![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Not sure how to edit this template to show what I've done! Astaroth5 22:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I like the picture, but the text beneath it does not make sense some of the time, like when it says "triple AAA". I would like to change it to "two "AAA" (batteries)". How do you do it?
-- Airplaneman ( talk) 14:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.voltmanbatteries.com needs to stop advertising on the battery rebuild section. thank you, GMoonit ( talk) 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This section sure could use more information. The NiCad article too. I'd write it but I don't know anything about it and need some information right now (I have six 80 lb NiCad batteries left by a neighbor that died and no one will take them :-( ). 71.226.121.41 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC) JCP
Actually, a cell is a single "Battery" like an AA, but a Baterry is just a plural word for cell i.e. a battery is made up from lots od cells. I don't think this is made clear in the article.
Why not have some chemical equations? There is an equivalent circuit of a battery here, but not much information on how electrochemical cells actually work. Does anyone who contributes to wikipedia know any chemistry?
Can the battery versus cell distinction be based on the fact that the cell voltage is fixed by electrochemistry while battery voltage can be any sum of cell voltages?
Hmm.. perhaps some more info on real batteries maybe? I dislike how you use the word battery vs. cell. Now that I'm thinking once more, I would like to see information about depolarizers on here, there is no article for it. You have jack information about that. Info on how hydrogen bubbles ruin batteries/cells through polarization during the discharge of a cell would help.-- Cyberman 01:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Did they really use it for electric power (which to me implies an understanding of electric power to some degree), or did they use it for the side effects of electric power (which implies no understanding of electric power)? I think it is the latter. - UtherSRG 15:56, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
none of the evidence you've just mentioned here does not have an ounce of proof supporting it, Baghded battery--function not known or clear, primitive CRT---inscribings on a wall hmmmm thats proof, the ark------wow is all i have to say, all you have mentioned here is purely speculative with no proof backing it up at
Removed for 2nd time, since every indication is that it is the height of insignificance:
-- Jerzy (t) 08:49, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
Added some info on its construction. There are several web sites which discuss it, showing that it is of greater general interest than some other 19th century batteries which did not achieve common use. I suggest that the interest in the Stubblefield earth cell justifies its inclusion in Wiki. Edison 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of that list of tenuous links at the end of this article? Game Boy, for instance? Does anybody think they are useful? -- Heron 14:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as an A battery? The article on A doesn't mention it. Should it be removed from the list? Rmhermen 00:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
An "A" battery was used on battery powered vacuum tube radios from the 1920's onward. The "A" battery was typically a rechargeable lead acid battery or for portable sets a dry cell battery composed of several cells could be used. The current draw was usually over .5 ampere. It had to produce this fairly large current to power the tube filaments. Powering a tube radio from dry cells was very expensive due to their rapid exhaustion, even when hooked up in a series-parallel arrangement. The "B" battery was a low current, high voltage dry cell battery(one or more 45 volt batteries in series) used to power the plate circuit. A substitute today might be a number of 9 volt batteries in series. A "C" battery was a low voltage dry cell, 1.5 to 4.5 volts, used to provide grid bias for the circuit, and the terminology did not mean any equivalence with today's C cells. Today's equivalent might be 1 to 3 AA batteries in series. Except for rural users who had no electric utility and portable sets, the battery sets were largely obsolete by the late 1920's, when sets powered by 120 volt alternating current or direct current came along, eliminating the cost of buying batteries or paying to have the A battery recharged at a radio shop. Would a referenced historical section on these batteries be appropriate for inclusion? Edison 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just found Wiki articles on "A" "B" and "C" batteries which provide a similar explanation to the above. It seems odd to have individual encyclopedia articles on each size of battery. Edison 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Those three articles have been merged to Battery (vacuum tube). Note that these articles refer to battery use rather than battery size. -- PeterJeremy ( talk) 11:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
What sulfates? The context is missing, making this sentence rather unintelligible.
