Talk:Ground loop (electricity)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Earth potential

The article currently says "For example, the electrical potential at different points on the surface of the Earth can vary by hundreds of volts, primarily from the influence of the solar wind." ...

is the Earth's own radial electric field not also to blame? (causing potential differences a different altitudes)

The electrostatic field above the earth has much too high of an impedance to affect earth surface potential.

Most of the earth's ground potential difference between close points is caused by our power distribution systems. Stick two ground rods in the earth and listen with a headset, and you hear a dominant 60 Hz hum in 60 Hz mains countries and a 50Hz hum in 50 Hz systems.

I'm not sure where that data comes from. The earth's dc potential is not significant. Measurements of potential in an isolated 4500 kilometer transatlantic cable yielded around .07 millivolts per kilometer.

Thunderstorms can produce large potential differences, but they are localized near the lightning strikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.195.31 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Typo?

$V_{out}=V_{2}+V_{G}=V_{2}+{\frac {R_{G}}{R_{G}+R_{1}}}V_{1}.\,$

should be

$V_{out}=V_{2}-V_{G}=V_{2}-{\frac {R_{G}}{R_{G}+R_{1}}}V_{1}.\,$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhianhchu (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that was my doing. I thought the minus sign might be confusing to readers because the explanatory text says the interference from the first circuit is "added to" the second circuit. However, I guess it's better to have the equation correct. Good catch. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AC mains voltage in auto wiring?

I may have misread this - someone help me out here. The article reads: "Audio wiring is particularly susceptible to ground loops. If two pieces of audio equipment are plugged into different power outlets, there will often be a difference in their respective ground potentials. If a signal is passed from one to the other via an unbalanced connection, this potential difference causes a spurious current to flow through the cables, creating an audible buzz at the AC mains frequency (50 or 60 Hz) and the harmonics thereof (eg 120 Hz, 240 Hz, etc)."

There either needs to be a paragraph break somewhere, at the point where we stop talking about auto wiring and start talking about AC audio installations, or it needs to be modified to read that the hum occurs as a function of the current speed of the alternator (and the overtones thereof, so that hum pitch increases with engine speed. (This ground loop effect commonly known in the Southern US as a "Redneck Tachometer.") I'm not sure what the initial writer's intention was, but there is a definite confusion here between A/C current and DC current generated by an alternator.

There isn't anything in there about automobile wiring. It's about audio equipment that is plugged into the mains. — Omegatron 01:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree - just a misread of "Audio" vs "Auto" I think.

Nevertheless, it would be great if someone _would_ put something in here about automotive wiring. For example, I'm trying to understand the issue of ground loop formation when using a PC-based OBD II scanner plugged into the car's Data Link Connector (DLC), the scanner connected to the PC via USB or RS232 cable, and the PC connected to the cigarette lighter power port. From the diagram in the article, I can't figure out which symbol corresponds to the scanner and/or DLC, which to the laptop and/or cigarette lighter, which to the car's battery positive terminal, and which to the car's engine. I'm assuming the ground symbols each would correspond to a connection to the negative battery terminal. - Rebeccah Jun 3 2014, 5:34pm (Pacific time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.203.88.125 (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ground loops in audio systems

Nowadays many audio systems are digital, especially audio recording installations. Apparently, in digital systems ground loops for some reason show up as strange digital noise (high- and whatnot-pitched) and not as mains hum (see http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php?p=316973&postcount=6). Maybe something on this should be included. OppfinnarJocke (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An observation: the ground loop explanation is fine for EEs, but it's massively too complex for most people to understand, and given that it's a common problem that I have to explain about once a week to people, it would be nice to have a simpler, more real-world example.

Consider two audio devices---say a mixer and an amplifier. These devices are connected together with a shielded cable. The amplifier is grounded. The mixer has a floating ground. The ideal ground potential across the shield would be 0. However, because the resistance from the mixer's "ground" to earth is infinite, all noise in the ground side of the mixer (both from its power supply and from outside noise) flows through the cable shield to the better (true) ground in the amplifier. As it does so, it creates substantial induced hum in the signal line.

