Jump to content

Talk:Power supply/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wall wart

I dont think this slang term is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopeida. Try 'battery eliminator' or AC to DC converter instead. Light current 00:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Neither of those terms have the same meaning as wall wart. There doesn't seem to be any concise term that isn't slang and has the exact same meaning. Plugwash 00:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The term is very common and fine for inclusion. Omegatron 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never personally heard the term but I don't really object to it being on here. Smileyborg 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term Wall wart. I first thought that said Wall Mart. Any other words for wall wart? Colinstu 14:58, 07 July 2006 (GMT -6)

I agree it's a bit of a silly term but it's what I typed in to find this article, so I'm glad it's there. XavierBlak 14:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wall wart should definately be included as a disparaging name for these devices when wallmounted. However, the text, which implies any xformer/powersupply is a "wall wart" should be edited to also define such devices that have two cords (one the plugs into the wall, and one that plugs into the device). The geekslang for these units is "line lumps".

Truth in labeling?

I'm a little confused about them, though. If you measure a 9 VAC wall wart output unloaded, for instance, you get something like 11 VRMS = 15 Vpeak = 31 VP-P, none of which are "9 VAC". It usually doesn't matter because of regulation, but is the printed number just a ballpark figure? Is there some rhyme or reason to the markings? Maybe the amount they can output under a certain load? — Omegatron 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's likely that they typically deliver n VAC when loaded to the rated m amps of load current. As you oserve, the unregulated ones have pretty poor load regulation (and, of course, no line regulation). On the other hand, more and more of the DC power bricks use offline switchers to do the conversion and these usually have pretty good load and line regulation.
I was struggling with this problem of poor load regulation the other day: some quartz halogen lighting that I'm trying to install was supplied with a wall wart power transformer, but that transformer has the typical poor load regulation of such things, so when I wanted to connect just one lamp to the transformer (rather than the supplied two lamps), it was obvious that the one bulb was running on a significant overvoltage. I'm probably going to switch to a much-more-expensive offline switcher "transformer".
Atlant 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


It's likely that they typically deliver n VAC when loaded to the rated m amps of load current.
That's so obvious I didn't even think of it. I figured it was something like that. :-) — Omegatron 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right:

  • "Most wall-mount power supplies have no active regulation. They are designed so that the voltage will be X when the current is Y, just like the label says. Many engineers are confused by this, thinking that a 12 volt, 1 amp power supply can be substituted for a 12 volt 500 mA power supply. This might be true, but the voltage at 500 mA will be higher than the voltage at 1 amp. How much this varies depends on the load line of the transformer." [1]
  • "For a regulated constant voltage power supply, this attitude is just fine, but for the unregulated fluctuating voltage WW, it is not. The two numbers given on the WW must be taken together!

    We can see that the lower the current draw from the WW, the higher the voltage." [2]
  • "One thing they almost never have is voltage regulation, and that’s very important to understand, since it can create questions and concerns… like: How come I’m reading 20+ volts from my 15 volt wart? Will it damage my xxxx? Is it defective? Actually, it’s perfectly normal. Let’s see why…

    Any time we have current flowing through a normal conductor there is a voltage drop. More current, more voltage drop – as stated by Mr. Ohm’s famous law. And the wire used for the windings of your wall wart's transformer is no exception. I have a shiny new "AC adapter" rated at 15 volts DC at 500 mA right here on the bench. What happens when I plug it in to the 120 volt outlet and measure the output? About 20.3 volts, that’s what. So... what’s going on? Did they miss the specified voltage by over 30%? Nope…" [3] — Omegatron 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Complete

I merged the article electronic power supply into this one, as suggested by another Wikipedian. The electronic power supply article now redirects to this one.

I didn't spend a ton of time with the merge, so I'm sure there will be some small edits that need to be made.