Our article claims:
Is there any evidence for this claim? My dictionary claims that by analogy with a battery of artillery, battery had come to mean a group of things joined together to give an enhanced effect; and that an electric battery is just such a battery of galvanic cells. Securiger 07:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Volta invented the electrochemical battery in 1799, but Franklin invented the electrostatic battery before that. It was Franklin who first used the word battery in the electrical sense, referring to an array of eleven capacitors, in a letter to Peter Collinson of the Royal Society in London on the 29th of April 1749. (There is a transcript of the letter here). You are probably right that Franklin was using the word in the sense of "an array of objects", not as in "a beating", but he probably chose that word (instead of the more obvious alternatives such as "array" or "whole bunch") because of its association with violence. -- Heron 14:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
http://www.howstuffworks.com/power-paper.htm/printable may be a good resource. Brianjd 08:11, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
In science and technology, a battery is a device that stores energy and makes it available in an electrical form.
...batteries usually consist of electrochemical devices such as one or more galvanic cells or more recently fuel cells...
I don't think a fuel cell "stores" energy. Brianjd 08:16, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
A friend of mine asked why batteries go bad -- you know, they just start pushing crap out their ends if they're not used for a while. Tried to find the info here, couldn't. Maybe someone should add it? Or am I just looking at the wrong article? Anyway, it should probably be pointed out better if it is in a different article. Cheers. CryptoDerk 17:33, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
That is an excellent question. I suspect that there are several different failure modes for batteries. Let me try adding my best guess to the article. Does anyone know any better? -- DavidCary 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
How many amperes are in AA, AAA, C and D batteries?
Or in other words, "How much energy is stored in this battery?" and "How quickly can I get all that energy out?".
We probably don't need the link to the battery disambiguation page, though it isn't very intrusive and doesn't hurt to have it either.
Someone put it there in response to my request when I reverted someone else's deletion of a link to one other specific meaning. At the time, I was under the mistaken impression that this Battery (electricity) article remained the default article rather than the disambiguation page. But that isn't the case, and existing links appear to have been changed (except talk pages which we don't need to worry about), so most anyone who ends up at Battery (electricity) should be where they belong. But then, maybe the discussion here will lead someone to wonder about similar meanings, and the link to the disambiguation page would be helpful.
In summary, I don't really care whether it is kept or deleted, just pointing out in case someone else cares one way or another, so that they aren't misled by what I did in my edits. Gene Nygaard 16:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article currently contains the statement:
Aside from the fact that we could write that better, and attribute the currency (which I assume is US$), does anyone have a citation to back up the basic fact being asserted here? And what portion of "the battery business" does this represent? Disposable primary cells? ALL batteries, whether primary and secondary? Radioisotope Thermal Generators? I think we need more details, otherwise, we should remove this.
Atlant 10:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
what's a square prism. it's an oxymoron. Is there any reason why we cant use cube instead? tommylommykins 16:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Should we merge Battery pack into the Battery (electricity) article ? Technically, a battery pack is a collection of individual cells, the very definition of a battery. (Although some battery packs have a thermistor or other stuff to help the battery charger). -- DavidCary 13:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some people claim that hybrid-electric vehicles and BEVs ultimately consume more fossil fuel than internal combustion engines. They claim that constructing the batteries themselves requires lots of grid electricity (and it occurs in countries where most electrical power comes from fossil fuels). This large amout of fossil fuel consumed is never quite paid back by the better efficiency of the electric vehicles in operation.
A very rough estimate is made by j.pickens. It seems to support such claims. Does anyone know a more accurate estimate?
The argument sounds very similar to the Talk:Solar cell and Net energy gain.
-- DavidCary 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The article mentions the high cost of energy from batteries but gives no details. I gave a rough estimate of the electricity cost from disposable batteries in #Questions from the article below. It would be interesting if someone could work out some more accurate examples and add them to the article proper. It would be interesting to calculate the cost, weight, and bulk of the disposable batteries necessary to meet the electricity needs of a typical modern residence. -- Teratornis 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
i think an interesting thing to add would be the flow battery. i couldnt find it in wiki, but i think it is absolutely worth to add here. there is a link that explains to some extend the function and feasibility of a flow battery: http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/features/rerere/rerere.html
I've just updated the entry on
vanadium redox (flow) batteries, any objections if I link to it from this article? sections History, Summery(rechargable) and Chemicals used in constuction? Astaroth5 21:25 (UTC) 9th November 2005
I've taken a shot at doing the reorganization mentioned, but this is my first attempt at a major edit of a popular article, so if I've screwed it up, I'm Sorry! I've not removed any material at all, just reorganized it and added a little on flow batteries. Praise, comment, criticism, correction, or even just plain reversion ( if I have seriously messed up ) are all welcome! Astaroth5 22:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC) -Nice work. Thanks for being bold. Cheers, - Willmcw 00:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think some explanation of an ideal battery should be on this page. I might add the model of a battery having an EMF and an internal resistance. Fresheneesz 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because unfortunately it has no references. Otherwise it's a great article, though I think the see also section is unnecessarily huge and most of the topics should be mentioned in the main text in any case, so there's no need to relink them. Worldtraveller 00:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, I googled for ozone batteries and I found the following: http://www.nuenergy.org/theory/ioncell.htm "The energy density of the aluminum/ozone cell is excellent, even better than the lithium cell. There are no side reactions that take place between the electrolyte and the aluminum..."