This problem can be eliminated in two ways:

1. Use a balanced line because you can then safely lift the ground on one end of the cable. This has the advantage of being quick and easy, but it still leaves the ungrounded device floating, which is less than ideal, as it can still result in anything from a tingle up to a nasty shock if you are grounded, depending on the voltages involved.

2. Provide a proper ground reference for the ungrounded equipment by running 10 AWG copper wire from any signal ground to the grounding pin on an electrical outlet. Repeat for all ungrounded equipment in a star topology. In addition to killing the hum, this technique has the secondary benefit of eliminating any significant electrical potential between the ungrounded device's "ground" and the actual earth---highly important when in sock feet in a concrete basement, for example.

Dgatwood (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

use one power strip.

maybe a section *a helpful section* about how to avoid them? "star topology" is jargon. "To avoid mains hum, plug all equipment into the same outlet" is "power strip" jargon too? 168.251.194.21 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

3 Phase Power

3 Phase Power is the most common source of problems in large buildings. A section to explain this in detail needs to be added to the article. What happens is that power in the USA and other places, comes into the building as 120v 3 phase power. Two legs of this are used to create the 240v circuit, with 3 circuits of 120v being sent to different parts of the building. As long as everything is plugged into the same circuit then no problem exists. However suppose you have a computer in one part of the building and an rs232 terminal in another part of the building. The result is the shield of the cable can be ~100v potential vs the shield of the terminal's connector. Not only is this hazardous but it also often leads to the destruction of the terminal. I have witnessed a similar problems with ethernet cables and hubs, these days, most hubs appear to use an isolated ground, but when they don't the same problem can occur, this results in hard to find intermittent network failures. All of the above is based on my personal experience in the field -- voltmeter in hand -- with installing and troubleshooting equipment. Although mostly I see this in commercial buildings, I have sometimes seen it in houses. Would be great if this were added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.126.146 (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a ground loop per se, this is a dangerous fault condition, probably from completely broken or incorrect earth wiring. In a system without faults, all earths are connected solidly, and very little current flows through the earth system (phases and neutral are isolated from it within the building), and as a result very little voltage ever appears between earth pins. There should never be more than a few volts between earthed conductors anywhere in a building. HF noise is often shunted down the earth wire and a bit of this can appear but it's not 50 / 60 Hz. However another very common reason for seeing ~100VAC (in single-ended 240V systems anyway) on equipment shields is mains leakage from EMC suppression capacitors in unearthed computer equipment (laptops, routers etc), which is completely normal (if surprising). You can draw fairly decent sparks between some equipment's shields and a real earth, and if the earths don't connect before signals then it's sometimes "goodnight nurse" for the equipment. Adx (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Need another diagram for the multi-ground situation

The diagram in the article is find for the single ground situation and easy to understand, but impossible to picture when multiple units, each with their own grounds, are at issue. The latter is discussed at length but I find it very difficult to visualize the problem. AngusCA (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a ground loop to me

In my world, a ground loop is simply what happens if you have 2 separate units whose grounds are interconnected by not one but 2 ground connections, typically one is ground via the mains connection, the other usually due to some cable between the units (usually "signal type" like data or audio). The implications are not clear for a general case but usually we are talking about some of the current intended to go in the "mains ground" instead going in the ground wire of the "signal cable", and if the signal cable is an analog audio cable you get hum, and you can usually not break the power GND if you want the system to be safe, and then it gets a bit tricky. I think many people like to use the phrase "ground loop" but few know what is meant, some kind of buzz phrase. I googled for images and the first 5 ones I found all contain images that match my description above of what a ground loop is:
http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Technology-Computers/AC-and-Audio-Ground-Loops/ba-p/34636337
http://www.performing-musician.com/pm/dec07/articles/techspec.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/ground-loop
http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/preventing_hum_and_rfi_in_your_studio/P2/
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/groundloop/basics.html
The last link has some weird ideas about "loop antennas" which I can't see fit into the typical view on ground loops. The only other common situation I can think of is when using a grounded oscilloscope (or other measurement equipment) for measurements on a mains connected system:
http://www.overclockzone.com/forums/showthread.php/1207067-%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%94%E0%B9%8C%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%96%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87/page6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.15.174.240 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a more complicated but typical type of ground loop. It's cause is the same as in the introductory example; current from one circuit flowing through a second circuit's ground wire. The reason your last link mentioned "loop antennas" is that the source of the current in a ground loop is usually stray 60 Hz magnetic fields from nearby electrical equipment or power wiring. The ground loop forms a huge single-turn shorted "transformer winding". Since it has low resistance, any AC magnetic flux through it will induce large currents. The AC voltage created by this current flowing through the signal cable shield is added to the signal, causing hum. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a series of diagrams for the article similar to the ones in your links; I just haven't got around to uploading them yet. I'll upload them. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: have you uploaded. This article could use some help. ~KvnG 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I already put my diagrams in the article; they are the ones in the "Common ground loops" section. Do you think there is a problem with them? --Chetvorno^TALK 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just trying to close the loop on talk page items. The diagrams are great. Thanks! We can probably improve the layout so that they always show up in the right section regardless of screen width. ~KvnG 13:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of boldface

