Talk:Electric generator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unit of generator?[edit]

I think that unit of generator should be in KW not in KVA, b/c when we write KVA then, it gives an idea of having power factor and in generator there is not any concept of power factor. Plz clear it. 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so, in practice electrical engineers are as interested in the kVA or MVA rating as the kW or MW rating. Power factor is very important in specifying a generator, expecially where a low power factor is required due to transmission system reasons, for example - each per-cent rated power factor below 1.0 adds between 1.5 and 2% to the cost of a large hydro generator, for example. --Wtshymanski 22:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

sir, thanx for clearing confusion, but still i think that generator converts mechanical energy into electrical energy, so why should there be any concept of power factor in it, that (p.f)involves in transmission and u know p.f is there, when more than 1km tr/line r there, again u need transformer for that trn. that p.f is not involve there in generator.

Mithoo 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

plz send me an answer of above question.

so the question still not clear

KW is the amount of work being done, typically used for the driving side (motor, turbine etc.) of the generator, and the output end of the generator is rated in Volt Amps (VA). VA is a calculation, taking the Voltage and Current ratings of the ourput end. Both are used interchangeably though.
The Power Factor is only relavent in Alternating Current (AC) generators. Direct Current (DC) generators do not have a Power Factor. If there is not a page dedicated to the Power Factor, there should be one. It is a very interesting subject.Nly8nchz 03:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

kool k:---- pf shows us the efficiency of a device it can be mechanical or electrical here pf shows us "mechanical work done = electrical energy".... means how much mechanical energy converted into electrical energy....

Maximum power[edit]

Hello, I am looking to make a generator as part of a school project. I want to test to find its electrical power output. I know that for a battery, its power output is greatest when the load resistance is equal to its internal resistance. Does this also apply to a generator? If so, how might I find the internal resistance of my generator?

Perhaps the answers to these questions could be put into the article, as I think they would be interesting and useful.

Yes, this applies to generators just like batteries. The internal resistance is essentially the resistance of the windings, slip rings/brushes, wiring etc. You can measure it with an ohm meter, but depending on the type of generator (AC vs. DC), you might be better off measuring the voltage drop under load. When the voltage drops to half of the open circuit voltage, the load resistance is equal to the internal resistance. A toy motor will work as a generator, but the internal resistance is not small, though. Madhu 19:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone provide some proof that batteries or generators have the greatest power output when the load is at the same resistance as the internal resistance? I do not believe this is correct. The output should be the greatest at the lowest load resistance. This will pull the most current out of the source.Nly8nchz 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The maximum power theorem can be applied to generators, but they are not usually designed to run at maximum power output. With a matched load, the transfer efficiency is only 50%, which means that half the power is wasted inside the generator. For a laboratory demonstration this might not be important, but it would be disastrous in a power station. --Heron 16:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide some links where we can read about this? From my experience operating motors and generators, I have never seen 50% efficiency out of a generator. From turbine driven electrical generators, the power output is very close to Volts*Amps*Power Factor. If you have a load that has an extremely low Power Factor (AC Generators), then you can get have a lot of power lost, but that is very inefficient. If you have a generator, you would theoretically have it set up to provide power at whichever power factor that your loads are going to be. Typically, the windings will be set up in either Wye or Delta, depending if you are going to be supplying capacitive (computers, televisions, etc.) or inductive (typically motors, lights, etc.).Nly8nchz 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Co-generation possibility? Since the generator will make "waste heat" inside a generator, is this heat ever recovered and utilized so as to drive any sort of turbine and thereby turn another generator? If the answer is "yes," then can this fact be applied in this or any other Wiki articles on electricity generation? Joel Russ 05:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
(In the regime in which they're usually run,) Generators are pretty efficient. As a result, I don't think the exhaust stream from a generator is very hot and it would be hard to utilize that heat in any kind of classical co-generation scheme. Perhaps the heat could be used to pre-heat air going into the boiler furnaces, but the generators in big power stations tend to be inconveniently located for that purpose.
Typically, steam driven generators have a very low temperature exhaust, compared to the inlet temperatures. Efficiency is greatest when you take the most energy out of the steam, which means the cooler the outlet, the more efficient the turbine is.Nly8nchz 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
User:MKR 12:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Generators are very efficient (>95%) at converting mechanical to electrical energy, but the heat engines that drive them (turbines, etc.) are limited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics to about 46% efficiency. So more than half the energy in the fuel is released (by the steam plant, not the generator) as waste heat. Cogeneration as you mentioned above, use this waste heat. In many European towns the houses are heated by waste heat from power plants. --ChetvornoTALK 03:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Motors & generators[edit]