Can anyone verify or perhaps add to the current current article.
Thanks :)
I certainly wouldn't invest in this technology. This appears to be a fairly standard Al-air battery where they use ozone in place of air. This supposedly gives a slight increase in the cell voltage. Although it is clear where air comes from, how is the ozone produced? They mention using high voltages. This would entail an energy input to make the battery operate. So where does the initial energy come from? I wouldn't take this idea to seriously until they have published some peer-reviewed experimental results.
Ahw001
06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Battery (electricity) to Battery. This is by far the most common usage of the term, so it should be at simply Battery with a link at the top to Battery (disambiguation) with the other meanings. Booking563 00:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Some text was recently added about high voltage capacitors that is not very informative. And it is not obvious what the substance of it is from going to the capacitors wikilink. I think there should be a more specific link or reference which fleshes this out.-- Technicaltechy 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
68.169.187.216 asked in the article (now moved here):
Atlant 23:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The article talks about replacing the fruit in the homemade batteries because it gets used up. I don't think it is the fruit that wears down the battery. Maybe the fruit gets old & moldy & doesn't conduct as wel, but it is not the cause of the battery not working. The energy comes from the chemical transformation of the metal electrodes into their oxides or their chlorides or whatever the transformation is. The fruit is merely the path that the electricity takes, like the wires in a circuit.
Is there any source for Franklin connecting capacitors in series and in parallel? I can well believe he connected them in parallel, because that is basically the same as having a larger Leyden jar. But the concept of series and parallel electrical connection were cutting edge in the 1830s, when Joseph Henry distinguished "intensity" (series) from ""quantity" (parallel ) connections of cells and of windings. Morse, for instance, in the 1830s had no concept that a low resistance electromagnet and a single cell could not operate a telegraph over an appreciable distance through the high resistance of the wires. To connect several Leyden jars in series to increase the voltage, Franklin would have needed to charge them individually with his friction machine, and place the jars on a thick clean glass surface to avoid the table they sat on from draining off the voltage between the outer foils of the jars. Absent a verifiable source, this claim should be removed. Edison 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed this section:
because of the two contradicting viewpoints. We need more authoritative sources if we're going to say which type lasts longer, if such a judgement can be made at all. -- Heron 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia article for the B battery, used in tube radios. Now there is no link to it from here, and no link to it from the article on battery sizes. There used to be an article on the "A battery" used in tude radios, but now if you go to "A battery" you are misdirected to "AA battery," which has nothing whatever to do with the big old battery used to provide filament current for vacuum tubes. See my discussion above from June 7. I own a couple of radios from the 1920's which use A batteries, B batteries, and C batteries. I guess I will re-link this article to "B battery" and add a link from battery sizes to "B battery." How does one find an article which has been deleted, like "A battery"??? Edison 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Found the batteries under Battery (vacuum tubes)#A battery etc and added links where appropriate. Also added historical info on the use of lead-acid batteries for electric cars in the early 20th century, radio batteries in the 1920's, and local batteries for early 20th century phone. These were probably a very big portion of the sales of batteries in the early 20th century. There should also be info on battery-powered flashlights. Edison 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The A/B/C battery pages have all been merged into Battery (vacuum tube) and links fixed -- PeterJeremy ( talk) 11:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you know that in the 50s or the 60s, modern science has invented the nuclear battery ? I've seen depictions in old science books, one saying that one of these can put out 250,000 volts, but the amps are low. It was the size of a "D" cell, was either a Kr-85 or a Cerium -150 unit. Martial Law 21:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the description a bit. Batteries don't produce DC, since the current depends on the load. Look at the load current in any electronic device any you'll usually see lots of rapid changes (lots of AC.) Instead, batteries produce constant or DC voltage. The term "DC" means "unvarying" when used in this way. (Engineers use AC/DC to mean varying/unvarying, rather than their more obvious meaning as direct current and alternating current. Hence "DC voltage" means "constant voltage" and not "direct current voltage.") For this reason batteries are known as "DC devices."