Enjoy! --smileyborg 04:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not move.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 14:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Power supply → Power supply unit … Rationale: More accurate name, but the target page is currently a redirect. I tried to just take care of this with a deletion, but no one seemed to understand what I was doing... ~ Booyabazooka 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC) … Please share your opinion at Talk:Power supply. Booyabazooka 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Seems to me, since the first sentence claims "power supply" to be an abbreviation of Power supply unit, the article should be at the full name. Anyone disagree? -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 06:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes. I'll reword this more to make it clear that the article is about a power supply which is the term used through the rest of the artcile. Vegaswikian 23:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of articles that should probably be merged/split/re-organized along with this one including Power conversion, Flywheel energy storage, Switched-mode power supply, Inverter (electrical), Battery charger, etc., etc., all the way up to Electric power transmission. Ewlyahoocom 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question

"In portable computers there is usually an external power supply that produces low voltage DC power from a mains electrical supply (typically a standard AC wall outlet) to charge the batteries inside the computer. The computer itself runs from the batteries." Considering I can pull out the battery and use just the adaptor and I can't turn on the computer without the battery if not plugged in of course, how can this be true? Also with computer power supplies, does anyone know what makes this power suitable? What makes it different from AC (besides it can be used for standby and such)? Basically, what EXACTLY happens inside of a PC power supply? User:Tatsh 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know exactly what happens, but I know at least one reason direct AC isn't used - computer PSUs regulate the amount of power going to componants. For one thing they have to provide just the right amount to each part. 1.8v to the ram, that sort of thing. Too much and it'll fry, too little and it'll crash. So a PSU controls the fluctuations in the power, helping system stability. Kind of like a UPS does, though on a much smaller scale (and without the battery of course) -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 05:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As I understand it (and this is just what some guy at Best Buy told me, so take it as you will), you can run your laptop without the battery, but it isn't recommended. Without the battery, power fluctuations can be harmful; say, the power drops for a second, the arm on your hard drive drops and scratches the disc. I'm not sure how true this is (because it seems to me that the system would die the moment it loses any power at all, as Goldom mentioned with ram), but I'm pretty sure a laptop does run off of the battery whenever it has one. ~ Booya Bazooka 16:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't buy this (btw my laptops battery pack has been totally dead for years), it would be pretty suicidal for a manufacturer to make something with a user removeable battery pack and no warnings against removing it that couldn't safely run without it. Plugwash 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with User:Plugwash, of course a laptop with the battery removed is more vulnerable to filesystem corruption etc in the event of power loss but no more so than a normal desktop system without a UPS. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 16:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above. The other thing is that Li-Ion batteries are better able to avoid data corruption compared to alkaline. User:Tatsh 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • On the first question of whether laptops draw from the battery or from the adaptor, I'm not 100% sure, but my best guess is that if both are present, the laptop draws from the battery, and the battery is charged by the power adaptor. If only one is present, there is (obviously) no other possibility. On the second question as to what a computer power supply actually does, its main function is to convert AC power to DC power, and lower the voltage from 120 V to amounts such as 3 V, 5 V, or 12 V. The components of the computer are designed to accept a narrow range of voltages (for example, a hard drive may only operate on power within 11.2 V to 12.8 V). (This is what all electrical power supplies do.) It also does "smooth out" fluctuations in the regular mains power, so that there is a steady amount of power going to the delicate components of the computer. One last function of the computer PSU is to circulate air, as typically the power supply contains one or more fans that exhaust air out of the case. --smileyborg 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You can't draw from and charge a battery at the same time. Either electricity is flowing into the cells of the battery or its flowing out of them. The battery could however by contributing to the smoothing (e.g. charge/discharge status switching quickly) but i doubt it would actually help much (as you have to go through all the batteries protection circuits internal resistance etc) and i guess in a badly designed laptop running every device could overload the external power and drag it down to the point where your on batteries only. Plugwash 00:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy that at all. I've been running a laptop without a battery for a few years. — Omegatron 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I also don't buy it. And for the above, don't listen to anything Best Buy tells you. Obviously they wanted to make sure you buy a battery right away from them and never use it without the battery in (quite possibly limiting lifetime with the heat). The computer power supply section is much better compared to 27 May 2006. :)--User:Tatsh 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Full range

What does "full range" mean in the context of personal computer power supplies?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.136.58 (talk • contribs) .