@Goodphy:, boldface is not used for emphasis in WP articles, italics are used instead. "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." WP:BOLDFACE. Also, including an edit summary with your edits (box at the bottom of the edit window) helps other editors understand the reasoning behind your changes. WP:Editsummarisis. Thanks --Chetvorno^TALK 18:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Too editorialized

This article seems heavily editorialized.

"A ground loop is the result of careless or inappropriate design..."

"Typically these are caused by incompetent design"

This article does not maintain a Neutral point of view. I am not claiming that ground loops are a good thing. Stating the adverse situations caused by ground loops is sufficient to communicate why it is important to avoid them. If it is really important to discuss causes of ground loops, that could be it's own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.116.122 (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Blanket statements like that are too simplistic a view, and in any case shouldn't be in the introduction. Electrical code regulations often require electrical components to have a grounded plug, making ground loops difficult to avoid when multiple components are interconnected. Also the problems introduced by some ground loops can be manageable, and some circuit board designs include ground loops because it is the most efficient design.

Those unsourced sentences were added by an angry editor in a brief "drive-by" edit about a year ago. He also introduced a number of other errors, such as that ground loops do not constitute a shock hazard (in audio equipment they generally don't, but ground loops in industrial power wiring can leave exposed metal parts of equipment with lethal voltages). --Chetvorno^TALK 23:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove section "Mitigating grounds loops "

The section on mitigating ground loops seems too much of a how-to and fit for an audio/recording studio forum, not for wikipedia. It also cites no sources. I feel like it should therefore be removed. I'll come back in 48-72 hours and remove it, unless others disagree? TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Also it is redundant; the same material is covered better, with sources, in the "Solutions" section lower down. This article has a great deal of repetitive verbiage that could pruned out. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Unless anyone comes in within the next few hours to give a good argument against it, I'll remove them tonight, and will look at working on rewriting some of the content that is not up to standard. TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ground loop (electricity). 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5nhOeXhRQ?url=http://www.jensen-transformers.com/an/generic%20seminar.pdf to http://www.jensen-transformers.com/an/generic%20seminar.pdf

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) 16:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Umm.. I think there is an error.

I wonder if sometimes the best input comes from someone who tried to understand a subject from the page! (Like I just did!)

Am I mistaken, or is the same image, (File:Ground loop - leakage currents.svg), being used for two different parts of the pages explanation?

Also, as I tried to understand the subject myself, I found that it was hard to decipher what the images were trying to accomplish. The one showing the two devices connected, (Fig. 1: A typical signal cable S between electronic components, with a current I flowing through the shield conductor.) I think, was just to provide context I guess, but I was hunting for the ground loop in the diagram and description, because it wasn't clear that it was coming later. I haven't done anything with images or formatting yet, but I would be willing to try to make some changes there.

Also, the article talks a lot about hum from fields, and leakage, (although due to the image error I don't know if I understand that one fully...) and I think I understand it fairly well, however after reading some of the links provided by another commenter, I think there is another (related) source of trouble that falls under this topic, having to do with devices in the building dumping 'noisy current' to ground in different places, as with power filters, causing fluctuations which may cause differences in potential in different parts of the buildings ground system.