Also, the idea that batteries produce a constant direct current is a very common misconception. L. McDermott just described this misconception as common among grade school science teachers (article in American Journal of Physics, Sept 2006 issue.) For this reason we should avoid saying that a battery can "produce current." It's more accurate to say that a battery produces voltage. A load can draw a current, but this current depends on the load, and if the value of load should vary, the current will also vary. Indeed, if the load is a changing capacitance, then the battery will "produce AC." -- Wjbeaty 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to not find any information on this page about water-activated batteries. They are quite neat devices and are in common use in certain areas such as weather balloons. [ This] page has some basic information about these batteries. I recently took several photos of a water-activated battery that I'm putting on the Commons shortly in case someone wants to use them. I will add the links to this page when I do. JLamb 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Started new page for water-activated batteries. Mainly wanted to start it to post my photos on. I'm sure someone will enjoy expanding it. JLamb 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
My Battery Summary!! By : Farasat Siddiqui (c)
Batteries
A battery can be thought up as a medium that stores energy or a can full of chemicals that produces electrons. Batteries come in all types of different shapes, sizes and prices. They range from small circular batteries used in watches costing only a few dollars to batteries for car engines costing $30,000.
Primary and Secondary batteries are the 2 categories of batteries. Primary batteries are the “cheaper” and most often used batteries but they can be "wasteful” they have to be thrown away because they are not rechargeable. Usually these are AA, AAA, D, C; etc.These can cause toxic waste problems. On the other hand Secondary Batteries are the rechargeable type. These are usually car batteries, computer batteries etc. Secondary batteries or rechargeable batteries are made up of 2 components, wet cells and dry cells. Wet cells are used to start up things and dry cells are used up to make batteries able to be recharged.
There are many battery types like, conventional lead acid at 35 watts per kilogram, sealed lead acid at 39 watts per kilogram, bi-polar acid at 50 watts per kilogram, nickel cadium at 55 watts per kilogram, nickel iron of 55 watts per kilogram, nickel-metal hydrate at 90 watts per kilogram, sodium sulphur at 110 watts per kilogram, and at the most lithium at 155 watts per kilogram.
Batteries operate from electrolytes. An electrolyte comes in liquids and it is a combination of chemicals. Batteries have two terminals. These are Positive and Negative. What is usually found at the top of a standard everyday battery is the positive terminal, the “thing” that comes out. It connects the battery to another object to make it work. A battery also needs a voltaic cell. A voltaic cell works by using a strip or rod of copper and sulfuric acid mixed with water. More cells create higher voltage.
From this you can see batteries have different forms, different types, different prices, and complex structures. Batteries are used in everyday life and people would be amazed by how many things would go wrong if batteries did not exist.
Moved to this talk page by Sillybilly 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Most sources associate Volta's pile with the year 1800. Many phrase this in wording like "Volta announced his development of the pile in 1800." 1800 was the year when Volta sent a description of the pile to the Royal Society (in April), which was read before the Society in June, and according to one source "caused a sensation."
Some sources describe Volta as having invented the battery in 1799. This seems very likely, but quick searches didn't turn up anything really definitive as to when he actually did the work that he wrote about in April, 1800. The actual 1800 published paper does not address this.
Many sources do actually say that Volta first constructed the pile in 1800, e.g. "In 1800, Volta constructed the first galvanic cell," [3]." Others say that Volta anounced it in 1800.
I suspect the sources that say he first invented or constructed it in 1800 are likely mistaken and careless, but in any case, it seems that it was the pile's announcement which "caused a sensation" and was really the significant event.