The link to commutator on this page points to the wrong entry. Maybe we need to add a second meaning to this entry to describe a commutator as a system of brushes and a collector to alternate the direction of current to/from the coils in an armature of an electric motor or electrical generator.

Describe various modern types of dynamos, three phase dynamos for mains power distribution and simple AC and DC dynamos for use in vehicles.

Also mention that a dynamo is constructed very similarly to an electric motor and most types of dynamos can be used as motors and vice versa, at least in theory.

I would rather say: "all common types of generators could be used as motors, and vice versa."
I think it would be more accurate to say that generators and motors are theoretically interchangeable, but that practical machines are nearly always used only in one mode or the other. Many small motors such as used in household appliances are not going to generate significant electric power no matter how fast you spin them. --Wtshymanski 23:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In direct-drive, diesel-electric submarines, the electric motors are used as generators and used to charge the batteries when driven by the diesels on the surface or when snorting. 15:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The motor-generator sets on the submarines have the ability to change the resistance of both ends of the generator, which is how you can make either end the motor/generator.Nly8nchz 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This is mentioned in the submarine article and is characteristic of hybrid automobiles. I've also seen it in locomotive cranes, where the generator used to run the propulsion motor and magnet is also used to start the engine. So the roles of a rotating machine can be interchangeable, but it's not always the case. For instance, if I take the shaded-pole ac motor of a record player and spin it, I'm not going to get any meaningful amount of power out of the winding. --Wtshymanski 15:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I worked at a combined cycle power plant where we had a combustion turbine driven generator that was baseloaded at about 160 MWs. During startup of a combustion turbine you have to get the thing spinning pretty fast before you ignite. They actually started up by motorizing the generator - they have a "Load Commutated Inverter" which acted as a variable frequency drive, energizing the generator stator coils in concert with the regular excitation system energizing the rotor coils. It was a pretty neat trick and something I never expected to see in such a big machine.
I'am really sorry for replying so late. You are right, most of machines are used only in one mode. In practice 99.9% of all electric power in the world is made by dinamos, and 99% of power used by motors is used by squirell cage motors. But your point about household appliances is not the best one. Small machines are often inefficient, hence low output in generator mode. On the other hand, your point proves that some electic machines are more suitable to be motors (or generators) than others. In your hair drier, for instance, you have so-caller collector motor; it is DC serial motor run on AC current. Rotating such motor will produce DC current (not AC), and even that only if rotated below critical speed (defined by motor parameters). I think that we musr reorganize this article just in order to avoid this kind of problems. Generally speaking, from theory's point of view, our article here is a complete mess; see my post below on this talk page, you'll see what is the usual division of elelctrical machines. We should cover all of them and then explain why they are or why they are not used as generators. Saigon from europe 23:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The 99.9% figure that you state is not correct. The squirrel cage (Induction) motors are A/C only. There are many DC motors around as well. I will not argue that most of the A/C motors are Induction (Squirrel Cage), as they are really efficient at the correct slip speed.Nly8nchz 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture needed[edit]

