Talk:Electric power

I am about to remove the following sentence:

Electrical power provides a low entropy form of energy and can be converted into motion or other forms of energy with high efficiency.^[1]

That is simply not correct. Electricity (or electric power if you like) is a form of work and, as such, represents the transfer of energy without entropy: not low but zero.^[2] For the record, the full reference to Smith.^[3] Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to these sources, but apart from the fact that zero entropy is intrinsically low, in any real circuit there is loss of entropy due to resistive losses- and even superconductors have some, albeit tiny, resistivity. Thus an electrical system has a calculable entropy which is non zero.GliderMaven (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be abusing the language as well; electricity is not a form of work; it does work. In the sentence you quote, in context, the phrase 'electrical power' is clearly referring to electrical power systems, not the electrical power itself.GliderMaven (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello GliderMaven. You are right. The correct phrasing is that electricity does work on the system (containing, say, an ideal electric motor). But that doesn't invalidate my point about the entropy transfer being precisely zero. I am not going to argue the toss about whether the sentence stays or goes. It is not so wrong as to be offensive. In passing, superconductivity has "exactly zero electrical resistance" too (strange as it may seem) — check out the opening sentence on that article. Perhaps a consensus might emerge on the phrase "low entropy"? Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Everything in our universe has some degree of entropy it's a very general concept. Note that superconducting coils are not completely zero resistance; if you set up a coil with a current flowing, after a few months it will have decayed. This is a practical problem with MRI machines, as the operators have to periodically recharge the field.GliderMaven (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

n.b. To be strictly accurate a superconductor is theoretically perfect, but most real world systems using superconductors have non zero resistances, see: GliderMaven (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the entire sentence. Not because of objections about entropy, but because the statement

power provides energy and can be converted into motion

Is nonsensical when considering the technical definitions of these terms. Hadron137 (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Why do you use V as symbol for electric potential (typically measured in volt (V)). I've only ever seen U as a symbol for that, i.e. Ohm's law is I=U/R. V makes me think of volume in formulas. 85.230.176.248 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Because "V" is the symbol usually used in English-language references. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electric power. 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/20051201015849/http://www.dfj.com/cgi-bin/artman/publish/article_141.shtml to http://www.dfj.com/cgi-bin/artman/publish/article_141.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear if this article is about power —in electrical form—as a physical concept, or about the electric utility service. The lede begins as a description of the physical concept, but then pivots to a description of the electric utility. On which topic should this article focus? If both, how should these concepts be made more distinct? Hadron137 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong, there is a mistake in the power formula at section "Alternating current"; it should be 2 instead of sqrt(2). Vrms=Vp/sqrt(2) Irms=Ip/sqrt(2) Then Vrms*Irms = Vp*Ip/2 (not sqrt(2)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cexmayo (talk • contribs) 13:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)