Talk:Watt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconElectrical engineering Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
WikiProject iconElectronics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

First sentence

I'm not happy about this as the first sentence: "The watt (symbol: W) is a unit of electrical and mechanical power." While true, it seems to limit the watt to only measuring electrical and mechanical power. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

@DePiep: What's the reason for the "lowercase title" template? We normally use sentence case for article titles and I don't see any good reason to make an exception in this case. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The International System of Units (SI)" (PDF) (8th ed.). Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. 2006. p. 131. 5.2 Unit names. In English, the names of units start with a lower-case letter (even when the symbol for the unit begins with a capital letter)
Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't explain it. All English words start with a lower-case letter unless they are proper nouns. But when they are used to start a sentence, we use an initial upper-case letter. That spec you quote does the same thing; see page 144 for an example. This article does the same too; should we change this paragraph to read as follows? "Invented and incorrect terms such as watts per hour (W/h) are often misused when watts would be correct.[21] watts per hour would properly refer to a change of power per hour. watts per hour might be useful to characterize the ramp-up behavior of power plants, or slow-reacting plant where their power could only change slowly." And what about the subsection titles in the "Multiples" section? Should those all be downcased? Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we know that "watt", the unit name, is defined to be lowercase. I note this is not just a proper noun, but an SI defined name.
Titlecase for (article) titles and grammatical case (uc first letter of sentence) are not always the same: grammatical case is universal, titlecase is an option en:Wikipedia choose (wiktionary and Wikidata do choose not to: wikt:watt and watt (Q25236)).
Technically, this wiki has these options to ensure lowercase: {{
A-Vetivone (uc Greek A, lc is α), Γ-Octalactone, L-Arginine ethyl ester
: show with lowercase opening letter (or prescribed smallcaps L).
In case of watt/Watt, I think this is extra supportive this way to prevent readerś side misunderstanding, esp. in writing, both between the two words and anyway on incorrectly uppercasing the unit name (sort of extended
WP:DAB resolving). - DePiep (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
watt (unit)
is not a proper noun and is not capitalised, even though it derives from the surname. Watts are capitalised at the beginning of a sentence, because that is a local formatting rule which takes precedence. The point is that "500 Watts of power" is incorrect, despite being a commonplace use of it.
The question of WP titles is unclear, to some extent a matter for WP itself (Although that is often taken too far, to the point that comprehensibility suffers). WP has a particular bias against lowercase titles, personally I see a good argument for treating this as a title, thus capitalised by normal typesetting rules. But there is a justification for making it lowercase, derived from the SI. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question of WP titles seems perfectly clear to me.
WP:MOSTM, and "watt" is not a trademark. And even if it were, it doesn't fit the "Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter" exception (it would have to be "wAtt"). Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, these multiple MOS pages made it clear. For me the lc can go, but let's wait for Andy Dingley. - DePiep (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer a lower case title. The upper case is not incorrect according to rules of English grammar but it is misleading, because the capitalization changes its meaning from the name of a unit to the name of a person. We can improve Wikipedia by making that distinction clear. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't expressed any preference, either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Section 5.2 of the online brochure contains: "In English, the names of units start with a lower-case letter (even when the symbol for the unit begins with a capital letter), except at the beginning of a sentence or in capitalized material such as a title.". This seems pretty conclusive support for capitalising the article title. &minusWoodstone (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(QDONDERVOGEL 2): this looks pretty clear to me. The DAB you mention (watt/Watt) should be solved differently (hatnote, DAB page, ...). The "Sentence capitalisation" this wiki does makes the whole pretty consistent. (Exceptions like chemicals and eBay are MOS-based accepted, but this is not one). -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Titles in sentence case means that if it is capped to start a sentence, then it is capped as an article title. Just like Tractor, Porridge, Insanity, and about a million others. Primergrey (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, too. No reason to lowercase in the title; it's just another noun. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. While "Use a 60 watt light bulb." is correct, "Watts should not be confused with amperes." is also correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. To elaborate further, the {{
lowercase
}} template should never never never be used to mean "hey, you might think this takes a capital, but it doesn't, except at the start of a sentence". So for example never use it for anything starting with von Neumann, who has lots of stuff named after him, and whose surname starts with a lowercase v in the middle of a sentence.
The only proper use for the template is for things that should never be uppercased, even at the start of the sentence, like eBay or the mathematical constant e. --Trovatore (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lowercase infobox title is inconsistent with standard English usage as well as similar Wikipedia articles. Lowercase is used correctly in the opening sentence and throughout the article, so there should be no confusion about whether or not it is a proper noun.–dlthewave ☎ 17:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Light bulbs

@Kbrose: I earlier proposed removing the light bulb examples. No one objected, so I went ahead and removed them. Since apparently there is an objection, I'm going to re-state here what I said earlier:

