Talk:Utility frequency
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Utility frequency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
5000 alterations equals 41 2⁄32 Hz?
[edit]In the section 40Hz there is a sentence that purports that 5000 alterations per minute are 41 and two thirds Hertz, but I don't understand how this can be the case. Hertz being the number of alterations in a second meaning that in one minute at 1 hertz there would be 60 alterations.
Conversely, 5000 alterations in a minute would correspond to 83 and 1/3 Hertz Aethalides (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe 5000 RPM with a four-pole machine? Removed, in any case. Constant314 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- "alterations" includes plus swings and minus swings and is twice the number of cycles in 1 minute. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I would have never guessed that. Can you add a note? Constant314 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- can you find a citation for that because as I understand it, Hertz is number of alterations per seconds i.e.50hz is 50 alterations, not 100 Aethalides (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Hertz" is the number of *cycles* per second, a cycle has a positive swing and a negative swing -two alterations. I will try to track down the musty book that I had explaining this, but the mildew may have gotten to it. Google Books used to have complete text of century-old periodicals but now shows only useless snippets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- "alterations" includes plus swings and minus swings and is twice the number of cycles in 1 minute. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I am unsure how to proceed after opening this article solely to verify the difference between American and Non-Japanese power grids and note that a 60 Hz current corresponds to a 60 Hz turbine. While still no technical reason to use that frequency (i.e. I am aware of no impact on efficiency nor production,) it might make design slightly more efficient simply making the math cleaner. Granted, there are transformers and lines along the way, but, all else being equal, the current and magnet both completing exactly a single full cycle each second would be more computationally convenient. Plus we could express it as Hz³ RPH, which is objectively cool (if I am using that phrase properly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-38904-69 (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)