This is terrible. Instead of all that equivalent circuit stuff that's only understandable by electrical engineers, how about that nice simple picture of a wire moving through a magnetic field that we've all seen in every other elementary description of a generator? My tools and skills aren't quite up for this...--Wtshymanski 16:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the moment, you could steal the three diagramatic pictures over at Electric motor and simply give them new captions. But I agree that the classical "single turn coil rotating in a magnetic field" picture would be more helpful.
Atlant 18:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The pictures for "motor" are beautiful, but I don't have the software to edit them - so I can't change the polarity marks. I'll check with the creator of these images to see if he/she can do a quick revision. --Wtshymanski 01:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There still isn't one yet ! The diagram just needs to illustrate the basic principle, in the way found in school physics textbooks, of two magnetic poles outside a spinning loop of wire. Does anyone have a suitable diagram in the public domain that could be used ? It is also needed on the "Dynamo" and "Electromagnetism" pages. Darkman101 (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What about some reorganization?[edit]

Although I am an electical engineer, I am not familiar enough with English terms to be the one who will organize a new system. Still, I think we are not systematic enough. What I want to say - during my studies, our clasification basically went this way (have in mind that terms are probably incorrect in English, this is how we call them in Serbian, which is probably based on German names): all electric machines are divided to two groups - AC and DC machines. AC machines could be synchronous and non-synchronous (i.e. induction motors). At the same time, they could be one-phase or three-phase. We should then pay attention to turbogenerators and hydrogenerators (both are 3-phase AC synchronous, but they differ drastically in construction), as most widely used systems. DC machines could be serial, parallel and independent (regarding how they produce the field). We should then explain why and where what types are used, and with what limitations. I believe that we should exactly follow the pattern in the [Electric_motor] article. Saigon from europe 21:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your taxonomy and your English are both fine; this matches pretty closely any textbook on the topic.
Atlant 22:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two views?[edit]

Do we really need to views of this portable gererator?. Surely one picture is quite adequate.--Light current 16:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I am deleting one. Rex the first 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be better to use the term engine-generator set or some such term to identify the pictured portable generators, and those described in the Small to medium generators and Large generators sections? Perhaps the small to medium and large generator sections should be combined under the heading Engine-generator sets. A Power station generator section could be used to describe hydro-electric and steam turbine generators. C J Cowie 18:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It probably would, but since most would assume, without ever considering it much, that a generator 1. runs on gas and 2. makes electricity. Not considering that many other devices and sources of energy can generate electricity. Your suggested section reorganization sounds good, and let's go with engine-generator. Not sure what set means, is it a set of devices Engine and generator I usuaily only hear that word when abbreviating generator to genset, anyway... --D0li0 05:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


The list of patents should go - even if you look at them, you won't learn much useful in understanding electric generators. --Wtshymanski 17:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone went to some effort to compile the list and it may be historically interesting, but it doesn't add to this article. Would it make sense to move the relavent entries to the Edison and Tesla articles? --C J Cowie 19:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Synchronous/asynchronous generators[edit]

Should something be added about synchronous/asynchronous generators? I'm working on something else right now, so here's some sources if anyone wants to take a crack at it:, Dromey Design. -- Kjkolb 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There should be a section for all types of A/C and D/C motors and generators. Someone has to take the time to do it.


Maybe some basic conceptual schematics for the basic types of generators should be present (like the Faraday generator or the Dynamo). It would greatly increase the information the article gives with very little extra work —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

I was just thinking the same thing. I plan on adding a basic schematic for a generator with brushless excitation, seeing as that's the type I'm most familiar with. -W0lfie 17:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


A recent editor added text about the Gyro-Gen, a way of using wave power to drive a generator. While this is valuable text, I don't think it belongs in this article because it's really discussion about an interesting prime mover of the generator rather than anything about electrical generators themselves.

Your thoughts?

