Talk:electricity

Misc discussion
the quotes confuse me... the first quote isn't even a phrase and doesn't have electricity in it and the second quote uses roman numerals for the month. --Eean 08:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's incomplete;  I'll fix it. Omegatron 00:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I listed his quote under the "fundamental property" definition, but that's only somewhat correct. In his day, it was not thought of as having positive and negative forms. "Electricity" simply meant "the property of being an electric", where "electric" was a noun and meant "an object which can be electrified and attract small bits of dust" and so on. Descended from electricus which means "like amber [in its attractive properties]" Omegatron 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental definition of electricity should/could be power since we(humans) only experience electricity in a power situation. To my knowledge(maybe someone can enlighten me) all electricity is derived from a primary energy source(with lightning being a possible exception).


 * I couldn't agree with you more. The everyday sense requires not knowledge of physics or the words "electron", "charge", "current". Even "energy" seems a little abstract for the definition. We like to be "descriptive" in our definitions, but this often fails for technical terms because those who have expertise in the related field seem to feel entitled to "correct" the imprecise, but actual, definitions and instead provide technical ones of supposed (but usually not actual) precision. I have attempted a better everyday definition. It still needs cleanup. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Scientific Definition
The scientific definition is missing. Only popular, non-scientific definitions are used? The "Unit Quantity of Electricity" is the coulomb, not the joule or ampere, and the scientific definition of "electricity" is as electric charge (not carriers in a conductor. Instead, coulombs, or electric charge itself.)  A quantity of electricity is measured in coulombs, and the flow of electricity is measured in coulombs/second or amperes. Here's the SI definition on the NIST website (see table 3, electric charge): [| NIST.ORG]    Here's the CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, see electric charge: [| CRC Handbook 2004-2005]
 * There is no scientific definition of electricity. Electricity is treated as the name of a phenomenon, comparable to "gravity" or "combustion". I mean, what is the unit of gravity? There isn't any! Like you said, electric charge has a definition and a unit, the coulomb. But electricity and electric charge are not the same: electricity is what happens when electric charges interact, which is very different. 13:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course there is a scientific definition. It's the one used by Faraday, Maxwell, Millikan, Thompson, and currently appearing in the current NIST/SI definition of units in physics: the coulomb is the quantity of electricity.  In Faraday's law of Electrolysis, the quantity of reactant products is directly proportional to the quantity of electricity passed between the electrodes, and today's chem students are familiar with "Faradays of electricity" and the Faraday constant.  As you say, in the general non-scientific usage "electricity" is like "dynamics" or "biology."   We can't have a quantity of dynamics, and dynamics cannot flow from place to place.   But under the SI definition of the unit quantity of elecricity, flows of electricity are called electric currents and measured in amperes, and quantities of electricity are measured in coulombs.  (No, there is no SI unit definition for "quantity of gravity;" no physics texts define "quantity of gravity," so the analogy doesn't resemble the situation with the term "electricity.") 75.172.142.60 16:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: A field of study. When was it last used this way? Was it ever? DCDuring TALK 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See WT:RFC. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for cleanup
A draft of the evolution of the meaning of the term, without context tags and dates, and insufficient support for the senses. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OED could provide legitimacy for some historical senses. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. I combined some senses and rewrote others. Cleaned. Ƿidsiþ 08:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)