Can you supply some context for your question? For example, a sentence using the term?
Atlant 12:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
On the back of the power supply there is a sticker that says "FULL RANGE" instead of a recessed red switch. Manufacturer is Zalman, model is ZM400A-APF.
I would imagine that it means that the input voltage range the PSU can accept goes from the North American 110V / 60Hz to the European 220V / 50Hz without obligating the user to flick a switch on the unit. Much safer to have the PSU detect and adapt automatically since end users may be unaware and incurr damage if the switch is set incorrectly. --Hooperbloob 03:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Article lack information

It doesn't talk about efficiency. It doesn't talk about PFC/AFC, Passive/Active stuff.

Dangerous to open a PSU

In the 4th paragraph under the sub-topic "Computer power supply", it says that: "It is dangerous to open a power supply while it is connected to an electrical outlet as high voltages may be present even while the unit is switched off.". Actually, the danger presents under ALL circumstances, since the capacitors inside the PSU may store lethal charges, which may last for a long time after the PSU is removed from a power outlet.

I thought all modern PSUs were built to self discharge pretty quickly on removal of power, i could be wrong though. Plugwash 17:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Bleeder resistors fail too ;-) .
Atlant 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Split out Computer power supply

Most of the article covers different types of power supplies from an electrical perspective, rather than an application perspective, since power supplies are used in so many applications. Unless there's something electrically unique about a computer PSU, I propose it be moved to something like computer power supply, or merged with the info at ATX or something like that. (even if there is something electrically unique, the current text mainly just covers application-specific info like what connectors happen to be attached to the PSU). --Interiot 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Computer power supply should be a differnt page with a link in Power Supply Joey.dale 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. I'll create a new article and move the information if no one objects. -Etienne 20:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Jay Kana 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Support makes stacks of sence, and will work better with my work on computer hardware --TheJosh 06:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Support its exactly what I was searching for Jimmy Tseng 11:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment The only things that make PC PSUs notable as power supplies (that I can think of, anyway):
  • They have a fairly standardized form-factor and pinout (two main pinouts as I understand it)
  • They are multiple output but tend to regulate just one voltage (either +5 or +3.3), allowing the others to vary ratiometrically with the regulated voltage.
Support with name change An article about personal computer power supplies could delve into the specifics of pinouts, voltages, watts, physical packaging, cooling, etc. and all those other issues that don't belong here in the generic "power supply" article. But I'd only support this change if the article was specific to PC power supplies. There are plenty of other "computer power supplies" out there in the world that are vastly different from the generic boxes that you buy down at Ye Olde Byte Shoppe. Atlant 13:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Support Along the same lines as Jimmy Tseng, [computer power supply] was exactly what I was looking for. I am going to make the move, considering strong support for the idea. --Ritz 05:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Some info regarding the various types of transformers/power-supplies

According to the international standards (IEC) as listed on www.iecee.org, which are responsible for the international safety and performace requirements of such products, tranformers/power-supplies can be divided into the following categories:

For general use (IEC 61558):

  • Separating transformers for general use (normally wound coil magnetic transformers)
  • Control transformers
  • ignition transformers for gas and oil burners
  • isolating transformers
  • shaver transformers and shaver supply units
  • safety isolating transformers
  • bell and chime transformers
  • transformers for class III (<50V) handlamps for tungsten filament lamps
  • contant voltage transformers
  • auto-transformers
  • variable transformers
  • isolating transformers for the supply of medical equipment
  • transformers for switch-mode power-supplies
  • switch mode-power supplies (electronic)
  • attenuation transformers
  • pertubation attenuation transformers
  • small reactors (also includes coils)
  • transformers for construction sites


Power-supplies for IT equipment (IEC 60950)(includes PSU's)
This includes both magnetic wound transformers and electronic switch-mode power supplies. Most power-supplies for computers are tested according to this standard.