Any comments on these ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phuzzyday (talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I wrote most of that section. You were right about the drawing Ground loop - leakage currents.svg. The confusion was caused because an editor (Marcnovac) vandalized this drawing in Commons, replacing it with a copy of the second drawing Ground loop - induced currents.svg. I reverted the vandalism so the 3 drawings in the section are different. Hopefully with this change the section will make more sense. I think the 3rd drawing illustrates the source you referred to in your comment above "devices in the building dumping 'noisy current' to ground in different places" so hopefully the two major sources of ground noise are now covered. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. The change to the drawing by Marcnovac I referred to above wasn't vandalism, it was just an innocent mistake. I apologize, Marcnovac, for falsely accusing you. My bad. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That drawing Ground loop - leakage currents.svg, which has a caption "Ground loop current caused by leakage currents in the building's ground wire system from an appliance A." is definitely confusing. A red-coloured arrow (representing current) can be seen running out of the socket, along a ground wire. It is 1 single arrow. Where's the return path? KorgBoy (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A building's ground wire system is connected to the neutral (grounded) side of the power line at the service panel. That's what that ground symbol at the bottom represents. So the path of the current is through the "hot" side of the power line to appliance A, then through the ground wiring (red arrows) back to the service panel, to the neutral side of the power line. I guess it wasn't very clear from the drawing (my fault). --Chetvorno^TALK 02:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Chetvorno for explaining that. Much appreciated. KorgBoy (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest merge January 2018

Ground noise has a little uniqe content that might be useful to merge here; that article spends much of its space discussing ground loops anyway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree Ground noise is not notable enough for a separate article and should be merged. Not all ground noise is due to ground loops, but it looks like that is the only kind discussed in the article so I guess it could be merged here. I doubt if any of the content in that article should be kept; almost all of it is already covered in this article. For example I googled the term "isolated ground loop" from the article and found virtually no usage in technical literature. This concept is already discussed here under the more common term "single point grounding". --Chetvorno^TALK 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

What is a ground loop ? Here is my attempt of a definition:

A ground loop is the unintentional result when electronic equipment is connected in a way such that ground conductors and other circuitry form a closed conductive loop. According to Faraday's law, time-variant magnetic fields (e.g. from the mains) will induce voltages/currents in such a loop. To the system, these induced voltages/currents are actually unwanted noise. Therefore, we say in short that a ground loop 'picks up noise' and can introduce this noise into the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.32.33 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough emphasis on loop area in the discussion. Suggest the whole loop is drawn out (the interconnect cable, the interconnected equipment, the mains cables with their associated ground(earth) wires back to the wall plugs, and the connection between the wall plugs within the house wiring. you can then shade in the whole loop area and it makes the discussion much clearer. This article should also include - or reference - cross channel ground loops and HF noise loops. It also seems to me that common impedance and ground loops are mixed up - they are separate mechanisms. Common mode and differential mode coupling should also be discussed or referenced as should be balanced and unbalanced interconnects. See the hifisonix 'Ground Loops' web page for more information. Harrison Thomas 17:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harison thomas (talk • contribs)

I totally agree with Thomas: (1) The article should be based on a drawing that shows an exemplary loop formed by the mains and interconnect cables between 'real' equipment placed in a 'real' environment (2) The explanation should focus on the loop area. Faraday's law of induction incorporates the loop area in the surface integral of the magnetic flux through the loop.

And I would add another point: (3) The concepts of 'potential' and 'potential difference' (there are 9 occurences in the actual article) are not applicable in conductive loops. What is worse, these terms will make the reader try to think in electrostatics while induction is a dynamic phenomenon. Instead, the article should use the concept of 'induced EMF' as the cause of the induced voltages from Faraday's law in its explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.32.33 (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Harison thomas: @80.246.32.33: Did you see the diagrams in the Sources of ground current section? And the accompanying explanation? In the first diagram in that section the "whole loop" is drawn out, with red arrows indicating the current. With regard to your point (3), keep in mind that many (most?) instrumentation and audio equipment inputs are high impedance; they feed into a differential amplifier with high input resistance. These are voltage-operated inputs; no current flows in the signal (center) conductor; the input to the next stage is equal to the voltage difference between the central conductor and the ground (shield) conductor, so potential is very definitely involved. In these the ground loop current flowing in the signal cable ground induces noise by creating an AC voltage drop across the resistance of the cable, which is applied to the signal input. This is explained in detail in the Ground currents on signal cables section, and seems to be well sourced. However I agree that Faraday's law of induction should certainly be mentioned. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: Thanks for your answer.

