This 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This 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
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wintersfire.
I do not agree with the section claiming DC sometimes refers to "constant polarity." DC is really the constant component of a voltage or current signal. The rectified signal has a DC component, but it also has many frequencies added to the signal. I think the point that is desired to be made is the conversion of AC to DC through a rectifier. However, a full-wave rectified signal is not DC. Mak17f05:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the second to last paragraph of this article. The bigger problem here is that the term 'DC' has been overloaded. For example, DC orginated as an abreviation for direct current - a current that does not periodically reverse direction. Thus, a phrase like 'DC voltage' becomes 'direct current voltage' which doesn't make much sense at all. Further, a 'DC current' becomes 'direct current current' which is redundant. We EEs commonly refer to the DC component of a signal thereby equating the term 'DC' to the time average of a time varying signal or, if we are in the frequency domain, the 0 Hz component of the signal. Additionally, we talk of DC voltage or current sources when we mean constant voltage or current sources. Finally, we refer to DC circuits when we mean a circuit without memory (the voltages and currents in the circuit do not depend on past or future values of voltages and currents). There are probably other examples where the term 'DC' has become shorthand for something other than a uni-directional current. Alfred Centauri15:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my concern is more that I think the most common use for the “DC” terminology is being a synonym for “constant;” be it constant voltage or current. Because of this, I feel the last couple paragraphs that you mention should be placed in the more prominent position in the beginning of the article. If in some circles DC is a synonym for constant polarity, it should be as an aside rather than the main definition. I agree that it seems the DC term is thrown around in many situations. Possibly in this article the different definitions should be clearly presented? I’ve rearranged the article such that uses and definitions are separated. Maybe this way the debate can be focused in these areas.Mak17f18:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DC means low frequency but not necessarily constant polarity. As an example, a DC motor can be rotated clockwise using a positive DC voltage and counterclockwise using a negative DC voltage. One meaning is with respect to power with constant polarity, like batteries and generators. The second meaning is baseband signal with frequency less than a threshold.Nanoatzin (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with DC in meaning constant valued, such as the value 5, or 3.5, or -6.84. Hypothetically constant. And for AC, I go with periodic oscillation of a waveform above and below a level of ZERO, and having a time average of zero over 1 full period. And, of course, there are other oscillating waveforms that can be modelled (mathematically) as a sum of a DC component and a bunch of 'AC' sinusoidal components --- Fourier theory. KorgBoy (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This result is independent of the frequency. If we set the frequency to zero then:
Thus, it would appear that this source should deliver 1W to a resistance of 1 ohm yet, according to the rms value calculated above, it should deliver an average power of 1/2W. So, is a 1V DC voltage source really equivalent to a 1V peak sinusoidal source of frequency zero? Alfred Centauri04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, may be mathematically that is not right. Or I don't know what's wrong on what you wrote.But conceptually, a 0 Hz sinusoidal (or any waveform) would complete a cycle 0 times per second. So either it is not a periodic function (but a sine is continuous, so that's not right), or it is a continous waveform (so it wouldn't ever change, like DC). That's why it is sometimes considered of 0 Hz.Actually, if you take a function generator and you set its frequency at 0 Hz, with any waveform, you'll get DC.--Lenilucho09:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mathematical discrepency is due to the product of zero and infinity being indeterminate. In other words, we define DC to be a constant voltage or constant current (e.g., 1V or 1A). There is no product of zero and time in the definition. On the other hand, setting the frequency to zero for a sinusoidal function of time gives a constant for any finite value of t but, in the limit as t goes to infinity, the behaviour of this function is different from that of a constant.