I think the safest thing to do is to stick to the statement that Volta announced the pile in 1800, while noting in a footnote that some sources say he invented it in 1799. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is this page so consistently vandalized?? -- Thenickdude 02:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody include information about battery discharging ?. Regards. -- Mac 07:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a recurring safety problem with lead-acid batteries, i.e they occasionally explode when their hydrogen+oxygen emissions are ignited by a nearby flame source (e.g. a pilot light). The reason for the emissions is touched upon, but there's no detail discussion. Since there's a growing trend to electric micro-cars, will there be a resulting epidemic of house explosions when they are being re-charged indoors at night? 154.20.137.51 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
let's talk about the processes behind the white precipitate which appears on AA batteries' terminals after a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.94.245 ( talk • contribs).
Can anybody give information about battery engineer and battery engineering ?. Thanks in advance. -- 193.145.201.52 13:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What is a Life Cycle & Reverse Capacity Tester? What is reverse capacity [4] ?. -- HybridBoy 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've opened up a 9V battery and discovered 6 AAA sized batteries with the same voltage as a AAAA battery. I would like an explanation of this. I used a Duracell battery and this is a link to a picture of what i found:
http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/aaa003.jpg
This image was sent in by me. I could not actually put this image here because every time i attempt to upload the image, nothing happens at all.
Efansay 06:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The thing that really impressed me with this article was the good breadth of coverage of the subject, and the article was also quite well written. Having said this, the lead section does need to be totally re-written to summarise the main points of the article, and more inline citations are needed to support what is being said, especially in the "Battery explosion", "Battery packs" and "Traction batteries" sections which are without references.
The one other significant issue relates to the structure of the article and the positioning of the section on "Types of batteries". I would have thought that this section could have come much earlier, probably after "Classification of batteries". The "Effect of a battery's internal resistance" section also seemed somewhat out of place but I'm not sure where it should be moved to. You may wish to consider making a couple of sub-sections in the "Battery lifetime" section, and consider breaking up the very long paragraph on automotive lead-acid rechargeable batteries.
Minor points: Is the positive electrode really called the cathode? I thought it was the anode. There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs, which should probably be expanded or incorporated into another paragraph. Also I couldn't see where some of the abbreviations in the Table (eg., ANSI, NEDA, IEC) were spelt out. This line at the end, "See also: battery electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicle", needs to be incorporated into the text. No need to number the bibliography; it's confusing.
I've decided to put this article on hold as the article is close to GA status, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi King, I'm pleased that progress is being made with this article, but it is still not worthy of GA status at this time. I've added a couple of maintenance tags for further guidance. Please consider re-submitting the article after improvements are made. -- Johnfos 03:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw this on GA, and decided to take a look. In my first quick pass, I found a grammatical error, a technical error, and a significant omission, which I fixed (see history). If this is indicative of the article as a whole, it is still not ready for GA. I don't have time to do a full review, but I would suggest withdrawing the nom and getting some expert help before renominating. You also might consider breaking it up and moving some detail to child articles, as it is a very comprehensive subject. Sorry to be brutally honest, but if you really want this to be GA, you should appreciate the feedback. It's difficult to cover such a broad topic well, so you have taken on a big task. Good luck.
Also, if the nom is not withdrawn, I would suggest only a subject matter expert review this, as it is a very technically demanding subject. Dhaluza 21:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- - - -
As noted above, this is a technically demanding subject and I think the people who prepared the article have done a pretty good job.
Looking at the introduction, I think it is a bit too long. Some ways to improve it might be:
- don't get into factors affecting capacity in the introduction
- don't get into how to prolong battery life in the introduction
- don't get into factors affecting capacity in the introduction
- If the second sentence is about electrochemical cells THAT ARE NOT batteries, it is confusing to have it here because it interrupts the story.
- I think the Baghdad battery could be left out of the introduction. Interesting sidelight, but not required reading for someone looking for a basic understanding of batteries. (IMHO)
- Did batteries really become portable and useful "soon" after 1800? Personally, I find that difficult to believe.
- Jumping from the invention of the thing in 1800 to the environmental concerns around disposal is a big jump. There should be at least a sentence or two in between about the refining of the technology and the current (no pun meant) huge use of batteries.
- I gather that rechargeable battery means the same thing as secondary battery, but I had to get a long way into the article before that was clearly said. It might be better if this was made clear as soon as the second word was used. Also, if both words mean the same, do both need to be used in the introduction?