• "no current flows in the signal (center) conductor": I agree.
• "the input to the next stage is equal to the voltage difference between the central conductor and the ground (shield) conductor, so potential is very definitely involved": I agree, but at least for the article, I'd prefer talking of voltages and avoid the term 'potential'.
• "In these the ground loop current flowing in the signal cable ground induces noise by creating an AC voltage drop across the resistance of the cable, which is applied to the signal input": I agree, but I'd suggest a slightly different formulation: "In these circuits, the induced voltage across the (small) resistance of the signal cable ground conductor adds as noise to the desired signal at the receiver input."
• Figure Ground loop current induced by stray AC magnetic fields (B, green): To me, this is the central figure where the entire article should be based upon. There is one thing, however, which could be improved: The figure shows a magnetic field B (green circles around the conductors). To me, this field doesn't look like a magnetic stray field from a (distant) external source. It rather looks like the secondary magnetic field caused by the loop current (which is not of interest in the discussion). See http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys270/Jenkins/Hwksolns2TA.pdf for some examples how to illustrate the external magnetic field.

80.246.32.33 (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

General hand-waving approach to balanced signals; overall doubts

I find this page to have a strange mix of concepts between balanced and unbalanced signals, particularly with respect to the emphasis on audio circuits. Unbalanced cables and signals are connected to differential line receivers, which would normally only be used when there are balanced signals.

In sound systems, is quite common to have audio equipment connected across great distances, thus introducing significantly different ground potentials at the nearby mains outlets, since the mains wiring is not zero resistance and there is always a voltage drop between the ground pin on the equipment and the actual zero-reference earth ground(s). This circumstance is probably more common than the diagram in the "common sources" section showing leakage currents from an appliance -- in other words, I don't think another appliance is necessary.

I'm no ground-loops expert, but these kinds of errors and omissions make it difficult for me to accept the validity of the details of the various other explanations and analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean. You say "...there is always a voltage drop between the ground pin on the equipment and the actual zero-reference earth ground(s)." Where do you think that voltage drop comes from? The ground pins on outlets are all tied together by the building's ground wire system, which is tied to an earth ground at the front panel. If there were no current in the ground wires, there would be no voltage drop and all the ground pins would be at the same potential, so there would be no ground-loop problems from that source. Of course the third-wire ground system is not part of the power return circuit; it is there only for protection. So the current in the ground system can only come from two sources; leakage from the "hot" side of the power line, and current induced by magnetic fields, as shown in the article. Leakage currents come mostly from appliances, where the "hot" electrical parts may be separated from the metal frame only by thin layers of insulation. Large appliances particularly in wet environments such as washing machines and dishwashers can produce significant ground leakage currents. That is a major reason why appliances have ground wires, to bleed off the leakage currents that flow into exposed metal parts, to prevent shock. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of differential line receivers, they are also used for unbalanced shielded cable lines. Whether or not the input circuit is called a differential amplifier, the point is that the input signal for component 2 is obtained by subtracting the shield voltage from the signal conductor voltage, to eliminate noise. The diagrams in the article of the typical signal cable with its drivers and receivers appear in many reliable sources on the web, which is where I copied them from. You can look at the references given; that's what they are there for. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have had to do a lot to this because quite frankly it was terrible. Electric shock hazards from ground loops? Maybe, alongside a primitive AC electric railway, but nowadays they have booster transformer or autotransformer feed to minimise the radiated magnetic field. Maybe also very close to grid power lines, but not in common places where people operate audio equipment. I don't consider it to be final yet, in fact what I have written needs to be tidied up somewhat. I have not got time now, but will get back to it as soon as possible. For a start we need a very simple explanation near the top. But I have removed one of the tags, because I do happen to be an expert electronics engineer with 40 years of solid experience in EMC and grounding.