Here's an analogous problem. Is an ideal wire the same as an ideal zero ohm resistor? According to one definition, an ideal wire is identical to a zero volt voltage source. That is, the voltage across the ideal wire is identically zero regardless of the current through the wire. On the other hand, the voltage across a resistor is the product of the resistor current and the resistance. If a resistor is connected to a 1V source, the voltage across the resistor is 1V. In the limit as the resistance is reduced to zero ohms, the voltage is still 1V but the current is unbounded. In other words, the product of zero ohms and infinite current equals 1V in this case. However, if we connect an ideal wire across the 1V source, we have an inconsistent circuit that says 1V = 0V. Thus, a zero ohm resistance is not quite the same as a short circuit. Alfred Centauri13:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The frequency of a pure DC signal is generally considered to be , but this depends upon the situation. DC power that contains ripple has a spectrum with tones at multiples of the ripple frequency having different amplitudes. Nanoatzin (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Length of the cable to be used for Arc welding machine
I want to know what are the limitations for the length of the cable to be used for Positive connection for a DC Welding machine. Let me explain more we want to do welding for one equipment which is at a distance of 15metres from the welding machine we can get the power supply for the welding machine there only. For this i want to know is it safe to keep welding machine at 15metres distance and do the welding. In this case what is the earthing procedure we need to follow is it necessary to earth nearer to the equipment or we can earth the common earth of the machine which is nearer to the welding machine. Please suggest me what to do —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.124.177.50 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Is it a steady state current (voltage) with no perturbations (ie no frequencies above zero), or is it just a unidirectional flow of charge the magnitude and frequency of which could vary as any old function of time you care to think up?--TreeSmiler (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DC component of a signal (voltage, current, or whatever) is the mean value, or the zero-frequency Fourier component (which has an rms value higher than that of an AC component of the same amplitude, as pointed out above). The DC component thus does not fluctuate. But the term is also used for voltages or currents where the mean is much greater than the fluctuations; that is, the fact that a signal has fluctuations does not prevent it being called DC. And a DC voltage source (power supply) can have even negative fluctuations of the current, and still be DC. It's a broad concept. Dicklyon (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the concept isn't broad at all but that the usage of the term is sloppy. That fact that it is 'understood' that DC is often used to mean 'relatively constant' doesn't change the definition of DC (in EE) as a non-fluctuating, i.e., constant with time signal. A unidirectional flow of charge that varies significantly with time is, at the technical level, sometimes called pulsating DC but this is a contradiction. To be precise (something we should all strive to be), a unidirectional current contains, in general, a component that has a non-zero time average as well as fluctuating component(s) with zero time average. Alfred Centauri (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer a strict definition, please do give us a source for it. What you call "sloppy usage" has been a topic of discussion at least since 1893, as we see here. Even a book with a strict definition follows immediately with "In practice, ...". And Vannevar Bush was flexible about different meanings, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The acronym DC (direct-current) refers to a unidirectional current. Thus, strictly speaking, a 'DC voltage' (where DC is understood to be an acronym for direct-current) is a 'unidirectional current voltage' which is obviously nonsense . However, the term DC, where DC is no longer understood to be an acronym, has come to mean constant. I quote from 13th edition of "The Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers":
"DC Sources. Some sources, such as batteries, deliver electric energy at a nearly constant voltage and thus they are modeled as constant voltage sources. The term dc sources basically means direct-current sources, but it has come to stand for constant sources as well."
Thus the terms "DC circuit analysis", "DC solution", "DC component", "DC coupled", "DC restoration", etc. I stand by my assertion that the concept of the term DC, used by most EEs today to mean (ideally) constant, isn't broad at all. As additional support for my assertion, consider this where we find:
Within the world of EE, DC is a synonym for constant, e.g., DC (non-timevarying) circuit analysis, DC (non-time varying) source, DC (non-time varying) component etc. Alfred Centauri (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if someone who knows about such things could amend this article to discuss how it is that much if not most of the world relies on direct current. If the disadvantages of direct current are so great, why does all of Europe have DC systems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahistorian (talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of Europe does not have DC systems. The United Kingdom uses 240VAC at 50Hz. Direct current is used most often in modern commercial electrical power systems to transmit power over 1,000 miles. One such DC line delivers power from Bonneville Dam to Sylmar, Los_Angeles using +/-500,000 volt DC lines. Power lines operating at 240VDC can carry power just a few miles, which tends to be impractical.Nanoatzin (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Description of the filled parameters in the WikiProject Electronics template and the WikiProject Energy template.
I added the WikiProject Electronics template since this article pertains to this WikiProject; the WikiProject Energy template was already added, but none of the parameters were filled. I referred to the templates in the talk page of the article for AC current.
WikiProject Electronics Class and WikiProject Energy Class: I rated the article as being Start-Class because it has one reference; from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronics/Assessment and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Energy/Assessment, under the description for Start-Class articles, the rating of Start-Class should be applied for "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources". If an article has only one listed source, it is, at best, start-class, regardless how informative, well-written, or long it is. This is simply because such articles need to be more verifiable, which Wikipedia holds in very high regard. The editors did do a good job, especially in formatting and organization; the article only needs more information and references for verification.
WikiProject Electronics Importance: Direct current (D.C. [or just DC]) circuits are absolutely fundamental to electronics, since every standard electronics class begins with the properties and equations that apply to a DC circuit. An understanding of DC circuits is the first step towards an understanding of higher-level concepts in electronics. Since knowledge of electronics requires knowledge of DC circuits, I rated this article as being of top importance.