Atlant 13:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I removed it yesterday. The same text is in Wave power anyway, so I didn't destroy any information. --Heron 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Low efficiency??[edit]

In the section on low power generators, there's a sentence that reads:

Nevertheless, the maximum efficiency is only around 60% for the best generators - 40% is more typical - due to the use of permanent magnets.
Can you supply any verification for this? In A/C generators, the efficiency usually follows power factor. Most generator designs are set up pretty well. From my experience, 60% efficiency is not common. Depending upon the power factor (A/C), you will typically see 70-90% efficiency. From looking at the meters that were on the motor generators, we were seeing way better than 40-60% efficiency. You can calculate efficiency by looking at the power needed to drive the generator, and then looking at the voltage and current being supplied to the loads. Has anyone else here operated motors & generators. I would like to see what others have to say.Nly8nchz 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do these numbers come from? I don't see why permanent magnents necessarily contribute to low efficiency. If power is lost, where does it go? I can believe that poor mechanical coupling with the bike results in power loss, but that's not the fault of the magnets or the generator proper. Madhu 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The info is wrong. Low efficiency is due to small size, the bigger you go the more efficient the generator. Permanent magnet generators are more efficent rather than less, electromagnet takes power which reduces efficiency. However electomagnet field is easy to vary which makes voltage regulation easy over range of loads.

This is wrong as well. Size does not necessarily mean more efficient. Larger generators typically create more heat, that is just wasted energy. You can get more efficiency by adding windings, upping the control field (current) or spinning the generator faster.Nly8nchz 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

electrical generator question[edit]

Electrostatic generators are used for hi scientific experiments requiring high voltages. Because of the difficulty of insulating machines producing very high voltages, electrostatic generators are made only with low power ratings and are never used for generation of commercially-significant quantities of electric power. Before the connection between magnetism and electricity was discovered, generators used electrostatic principles. The Wimshurst machine used electrostatic induction or "influence". Some electrostatic machines (such as the more modern Van de Graaff generator) uses either of two mechanisms:

Charge transferred from a high-voltage electrode Charge created by the triboelectric effect using the separation of two insulators (the belt leaving the lower pulley)

i don't understand "Electrostatic generators are used for hi scientific experiments requiring high voltages." what is "hi?" Poiuyt580 20:51, 29 March

I would think that these electrostatic generators put out a very high voltage, but the current output levels are very low. That might be why the power rating is so low.Nly8nchz 04:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tidal generators[edit]

can someone please explain to me " How does a generator work ? " also help me out on "Tidal generators" Please also tell me the advantages and disadvantages of wind and tidal generators.

The tidal generators use the rising and falling of the tide to move an arm in and out of a generator, thus inducing a voltage, and allowing current to flow. I am not sure which is the armature and which is the stator, but it would be nice for someone to elaborate.Nly8nchz 04:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dynamo should become its own article[edit]

I am on the verge of taking over the dynamo page which is currently just a redirect to here. Another editor does not like the expanded discussion I put on the disambiguation page about the ambiguous meaning of dynamos in the early days of electrical experimentation, so I guess it really belongs as a separate article.

A dynamo is many things, and a generator is just one aspect of its meaning, so it's not really appropriate being integrated into just this article. They say be bold so here goes..

DMahalko (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of new image content ... article probably will now need splitting[edit]

Expired US Copyright!

I've been wanting to spend a weekend adding volumes of technical imagry to Wikipedia from this nine volume 1917 Hawkins Electrical Guide. And so I'm currently in the process of massively expanding this article with new technical and educational diagrams and information.

Alas this article will be very image top-heavy now, and will probably need splitting to keep the download speeds managable for people on dialup.