Transformers for audio/video equipment (IEC 60065)
Similar to IEC 60950

Battery chargers (IEC 60335-2-29)
Similar to IEC 60950

Electronic step-down converters for filament lamps (IEC 61347-2-3)

  • Usually only switch-mode


Also it is worth mentioning other types of power-supplies such as:

  • High voltage power-supplies (electronic or magnetic)
  • Step-up power supplies (electronic or magnetic) for use in caravans, boats etc.

There might be other types of power-supplies that are covered by the american UL-standards. Please discuss.

Google has a power supply directory; http://dir.google.com/Top/Business/Electronics_and_Electrical/Power_Supplies/

Uses in aviation

This section contains some imaginative overstatements, to be charitable. In virtually every "jet transport" the engines are started by compressed air (also called "bleed air") which comes from the other engines. This air is piped to pneumatic starters on each engine. Ground start capability is provided by an auxiliary power unit (APU) which is a small turbine engine with an electric starter. This engine may be started from the main ship batteries and then provides enough compressed air to start the main engines. Jet airplanes also provide an interface to use a ground source of compressed air. This is typically an aircraft-type APU mounted on a cart.

There is nothing special about aircraft power supplies that I know of. The most ingenious thing about them is the constant speed drive or CSD, which is a mechanical drive that keeps the generators in phase and at the same speed even though the engine speed varies according to throttle setting. The generators basically supply 400 Hz AC directly to the aircraft. Generator control units will take a generator off line if there is a problem with it, but the generators are wired directly to the aircraft power bus. There are power supplies on board that provide 28 VDC but they are a pretty standard design, if of course very high quality.

There are advanced airplanes on the drawing boards, like the Boeing 787, that are planned to have electric start capability, but I don't think there are any in service yet. I may be a little behind the times on this point, as I only deal with my employer's airplanes on a daily basis.

I am serving notice that I intend to remove this entire section as being nothing but misinformation.

Writing from the Engineering Department at the American Airlines Maintenance & Engineering Center, Tex 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- this section sounds goofy. The one thing that is unique about aircraft power supplies (in general) is the use of 400 Hz as a means of minimizing size and weight. Plus you get that great 400 Hz "whine" on the radios instead of 50/60 Hz "hum" ;-).
Atlant 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Obfuscatory section heading: "Domestic mains adapter"

I think a heading change is required. This is called an "AC adapter" in nearly all cases where products and manuals refer to them.

Who actually uses this unusual phrase to describe what these are? It seems highly unlikely that I would ever find one person saying to another "Excuse me, but could you please hand me that domestic mains adapter?"

This terminology also implies there is some other kind of non-domestic mains adapter. What is that device called? :-) DMahalko (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the Google Litmus Test isn't looking good here. Eight hits total for the entire web for "domestic mains adapter" and most of those are just GNU'd copies of this page: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22domestic+mains+adapter%22
DMahalko (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Alarm/Advanced Power Supply Unit

Isn't this the same as an UPS? It sure sounds that way from the description that is given, plus I never actually heard this term. 124.177.184.228 (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a new "class" of Power supply which will merge the concept of a power supply (Transformer/UPS/PSU etc) into a single device, however a APSU must include a server and communicate via an open standard to a remote server. Perhaps could be thought of as a AC/DC, DC/DC, AC/AC, DC/AC device with a ethernet port. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALARMNZ (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 124.177.184.228 (talk). This "alarm power supply unit" appears to be a type of uninterruptable power supply. The fact that it can reboot the router and modem and incorporates network support does not change the fact that it is an uninterruptable power supply. It does not make sense for it to be its own section. In fact, I'm not convinced it should be in the article at all, given that it seems like product promotion (See WP:NOTADVERTISING). Consider the following:

  • The user who added this section (ALARMNZ (talk · contribs)) has a username striking similar to the company that sells these things (ALARM New Zealand).
  • Unlike the sections around it, "Alarm Power Supply Unit" does not appear to be a common industry term. (see WP:WEIGHT). As far as I can tell, ALARM New Zealand is the only company which uses the term. Searches for "alarm power supply unit" turned up three categories of pages: 1) anyone-can-edit sites similar to Wikipedia, 2) ALARM New Zealand's own sites, and 3) this thing:
"This issue has been resolved by ALARM International Inc 2002 who conceived an Alarm power supply unit (APSU) that incorporated an IP stack combined with a large DC supply that could power (and reboot) the router modem during various failures or outages." -Absolute Astronomy / Burglar alarm / Broadband Alarm Monitoring
(Could this quote indicate an additional company is using the term? I don't think so. I tried to determine whether ALARM International is related to ALARM New Zealand. The only "ALARM International" I could find is actually a Christian ministry, and thus probably not the same company mentioned in the article. However, ALARM New Zealand mentions here that 2002 is indeed the year they became involved in IP-based alarm monitoring.)

Riick (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time this section has made an appearance. It also appeared in January 2008, and remained until it was removed in August 2008. (The current iteration appeared in June 2010.) Riick (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just product spam. Take it out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section. This APSU thing may be a pretty nifty product, but it does not belong in this article for the reasons described above. Riick (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

power supply

principle power supply......???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.66.194 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

comparison b/w power supplies

please tell me 1-the main difference between the programmable dc load power supply and switching power supply. 2-give me a comparison chart of above power supplies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.130.163 (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Battery supplies - could use newer sources

The primary source used in this seems of date - 1981 - battery technology has moved on a lot since then. I very much doubt true zinc carbon batteries are most popular now - zinc chloride seems to dominate at the budget end of the market but I strongly suspect alkaline are now most popular overall. That also does not address the increasing number of devices using custom rechargeable batteries, not does it even cover newer battery technologies - NiMH and Li-Ion for example. I realise this section is fairly peripheral to the main bulk of the article whcih discusses mains supplies, but it could do with a little freshening up. 18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

DC



DC is power suplling component in desktop.

Overload Protection

I added more types of overload protection. Also some popular misconceptions removed:

> In a fast-blow fuse, the wire inside the fuse will melt if the current exceeds the rated current, even if it is just for a fraction of second.

We probably all wish such a fuse existed, but all real world fuse characteristics are a long way from this.


> This concise process is important in electronic equipment where even a small spike in the current could damage the equipment.

Fuses are unable to protect silicon based electronics from current overload. The overcurrent and time required to blow fuses exceeds the overload tolerance of silicon devices by orders of magnitude.


> Slow-blow fuses are ideal for motor systems.

Some types of slow blows are, some arent.

Tabby (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Standy power

Standby power is a valid issue, but there is a fair bit of greenwash talked about it.

> Because they consume standby power, they are sometimes known as "electricity vampires" and may be plugged into a power strip to allow turning them off. In many cases such power strips use more pwoer than the supplies did.

Reality is in many cases the power strip uses more standby power than the wall warts did. But it all sells more product. Tabby (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a source for this? I am baffled as to how the "off" switch allows power to be consumed. Huw Powell (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Silly definition

The opening sentence defines "power supply" as "a supply of electrical power", as though it is some sort of ethereal reservoir that is filled with "power". I don't mean to be rude, but that's silly! What does that even mean?

I've designed electronics for decades and in my experience, "power supply" invariably means "a device or system that supplies electrical energy to an electrical load". This definition is consistent with every example given in the article. As for PSUs, a PSU is simply a modular power supply, as contrasted to an integral power supply (i.e., one that is "hardwired" to its load).