WikiProject Energy Importance: Direct circuits form a paradigm of electric information and energy transfer. Indeed, networks of energy transfer can often be simplified (conceptually) into a DC circuit with components for those who do not know much about physics or when details are neglected. However, unlike in electronics, general knowledge of the dynamics of energy transfer in physics does not require knowledge of DC circuits. For these reasons, I rated this article as being of high-importance.
This article is technically lacking an infobox, so I noted that.
What, exactly, would you discuss only at "Direct current" that is not appropriate for "DC circuit" or the reverse? These aren't even two successive chapters in the physics textbook. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Wtshymanski has a long history of merging articles with the sole intent of (during the 'merge') deleting large quantities of either or both articles (that don't meet his idea of what should be in what he regards as 'his' encyclopedia). 86.130.168.254 (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also (less commonly) known as 'pulsating DC' (even though the term is technically inaccurate). The standard symbol used actaully shows pulsating DC rather than DC with ripple. 86.130.168.254 (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Current is defined as the flow of charge, in articles that deal the concept of current specifically, using the expression current flow when talking about charge flow creates an implicit definition which is never defined. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the lede uses a definition for Direct Current as the unidirectional flow of charge. In the third sentence of the lede says "Direct current may flow in a conductor such as a wire, but can also flow through semiconductors, insulators, or even through a vacuum as in electron or ion beams.". "current may flow" implies a flow of flow of charge. I would like to change this sentence so that we don't imply a flow of a flow of charge. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, learn a level of English grammar, syntax and sentence parsing appropriate to the level of pedantry that you're pushing. "Current flow" is a commonplace idiomatic expression that is very widely used in an unambiguous sense. Yet in deference to you and your claims of tautology, we are not strongly resisting your goal to rework uses of it. However "current may flow" is simply a different construct; there is no tautology here, even to your nitpicking level. There is no error here and we should not "fix" it merely to make an article inaccessible to normal readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when people learn about electricity, DC will come first before AC. And it seems like such a perfect world when using DC, as everything can be calculated so easily without frequencies. Hence I want to include a section of the pros and cons of DC to let readers have a sense of real world electricity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.98.7.11 (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some will like my bold addition to the lead and some won't.
Waveform of a DC digital square wave showing undershoot into negative voltage (i.e. reverse current flow).
In modern semiconductor electronics, the distinction between DC and AC is somewhat fatuous. For purposes of circuit analysis, even though the power supply is entirely DC, taking advantage of the superposition theorem (more than one independent source equals the algebraic sum of the responses caused by each independent source acting alone) it's commonplace to model mean current flow as a DC component, and the variable flow as a superimposed AC component, amenable for analysis of spectral content in the frequency domain. For example, digital circuits with a pure DC power source are vulnerable to crosstalk which is effectively an AC behaviour, generated by the spectral content of the sharp digital switching edges.
My own perspective is that there are two mental models of good pedagogy: one assumes that this is the first article a person reads, on a slow and steady progression into more advanced treatments (beaten into our heads in K12 and beyond); the other perspective is that for the average somewhat harried person, this might well be the last encounter with the subject en route to a hasty interim conclusion. For the second class of people (in the world as opposed to in education), it's an extreme disservice to impart a quick impression that DC and AC are easily and consistently two divided worlds apart. That's my own 2 cents anyway. YMMV. — MaxEnt18:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There *is* a definition in the "Various definitions" section. It is the only one *with* a citation. None of the graphics match it. It gets worse when you go to Pulsed DC, where there is one citation from one sixty-year-old textbook. DC is a waveform with a frequency of zero. And, oh yes, the value of Vrms does work out, but you have to do the whole Taylor series, which I won't type here. We have a duty to be right, here in Wikipedia, because it's being quoted all over the internet. Please don't tell me that the unfiltered output of a full-wave rectifier is DC, 'cause it aint. Even by the simplest test: you can feed that waveform into the primary side of a transformer and get something out on the secondary. Sure, you can have DC with a ripple and it's still DC, but you can't tell me V=|sin(omega)| is DC. Rhadow (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A section on electrical safety seems important. A sufficient DC voltage will act on muscles, overriding the tens of millivolts signals from your nervous system and causing the muscles to contract and stay contracted until voltage is removed or ATP is exhausted (i.e. blood flow has stopped). If you touch high voltage with the inside of your hand, it will clamp on and you won't be able to let go. At higher voltages and current there will be heating, charring, etc. 192.94.202.57 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wintersfire.
