ability of some animals and whether they would be capable to killing a person. Daily Rubbings 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To kill a human 

message: I think the proper abbreviation for root-mean-square is rms not RMS. If it appear in a title where a word is to be capitalized, I think it should be Rms. Whoever is responsible for this page might want to check into that and correct it. You should be able find the definition on an IEEE website.
:Before answering this comment, please note that the same point was discussed at Talk:Root mean square.  It might be better to keep all the discussion on this subject in one place. --Heron 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that in the "Common voltages" section, replacing RMS by AC is appropriate. "VAC" is not a correct symbol. I'm not sure about the statement about high voltage transmission lines; a few of them are DC, and I don't know which kind has the record. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RMS or rms or Rms 

message: I'm not a physics major (just teaching physics for the MCAT) but take issue with volt being defined as "electric potential difference"  I think it should be just "electric potential"  I know potential energy is always defined relative to another position and thus the differences of electrical potential initial and final are always in the units of volt but beginner students are less likely to understand the difference between volt and voltage.  I would argue that voltage, a concept, is the difference in electric potential (PE = q*voltage) while the SI unit volt simply measures the potential in (J/C) at any POINT in space.  It's not until you take two points (the difference) that you then get voltage and thus energy.  Libertas81 (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that voltage and electric potential difference are synonyms. The unit of measure for this quantity is the volt. A different unit of electric potential difference used in the past was the abvolt, which was 100,000,000 volts. (See IEEE/ASTM standard SI 10-1997, p. 47) --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree then.  voltage = electric potential difference.  I'm arguing for a clearer distinction between the concept voltage and the unit volt, since "V" tends to get thrown around liberally -- which is why correct texts will use phi for electric potential.  To use an analogy, the locations A and B in space each have different electric potentials and thus their own magnitude of volts.  Say 20V and 10V.  The volt describes the property of each space but when, and only when, you directly compare A and B do you then have a voltage.  "A has an electric potential of 20 volts while B has an electric potential of 10 volts.  The voltage drop from A to B, the difference in electric potentials, is 10 volts."  Well, maybe this will serve as some clarification at least to those confusing V for volt and V for voltage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertas81 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a degree in physics either; mine is in electrical engineering. I don't know about physicists, but electrical engineers just don't talk about electrical potential, they only talk about electrical potential difference (and they usually leave off the word "electrical"). You just can't say "A has an electric potential of 20 volts"; there must be a stated or implied reference point, and the potential difference from A to the reference point is 20 volts. The potential difference from B to the reference point is 10 volts. The potential difference from A to B is 10 volts. The phrases "potential difference" and "voltage" are interchangeable. Also, electrical engineers usually use the variables E or V for voltage. Variables should be in italics whenever the typographical system in use allows. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the article, I see there are no variables. In every single instance, the V is the symbol for the unit volt. There would be no opportunity to use Φ (or was it φ) even if you were inclined to. (My undergraduate physics book, Halliday and Resnick, used V for electrical potential and electrical potential difference. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input.  While I will still differentiate phi and V for technical clarity I'll concede that physicists, engineers, et. al don't bother making the distinction since, as we both note, electric potential is a meaningless concept by itself.  It is the difference between two electric potentials that gives rise to energy.  Thanks. Libertas81 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fix definition of volt 

message: Those aren't "batteries", they are single cells.  The standard 9 volt things are actual batteries, as are the things we use to start our cars. I guess I should just fix the caption... Huw Powell (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-cell image caption 

message: I have made some tidy-ups in the article, to make a clearer distinction between the concepts of "voltage" and "electric (i.e. electrostatic) potential".  In doing so, I have removed the "Radio Shack" reference, on the grounds that it is 30 years old and superfluous - as we already have a direct link to the most up-to-date official international reference source to SI units. (RGForbes (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications - April 2009 

message: Under the definition, it writes that the volt "can be written in terms of SI base units as: m2 · kg · s-2 · C-1."
This is not correct, because the Coulomb is not a SI base unit.
Instead, the second last derivation of the volt is correct (kg · m2 · A-1 · s-3)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.9.244 (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volt in terms of SI base units 

message: The article currently mentions 400 V AC aircraft power.  This is probably wrong.  400HZ AC power is commonly used on aircraft, but the usual voltage is 120V, or three-phase, four wire 120/200V wye. Several DC voltages are also used, but 400V, no.  That's way too high. --John Nagle (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft power uncited, wrong 

message: The SI usage rules on the NIST website say that units based on proper names (of people!) should be capitalized.  They give the example of "Celcius."   See section 6 under 6.1.2, also 5.2  But "volt" is not "Volta."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.172.173 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the unit is degree Celsius, and it begins with a lowercase letter, "d". Second, only symbols are capitalized if the unit is named after a person, that is why the symbol for the unit of electrical potential is "V" rather than "v". Finally, when the unit is spelled out, it always begins with a lower-case letter: "volt". Jc3s5h (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volt: to capitalize or not to capitalize 

message: the definition should be removed & moved (mostly) into the intro paragraph.  Also, that information needs to be made more understandable.  Specifically, the 'conductive wire' that is used to measure voltage is typically connected to a voltmeter which then probes a circuit (not a conductor).  You can only get volts from a working circuit,otherwise there aren't any volts...    there is just a lot of jumbled up info that doesn't really focus on the fundamental aspects... Also, the intro needs to be edited to focus more on the volt and not the achievements of its namesake.  ~redundancyredundancyredundancyredundancy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tidy up 

message: Please note the earlier discussion of this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering#Three articles, two concepts Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Volt. 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/20070618123613/http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-2/table3.html to http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-2/table3.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) 16:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Footnote 4 goes to a pdf that isn't there anymore. Hooya27 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 4 is a dead link