The article goes on to say that the term is commonly applied to electrical energy supplies, which is something of an understatement as it is universally applied to all such supplies. Then it claims that the term also applies to mechanical energy supplies as well as other, unspecified types, yet there are no examples of other types of energy supplies, or any further mention of them for that matter, and the remainder of the article is entirely about electrical energy supplies.

IMO, the introduction needs a major rewrite. Lambtron (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the first section per above discussion, and tried to give it better organisation. Lambtron (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

LED Drivers

This is a fairly new kind of switch-mode power supply dedicated for use with LED lighting. I don’t know much about them but I think it would be worth looking at including them in this page. I believe the circuitry is different from a normal power supply but again I’m unsure of the precise differences. Can someone elaborate? William Branston (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

LED power supplies typically use PWM modulated hysteretic control. The hysteretic controller sets the constant current level (typically 300-1000 mA for high brightness LEDs) required for high efficiency and color control (LED color changes as a function of current). The hysteretic controller is enabled and disabled on the fly by a PWM signal; the PWM ratio determines the effective LED brightness. The PWM frequency is set high enough to prevent visible flicker. It's interesting to note that the use of PWM to control LED brightness is patented, even though the technique has been used since the inception of LEDs and is widely regarded as obvious. Lambtron (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

REWRITE: Genericization away from electric terminology

I find this article irritating in that it focuses so heavily on electrical power. There is nothing about the term "power supply" that defines it as exclusively or only for describing an energy source for electrical devices, and the introduction should be rewritten to explain that.

Most of the existing intro, and most of the current article, can be pushed down into a subsection describing only electrical power supplies, opening up the intro for a more generic discussion of the terminology, and what constitutes a power supply vs a mechanical power generator vs an energy storage method (battery/canister/fuel).

There should be sections that at least touch on other types of power supplies such as for hydraulics and pneumatics. I am thinking that probably mechanical motion could be defined as a type of power supply also, such as a gas engine... it produces rotary-kinetic motion, regulates energy output, with energy storage in the fuel, etc.

The focus on electric power supplies appears to be due to the very common use of electric supplies in consumer electronics.. and Wikipedia is written mostly by hobbyists with specific knowledge, rather than by engineers with large encompassing views of overall technical fields.

DMahalko (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to create Power supply (electronic)? That article could focus on electronic power supplies while this article would be a more general discussion and cover power supplies of all types. Lambtron (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree, that is the direction it should probably go. It keeps this article more or less the way it is now, and also opens up room for Power supply (pneumatic), Power supply (hydraulic), etc. DMahalko (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think caution is best advised. Many excellent articles have been ruined by good-faith but ultimately misguided attempts at genericisation that appear very similar to this one. We are not interested in what a term could conceivably be used to describe but what it is used to describe. Personally when I see the lack of disambiguated terms here that suggests to me that "power supply" is wholly or overwhelmingly used in an electrical (not necessarily electronic) context. When I read various sources on e.g. mechanical engineering, I don't recall ever seeing an internal combustion engine, for example, described as a "power supply". A shaft or motive power source, sure, but not "supply". In any case, consider the reader in all this. Is a reader looking for details on engines going to look up "power supply" or "engine"?
"Power source" also hints at another potential pitfall - even a nit-picking hypothetical scope for "power supply" needs to ensure that the proposed examples are compatible with the term. A coiled spring or tank of petrol store energy, not power. A falling weight produces power but where is the supply element? Once it has fallen as far as it can the power is gone. I'm not against disambiguation as and when it turns out to be needed but doing so based on hypothetical scenarios where there is no pressing need for change risks clouding the issue for no real benefit. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC).
The "supply element" of a falling weight is the distance from the starting height to the final resting position. It is equivelant to the chemical state of a fully charged and discharged battery. One is described in terms of chemical reactions and molecular depletion, the other in terms of gravity and distance. Recharging the battery is the same as lifting the weight. Both take power/energy/work to be recharged.
The goal of an encyclopedia is to broadly discuss topics in an introductory format to familiarize people with generalities, and then narrow down to specifics where necessary. Power supplies have been around for thousands of years, in every format imaginable, including animals walking in circles to drive millstones. It's only been just in the last century that electricity took the center stage as the most common power source for devices.
So should historical power sources be shut out and ignored just because the electric ones are winning the popularity contest right now? No, the historical forms should be discussed somewhere. And if this heavily electric-oriented article does not move to a separate (electric) heading, then you'd better get ready for a discussion of hit and miss engines being added to this article, as a common form of portable regulated power supply used by homes, farms, and small businesses up until about 1940, before electricity was widely available. DMahalko (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
As an example, of what I am talking about, take a look at the article section Mechanical_fan#Uncommon_Fan_Types.. that section is almost entirely my work (other than the sales spam about Dyson) discussing uncommon and historical forms of fans, other than that bladed electric spinny thingy that is so popular right now.. DMahalko (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