DMahalko (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't shoot me, but I've added 14 technical illustrations and about 9 kilobytes of text to this article in the last 24 hrs. Yawn, time for bed. Maybe I'll add some more in the morning, to further bloat this already bursting article. :-)
Since I eventually expect to be adding hundreds of images from these books, I'm setting up a sort of scrapbook/shrine to these public domain books here:
DMahalko (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Images that help explain the content of hte article are fine, but I don't think we need too many steps in the development of the obsolete Gramme ring. Perhaps all those illustrations are better separated into a Gramme article. Wikipedia is not a textbook on generator design and an overview of why the Gramme ring isn't used is all that is necessary here. Similarly, detailed development of multipolar fields is perhaps more than this article needs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
From reading through the wikipedia help pages, there is a mention that as articles grow, splitting and subpages are a natural part of the expansion of the encyclopedic content. There is room in the wikispace for a detailed field coil article, a detailed Gramme Ring article, a detailed theory of commutation article, etc.
The difficulty with this subject matter is that the information is applicable across so many different devices. Virtually everything about generator design also applies to motor design, and to rotary converter design. I am trying to figure out how to best split this into subsections which would allow for generalized cross-referencing from any of those other articles. I don't claim to be an engineering professor, so knowing how to smartly split off subsections for better comprehension by the reader is the challenge. DMahalko (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've now taken a deep breath and moved the entire section on dynamos off to the new Dynamo article I created, leaving behind a short summary but with a really cool high-current dynamo image explaining why nobody uses DC generators for much of anything anymore -- the commutators of high-power dynamos are very complicated and need lots of care and maintenance. Modern AC alternators for power generation are almost maintenance-free in comparison.
Click on that high-current dynamo illustration and take a look at the full-resolution version. I scanned it at 600 dpi, and with the quality of that image you can see every screw, every thread.. even the wood grain of the underlying support frame. I love these old Audel's books.
I may not touch this again until next weekend, but the field coil design and the excitation sections will probably become separate articles as well, since they are also common across other rotating magnetic machinery. DMahalko (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Picture[edit]

"Side view of a large Perkins diesel generator" is actually a steam locomotive, Union Pacific #4004 to be exact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of generators driven by steam turbines?[edit]

A major part of the electricity generated worldwide is done by using steam turbine drivers ... yet steam turbine drivers are not discussed in this article. The article discusses piston drivers and gas turbine drivers ... but not steam turbine drivers. Why? - mbeychok (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Advise on creating electricity[edit]

I would like some help on the following:

I make use of a ventelation fan with the following specifications: Two fans driven by two 300kw motors moving aproximitly 140 cubic meters of air. Any suggestions on making use of this to create electricity for other use.

Appreciate any help regards Riaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't help you, since you don't understand physics. If you are running the fans on electricity, just turn off the fans and use the electricity for something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The sun is not a source of mechanical energy.[edit]

At the begining of the article it states . . .

The source of mechanical energy may be a reciprocating or turbine steam engine, water falling through a turbine or waterwheel, an internal combustion engine, a wind turbine, a hand crank, the sun or solar energy, compressed air or any other source of mechanical energy.

The sun or solar energy is not a source of mechanical energy, radiant energy yes but not mechanical.

Must be written by the same idiot who thinks that the sense of time is an other physical sense such as "Taste" or "Hearing". Note, on that idiot, the sense of time might just very well be another sense like taste or hearing. Time itself is different from the sense of it, just as molecules or sound waves are different from their senses of taste, smell, or "hearing", but the "sense" refers to a psychological phenomenon, which is not tied directly to reality but mediated by the neural circuitry and consciousness. Sound is produced in the brain, not in the mechanical sound waves. what does this have to do with the topic I don't know. Obviously any source of energy (sun or mechanical) may be converted to electric power, and a generator need not be a mechanical generator converting mechanical energy to electrical, although if the term generator is reserved for that, then "converter" might be the more general term. solar cells "generate" electricity from sunlight, and this is not due to mechanical conversion per se (more chemical, but chemistry involves movement of molecules does it not?), however you may want to say that solar cells convert solar energy into electricity, not "generate" it. So it comes down to the definition of generator, and if that is mechanical to electrical, then solar radiation should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But that might be just my opinion. GeeOh (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Steady on there. Remember, we're all bozos on this bus and the fellow who's been teaching the subject to PhDs for 30 years is an exact peer in authority with the 13-year old who watched a special on cable TV last month. Do not taunt happy fun editor. Why not just clip out the offending text - WP:BOLD and all that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"When you put on the nose, it grows."