I hope some of this comment is useful. Wanderer57 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was posted as good article candidate on September 7, 2006. I have read the article, and while it is a pretty good article, I don't think it yet qualifies as a Good Article. Most of the article is well-written, interesting and in-depth. However, there are several substantial issues that I feel need to be changed before the article can pass GAN.
In conclusion, I think this article has a lot of useful and well-written information. It needs some high-level rearrangements and someone who knows a lot about this to read it start to finish and make corrections. Right now, I don't think it qualifies for GA standards. -- Zvika 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I came here looking for some info on energy density, but a quick scan revealed none, so that would a useful addition to the article. I'm referring to Watt-hours per kilogram figures for the various types, sizes and anticipated future designs. If it was there but I didn't see then maybe it could be given its own section. EdX20 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of whatever type of batteries Energizer e squared titanium batteries or Duracell PowerPix NiOx batteries are? I can't find anything about them on Wikipedia. 69.148.183.20 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Opening an electrotechnology article with a schematic symbol is not useful - anyone who knows electrical schematics will already know the symbols, and someone seeking general knowledge of a topic will only be baffled by the non-physical representation inherent in a schematic symbol. Even worse, North American and European conventions differ for some schematic symbols. Use schematic symbols only if they are critical to explanation and if you can't use a simpler block-diagram format that requires minimal prior knowledge to understand. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 02:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently the article claims "Secondary batteries always yield less energy than was used to charge them... However, modern lithium designs have almost negated this wastage as they can have efficiencies of around 99%.[46]"
The reference given [6] does back up this claim: "Charging lithium-ion batteries ... The charge efficiency is 99.9% and the battery remains cool during charge."
However, I am still skeptical. I suspect that what I would call the "efficiency" (the total energy I get out of a battery, divided by the total energy I put into the battery) is much less than 99.9 percent.
So is my intuition wrong, and Li-ion batteries really are this amazingly wonderful? Or is the efficiency mentioned really measuring something else -- perhaps:
-- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The best one can hope to achieve is the same charge out as went in. To achieve 99% efficiency then the difference between V_charge and V_discharge would have to be just 1%, as well as leakage being zero. That sure is asking a lot. Tabby ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
its funny how someone who originaly typed up this article just automatically decided that the Baghdad Battery is a battery for sure. Its not a proven fact until it is, its just speculation and should be treated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Today, this channel has revealed the existence of several unusual batteries, incl. a "nano-battery", of which 250 can be placed across a human hair. Its on, as of the sig. time here. 205.240.146.242 ( talk) 05:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No consensus and it's been open for nearly 2 weeks. I don't see an end to the impasse here. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 11:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Battery (electricity) is the only article on batteries that has more than 5kb. all the rest are only stub articles. When someone says battery, they are referring to an electrical battery more than 99% of the time. Battery disambiguation should be moved to Battery (disambiguation). 199.125.109.76 ( talk) 17:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Battery (electricity) is definitely the primary article, but in any case, it should probably be listed at the top of the disambig page. Sam Staton ( talk) 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose suggested move - I don't think a Google test is necessarily an appropriate way of determining the primary topic. The word 'battery' may most commonly refer to the electrical device, but I think the other uses are sufficiently significant that a disambiguation page is the best option. Terraxos ( talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per many of the arguments above. Article length is not an indicator of importance. There are too many notable uses for "battery" to use the un-disambiguated space for one of them. Binksternet has it right when he said "Using a disambiguation page as an intermediary step means that nobody gets shunted to the wrong page; the dab is the right page for all." Parsecboy ( talk) 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have occasionally added historical and scientific entries about batteries, typically in the mode of adding to rather than replacing existing material. I have not looked at this article for many months, but there seems to be a significant removal of history (speculation about Baghdad batteries in place of well-founded information about Galvani) and removal of scientific information about charge storage (Amp-hrs) and current (Amp) associated with a battery. In its place seems to be more technical information (e.g., different types of batteries). I'm fine with more info about battery types, but not with removal of the other info. There has got to be room for both the scientific and the technical. There is a need for an editor to take control of various subsections, to decide what should be kept, and then find out who did the good writing and lock out others. In many ways this article has gone downhill in the past year. WMSwiki ( talk) 01:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a formula that will reliably relate the capacity to the battery life at discharge rates / times other than 20 hours? -- Random832 ( contribs) 03:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The text for the first photo about the names for the different type of batteries is confusing and makes things less clear User:Sobreira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.220.99 ( talk) 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone dropped a bunch of text in from http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640015888_1964015888.pdf. It's not appropriate to lift text from a source without credit and usually constitutes a copyright infringement. However, the source might have some good information that could be usefully added to the article. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 02:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
When were ordinary AA/AAA/C/D batteries first commonly sold? - 69.87.203.130 ( talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Article currently mentions special chargers. But in fact the basic slow nicd charger does the job fine. And 'some claim' is an odd phrase for a phenomenon that's well established and is even built into a few commercial products. Tabby ( talk) 16:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I read through the reference (#58 http://data.energizer.com/SearchResult.aspx). It seems to me that these specs may not necessarily be typical of generic alkalines. Comparing various D cells from Eveready: the Energizer, and e2 offerings are at 20Ah or 21.5Ah, but their Eveready line is at 19.5Ah. They show obsolete batteries that are at 17Ah, which could be representative of non-name brand Alkalines. Russella ( talk) 05:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The article currently points out that "The relationship between current, discharge time, and capacity for a lead acid battery is expressed by Peukert's law."