I am wondering if this page needs to be split up, and parts combined with "Balanced line". Tiger99 (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Tiger99: Perhaps the author of the offending text misunderstood the actual cause of the shocks, which may have actually been caused by failed insulation that allowed leaks from power conductors to ground conductors. This can happen in old N American metal-sheathed ("BX") power cable, especially when it was incorrectly (and illegally & dangerously) installed to extend a pre-existing non-grounded (e.g., "knob-and-tube") circuit without grounding the sheath (which was done in a bathroom in my parents' old house, long before they bought it, causing a metal switch plate to be "live"); I detest "BX". It can also happen in old urban underground electric-supply cables, which have occasionally caused (barefoot) dogs walking on urban sidewalks to get shocks, from which their humans were somewhat protected by wearing shoes and by walking on only two rather than four feet. (Presumably, these sidewalk shocks are more common when the sidewalk and underlying dirt are damp.) Acwilson9 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Analog or analogue

The following was posted on my talk page, SpinningSpark 13:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I changed an instance of 'analogue' to 'analog' on this page, and it was reverted for conformance to the English usage of the original author. I have no argument against that, and will not interfere further.

'Analog', however, is a term of art in electronics, specifying a continuously variable signal, as opposed to 'digital'. The meaning is distinct from 'analogue' in common English, and the distinction is in my experience preserved between British and American usages. That was the reason for my edit.

Thank you for the guidance, either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.144.18 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It is easily demonstrated that analogue is, in fact, extensively used in the signal sense by many expert authors. Here is a selection of books, all published this century;

• The Analogue Alternative: The Electronic Analogue Computer in Britain and the USA, 1930–1975 (2013)
• Analogue and Numerical Modelling of Crustal-scale Processes (2006)
• Digital and Analogue Instrumentation: Testing and Measurement (2003)
• Analogue Switch-off: A Signal Change in Television (2006)
• Dynamic Characterisation of Analogue-to-Digital Converters (2006)
• Introduction to Electronic Analogue Computers (2014)
• Test and Diagnosis of Analogue, Mixed-signal and RF Integrated Circuits (2008)
• Design of High Frequency Integrated Analogue Filters (2008)
• Analogue and Numerical Modelling of Sedimentary Systems (2009)

If you want to make an argument that this article should be written in American English, that is a different matter. There may be a case for that per MOS:RETAIN. To establish that, you must first look through the history of the page and find the earliest edit that was unequivocally written in American or British English. The article can then be standardised on that variety of English. SpinningSpark 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have even more reason to not protest at this point, so I will thank you again for your guidance. --NAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.144.18 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You are misinformed. 'Analogue' is the British English term for a continuously variable signal and is extensively used as Spinningspark has demonstrated above. Americans (who have not used English for over two and a half centuries) insist on spelling it differently. As I understand the manual of style, the English variant used in an article is not changed unless there is a justifiable reason along with an overwhelming consensus to do so. Sadly: we do get American users who seem to think that spelling should exclusively conform to their version of English regardless of what anyone else thinks. I am not accusing you of being one of those because you did provide a rationale (if faulty) for your change. -RFenergy (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Since 74.143.144.18's change was reverted by Spinningspark, the article has a single instance of analogue. All the rest are analog. We've also got one cancelled and one fibre but it looks like the bulk of it is American English. For consistency, I'd normally change replace the few British spellings and tag the article with {{Use American English}} but just want to be sure I'm not missing anything here. ~Kvng (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, the proper thing to do is check the early editing history, per WP:ENGVAR, to find the first edit that established a definite language variety. I reverted because the change was made on the basis that the spelling was an error, which it is not. I have no view on which language variety should be used other than that ENGVAR should be adhered to, which of course means checking first. SpinningSpark 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My reading of WP:RETAIN is it is valid/sufficient to look at the current state of the article to make a WP:BOLD WP:ENGVAR call. If someone wants to disagree with the call, we can look at the history. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It says no such thing. SpinningSpark 14:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I get that from When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. Consistent usage of American English has been established; there is only one analogue instance in the article, the rest are analog. Do you disagree? ~Kvng (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)