Talk:Utility frequency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Tesla
The text around history of 50 vs 60 has been shortened over the past half year, so for reference below is what i originally compiled in August 2006. I have no real argument with the subsequent edits, but thought there might be some interest in some of the further details (and caveats) in the longer text. --Psm 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Though many theories exist, and quite a few entertaining urban legends, there is little certitude in the details of the history of 60 Hz vs 50 Hz. What is known is that Westinghouse in the US decided on 60 Hz and AEG in Germany decided on 50 Hz, eventually leading to the world being mostly divided into two frequency camps. What is also well understood is why the frequencies ended up in the 50-60 range: direct current generators that came online in the late 1890:s were more stable at lower rotation speeds, and the flicker of lighting becomes noticeable somewhere below those levels. Westinghouse decided on 60 Hz before 1892 and AEG decided on 50 Hz by 1899. Tesla is believed to have had a key influence in the choice of 60 Hz by Westinghouse, but it may simply have been happenstance: Westinghouse won the World Fair in Chicago (1893) lighting contract, and after that the Niagara Falls project, both of which were 60 Hz. Maybe it simply "stuck" as corporate decisions are wont to do. AEGs choice of 50 Hz is by some thought to relate to a more "metric-friendly" number than 60, which would be peculiar since it is distinctly less efficient than 60Hz. It may also have been an intentional decision to be incompatible. In any case, a plethora of frequencies continued in broad use. For example, London in 1918 had 70 electric authorities with 24 different voltages and 10 different frequencies. It wasn't until after World War II with the advent of affordable electrical consumer goods that broader standards were enacted.
[edit] Various
I heard a rumor that higher-frequency waves on the power lines would increase efficiency and decrease losses.
I'm skeptical, and Utility_frequency#400Hz seems to say the opposite. Which is true? — Omegatron 17:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The History section is a bit repetitive. The second half of that section says pretty much the same as the first, only in slightly different words. Perhaps someone ought to tighten that up a bit. 203.191.193.38 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, this article has incorporated historical frequency texts from different sources, and would certainly be helped by some editing. --Psm 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