After considering the merits of the above discussion and re-reading the article, I am withdrawing my earlier suggestion to rename the article. As Crispmuncher pointed out, the term "power supply" is not commonly used for anything other than supplies of electrical energy and, as for the literal meaning of the term, there really is no such thing. Unless it can be shown that the term is commonly used for non-electrical systems, it would seem that the article is appropriately focused and named. Lambtron (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In a related vein, images of non-electric "power supplies" (e.g., hydraulic, pneumatic) don't belong in the article unless it can be shown by a reliable source that the term "power supply" is commonly used for such devices. Lambtron (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that there is no consensus to genericize and expand the scope of the article beyond electrical power supplies, I have removed those non-electrical images. Even if the term "power supply" is used for those, they don't fall within the scope of power supply as define in this artice's lead. Dicklyon (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep it's pretty clear you hold the narrow-focus point of view on this article, Dicklyon. The only "consensus" is that few people have commented either way. Your vote against is noted, however.


The lead is equally accurate and much more inclusive when a few words are removed:
A power supply is a device that supplies energy to one or more loads. The term is most commonly applied to devices that convert one form of energy to another (e.g., mechanical, chemical, photonic, electric). A regulated power supply is one that controls either the output kinetic energy or potential energy to a specific value, or also both at the same time; the controlled value is held nearly constant despite variations in load requirements, or variations in the energy supplied to the power supply.
Every power supply must obtain the energy it supplies to its load, as well as any energy it consumes while performing that task, from an energy source. Depending on its design, a power supply may obtain energy from:
DMahalko (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should strive for accuracy and inclusiveness, but the two must go hand-in-hand. The whole issue boils down to this: an energy supply supplies energy according to the laws of physics, whereas power supply is the common name for an electric energy supply. So far I have seen no evidence of, nor have I ever heard of, a common usage of "power supply" for anything other than electric energy supplies. If you can show, using reliable sources, that non-electric energy sources are commonly called "power supplies", I will gladly support genericization. Lambtron (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical power supplies

  • All forms of matter act as unregulated power supplies. They store potential energy via their mass and kinetic energy via their inertia.
  • A dam is a hydraulic regulated power supply, collecting and retaining liquid in a pool, so that a portion of the liquid may be used to operate mechanical devices. The stored potential energy of a dam is regulated by the height of the barrier; excess liquid overtops the barrier and flows out of the pool.
  • A clock's primary function is to be an extremely precise type of regulated power supply. Energy is drawn from an unregulated source such as a suspended mass, a spring under tension, or air under pressure, and the energy is released by the mechanism in metered intervals. The driven load of a mechanical clock is often simply the clock hands on the faceplate.
Mostly nonsense (the part about matter and clocks at least); and that's not what this article is about. Dicklyon (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
So you think a mechanical clock is not a form of regulated power supply? Wow. It's probably one of the first that humans ever invented. I recommend not getting engineer diplomas by mail-order. DMahalko (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Power_supply/Archive_1&oldid=1093493072"