Yes, I understand, and all that . . . "or I shall taunt you a second time"

If I cut out the offending words someone will come back and re-insertt them. I have seen it over and over again. This is a problem with some "loaded" articles.

I wonder if some one would start a "Wikipedisms" article? GeeOh (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The revised wording seems to have stuck for five whole days now. More than one editor has mused about the problems of our editorial model, for example see things like WP:WRONG. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Electric Motors and Electrical generators[edit]

I have a question about generators. Can an electric motor run a electrical generator and maintain enough power to run the motor?Pdplap (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that would be perpetual motion. Although modern electric motors and generators are very efficient as energy conversion devices (95-98%), they still lose some energy to friction, resistance of the windings, and core losses, so the generator wouldn't produce enough power to keep the motor running. --ChetvornoTALK 22:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How can this article omit Tesla and his contributions?[edit]

Tesla has been almost eradicated from the history of electrical generation. He was the first to recognize the importance of alternating current for power transmission. His alternators were perhaps the first practical designs. He also held the original patents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are seemingly biased. Edison is not even mentioned despite him pushing DC. This is about the machines themselves, not who invented them or discovered their waveforms, and there are other designs which dont have their inventors listed either. Charlieb000 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


You've extrapolated the specific case (perpendicular movement) to a general case (varying flux). This is correct, but then so was the narrower case beforehand too. As the narrow case (perpendicular movement) is all we need here, then it's the simpler explanation and probably the better text. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok, i agree with you on that, but think a little, if a moving conductor has a speed vector that is parallel to the magnetic field lines and the same conductor has a normal that describes a 90 degree angle with the said lines, there will be movement and no potential difference will be induced, i believe that kinda breaks your "narrower case", proving that, in fact, it is wrong.

If we have to put the case that is most used in generators, than we must put the variation in the angle between the normal vector of the conductor and the magnetic field lines. Which is, to put it simply, something makes the conductor spin really fast while it is inside a heavy magnetic field. This "something" can be water(liquid and vapor), wind, etc. And i believe you should write it, because i'm brazilian and i can only write well in portuguese and spanish.


Isn't it interesting that some editors cling to a spelling that has been obsolete since the 17th century and that was more or less revived by accident? There really should be a policy on Wikipedia to modernize spelling to reflect current usage. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not "interesting", at least not to an article on electrical engineering. Whilst (sorry, "while") linguists and etymologists might find this change in language interesting in their field, we're just here to write an encyclopedic article on generators. WP styleguide on that is clear: we avoid WP:CONTRACTION and we don't flip-flop on trans-Atlantic spelling changes. These are for good reasons of consistency and stability, even if they go against some editor's notions of style.
Besides which, it's American English that preserves the most 17th century usage (with the addition of Webster's hatchet-job) and British English that lost the particular archaic forms from that period. A "funky" and antiquated spelling or usage in British English is more likely the result of 19th century teaching practice, not anything older. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


Needs better simple drawing or graphics[edit]

art!--Ericg33 (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a freely available graphic, feel free to include it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
We should include 'Theory of operation' paragraph with graphics in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talkcontribs) 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
We cannot use copyrighted images. Please review Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Copyright_and_licensing. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


Oppose Another fatuous merge from Wtshymanski, on the grounds that everything needs to be rolled up into a single article, presumably called Philosophy.