I wonder if it's time to do away with the light bulb comparisons. You can't buy a 100 watt light bulb any more, so some time soon young people reading this article won't know what we're talking about. Worse, at least in the US, light bulbs are starting to appear on the shelves that are marked "100 watts" when they actually only consume 12 or so watts. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous. They should use something people have an intuitive grasp of, like horsepower. EEng 04:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If my hardware store sold "1/100 hp" light bulbs I would buy them. Actually I think they might still use "candlepower" in some cases. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can buy 75W CFLs, in ES mounts. They're a super-life grade from Philips, intended mostly for places where the cost of fitting a replacement is far greater than the lamp cost, such as big stairwells and atria. I've also recently bought a load of 50W and 100W LEDs, but they're wire-in, not lampholder-fit. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about elsewhere, but in the UK there is always a comparison against incandescent, for example a halogen much say '70 w = 92 w'. People generally think in watts, rather than lumens, etc. –Sb2001 10:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If I search on Amazon for a "60 watt light bulb" the first five results consume 10.5, 43, 8.5, 75, and 8.5 watts. And most of them say "60w" or even "60-watt" on the label. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Light bulbs are (used to be???) a great example to use when describing electricity use, mainly because (1) a bulb always use electricity at a constant rate (e.g. 60 W), and (2) everyone is aware of the power rating on the bulb, so that they can attempt to get the correct bulb to replace it when it breaks, and (3) everyone can identify with the fact that some use electricity faster than others (e.g. a 50 watt bulb uses energy at half the rate of a 100 W bulb). But since bulbs no longer have an easy link of watts vs brightness due to changes in the technology used, we should try to discover another easy, clear example to use. (I can't think of one off the top of my head). If a better example does exists, then we should use it. If not, then I don't think it is a big deal to continue using the light bulb example, perhaps with different (lower) watt ratings. Carlroddam (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

I just reverted this: [1] We have two equations here. The first gave the relationship between energy and power, and the second substituted numbers into this relationship. The edit I reverted changed the second equation so that it talks about power instead of energy. I think it's clearer if the two equations both talk about the same thing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section has title "Distinction between watts and watt-hours". It therefore makes sense to have an equation for each showing the connection between the two. Moreover, the formatting was (is again) inconsistent and clumsy. I repost. − — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstone (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's customary on WP, when reverted, to seek consensus on the talk page before re-applying your change. See Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Woodstone's version of the equation is clearer because most readers will likely find the concept of power easier to comprehend than that of energy. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is better. But now the equations don't match the explanatory sentence immediately preceding, which talks about energy, not power. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS
Petawatt information from 2 sources deleted by Kendall-K1

Kendall-K1 deleted the following: 

The Gravelines nuclear power plant in France became in 2010 the first power plant to ever deliver a cumulative petawatt-hour of electricity.[1][2]

The ostensible reason is was «Petawatt: this has nothing to do with petawatts of power; please discuss». I hasten to add that deletion of

WP:PRESERVE. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

This is not a violation of
WP:PRESERVE, which refers to information that belongs in the article but has been poorly presented. This information does not belong here, because it has nothing to do with petawatts. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The first-ever delivery of a full petawatt-hr by a single human-built machine has nothing to do with petawatts. Interesting times we live in.XavierItzm (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense to put this on an article about energy units, such as
kilowatt hour or joule. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no mention of the petawatt as a unit of power at either source. They do describe a power station with an average output of about 1400 megawatts (.0000014 PW). The station has a nameplate capacity of .0000055 PW. None of this belongs in the "Petawatt" section of this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be confusing to include those milestones in the petawatt article, because a petawatt hour is a unit of energy, not power. Why not include them instead in the
kilowatt hour article. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh wait, I see Dicklyon has already made this suggestion. I agree with hinm. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dondervogel 2 & Dicklyon's recommendation is sound and appreciated. Will do. With regard to the comment that Gravelines puts out .0000014 PW, this is not very useful; the fact that it was the first to cumulatively put out a full petawatt is more interesting. Thanks to all, XavierItzm (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It never did put out anywhere near a petawatt, an amount of power. It cumulatively put out a petawatt hour, an amount of energy. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "French nuclear plant reaches landmark". World Nuclear News. 2 November 2010. Retrieved 22 June 2018. The six-unit Gravelines nuclear power plant near Dunkerque in northern France has become the first nuclear plant in the world to deliver 1000 billion kilowatt-hours (one petawatt-hour) of electricity.
  2. ^ "French nuclear reactor reaches 1 petawatt-hour generation landmark". www.power-eng.com.
I further want to thank
Confusion of kilowatt hours (energy) and kilowatts (power). I knew that but was confused, so this was a perfect antidote! XavierItzm (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Does anyone have a cite for the meaning of "megawatt mechanical"? And an explanation of why it is listed for Turkish power plants?

I am listing some Turkish power plants and the official database lists MWm as well as MWe. After a long search I found out that MWm means "megawatt mechanical" so I have now added and cited that and made a redirect

MWm
.

I guess it means the maximum kinetic energy of the spinning turbine. Is that right and if so where can I find a cite?

But I am confused why MWm is listed for solar PV farms on the official database http://lisans.epdk.org.tr/epvys-web/faces/pages/lisans/elektrikUretim/elektrikUretimOzetSorgula.xhtml (as you can see by selecting Tesis Türü : Güneş - meaning plant type solar)

Any idea what is the point of listing this for a power plant? Maybe previously mechanical energy was needed for spinning reserve https://www.erawa.com.au/electricity/wholesale-electricity-market/ancillary-services-parameters/spinning-reserve-margin-peak-and-off-peak-load-rejection-reserve-and-system-restart-cost_lr ? If so is "MWm" a useless measurement now big batteries can provide Ancillary Services?

Chidgk1 (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watt&oldid=1211830809"