Anyone with competence in electrical engineering will understand the significance of the shunt generator (even though the current article hardly shows this). In particular, its significance warrants a stand-alone article and would be most difficult to express as part of a huge article on generators in general. It would even be an excessive merge to have a single article on fields (serial, shunt & compound field). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
You don't think the present section on excitation leaves out, oh, say, everything? Right now, it doesn't explain anything about *how* a generator gets field current. And what is your schedule for popping up and dumping on me? Everything all right? --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
What merger is being discussed? Shunt generator with this article? The only merge tag on Shunt generator proposes a merge with Excitation (magnetic). I think that would be preferable to a merge with this article; Excitation (magnetic) seems like the proper place to compare and contrast series and shunt generators. --ChetvornoTALK 03:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
In view of Mr. Dingley's well-reasoned and calmly presented objections, phrased in the highest traditions of Wikipedia collegiality, I changed the merge tag on Shunt generator. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Excitation (magnetic) is a far better merge target. It should certainly discuss all three there. However shunt winding is a sufficiently big topic just of itself that we can easily support a separate article, even if this involves some overlap with excitation or even with generator. Despite Wtshymanski's obsession with merging everything, duplication just isn't a problem for us. We should make the best articles we can on any notable topics. If some readers have a need to read shunt fields in isolation, we should support that. If others want an article comparing the different ways, then we can support that too. The bytes to do this are cheap.
Merging only makes sense if the fragmented article is poorer than the merged article, such that we can't achieve adequate readability without merging. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Much better - only one, relativley mild, pejorative term used to describe me. Acknowledging that people who hold different opinions may have valid reasons for those different opinions, and are not necessarily evil or insane, is a great stepping-stone on the path to maturity. My concern is that every textbook I've ever seen discuss excitation always compares and contrasts the systems together, rather than separating them in differnt places. It's not like we're going to present so much detail in any one article on excitation that we'll swamp the reader. I think what the textbooks tend to present (in hopes that the student will remember it) is that the different excitation systems have different speed/torque properties and that different systems are used depending on which properties are desired. Skipping around three or more stub articles is not the most straightforward way of presenting this information and indeed verges on misleading - the incautious reader may not realize that other systems of excitation are also used (we haven't even gotten to long shunt/short shunt compounding!), whereas a more coherenet and integrated presentation would mention that salient fact.
Excitation (magnetic)]] now completely neglects motors. It would seem to be a logical extension of this topic to include shunt, series, separate, and compound motors.
I look forward to Wikipedia's exhaustive articles on each of the notable shunt DC motors found in the 1978 issue of the Dayton Electric catalog. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Wtshymanski's comments above and support merging Shunt generator into Excitation (magnetic). --ChetvornoTALK 21:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This has now been moved to Talk:Excitation_(magnetic)#Suggest_merge Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Article has no quality diagrams.[edit]

Photos of large generators doesn't explain working operation.

Suggest using photos/diagrams from Alternator article. Someone needs to upload simple diagram . I don't know how to do it. --Ericg33 (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

History intro section needs work[edit]

The Intro to the History section is just plain wrong. So before electric generators, there were electrostatic generators? Oh, so that's what the Romans and Greeks used then?

Probably should expand that a bit. -- DMahalko (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you think is "just plain wrong" in the History section. --ChetvornoTALK 22:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

AC Generator classes[edit]

It mentions the "induction generator", the "linear generator", and the electronic(?) "variable speed constant frequency generators". ...

  • I know that the generator found on the small-engine backup-generators that power households do not fit any of these categories (for starters they have brushes and their frequency is dependant on their rotation speed - a permanent magnet type?).
  • I did find another manual for a recent "sears craftsman 3000" generator that said in their rotor winding there is only a diode and no brushes. it also features a "AUX winding" that is connected only to a capacitor, didnt disclose where that was however.

so please add at least that brushed one for completeness. I find surprisingly little information about these online. Charlieb000 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Galvanic electric generator[edit]

In a stainless steel tank falls crushed coal (rich in gold) and filled with water enriched with silver ions. With the increase of pressure in the tank from the surface of the electrical energy is produced. Diffusion is achieved as raw material and water with water. When heating the liquid gold is increasing. 7:48, April 16, 2016 16:47, May 5, 2016 (UTC) (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Chursin Dmitry

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electric generator. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)