Are there other equations for other kinds of batteries? -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the NanoBattery here: http://www.physorg.com/news3539.html Why did it disappear? Is there something I don't know. It says in the article it was planned for automobiles. Then nothing. Does anyone know? Cott12 ( talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There are many types of electrochemical cells besides batteries. I think that article should be reseverved more for a discussion of the chemistry and physics (half cellls, potentials, concentration, reaction series, etc.) leaving this one more applied to the business of rotting zinc to illuminate bulbs and related matters. I'm removing the merge tag again. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The section on Secondary Batteries in this article is taken verbatim from the following web site, without attribution: http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet90/b90dudle.htm Among other difficulties, this leads to a reference to "Figure 2", although the figure is not present in the article, as well as a reference to "one of the authors", who presumably does not know that his work has been placed in Wikipedia. 28 November 2008
A new type of battery based on sugar, was developed by Sony. Should information about it be included here? Ervinn ( talk) 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Not sure how to edit this template to show what I've done! Astaroth5 22:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I like the picture, but the text beneath it does not make sense some of the time, like when it says "triple AAA". I would like to change it to "two "AAA" (batteries)". How do you do it?
-- Airplaneman ( talk) 14:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.voltmanbatteries.com needs to stop advertising on the battery rebuild section. thank you, GMoonit ( talk) 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This section sure could use more information. The NiCad article too. I'd write it but I don't know anything about it and need some information right now (I have six 80 lb NiCad batteries left by a neighbor that died and no one will take them :-( ). 71.226.121.41 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC) JCP
Actually, a cell is a single "Battery" like an AA, but a Baterry is just a plural word for cell i.e. a battery is made up from lots od cells. I don't think this is made clear in the article.
Why not have some chemical equations? There is an equivalent circuit of a battery here, but not much information on how electrochemical cells actually work. Does anyone who contributes to wikipedia know any chemistry?
Can the battery versus cell distinction be based on the fact that the cell voltage is fixed by electrochemistry while battery voltage can be any sum of cell voltages?
Hmm.. perhaps some more info on real batteries maybe? I dislike how you use the word battery vs. cell. Now that I'm thinking once more, I would like to see information about depolarizers on here, there is no article for it. You have jack information about that. Info on how hydrogen bubbles ruin batteries/cells through polarization during the discharge of a cell would help.-- Cyberman 01:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Did they really use it for electric power (which to me implies an understanding of electric power to some degree), or did they use it for the side effects of electric power (which implies no understanding of electric power)? I think it is the latter. - UtherSRG 15:56, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
none of the evidence you've just mentioned here does not have an ounce of proof supporting it, Baghded battery--function not known or clear, primitive CRT---inscribings on a wall hmmmm thats proof, the ark------wow is all i have to say, all you have mentioned here is purely speculative with no proof backing it up at
Removed for 2nd time, since every indication is that it is the height of insignificance:
-- Jerzy (t) 08:49, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
Added some info on its construction. There are several web sites which discuss it, showing that it is of greater general interest than some other 19th century batteries which did not achieve common use. I suggest that the interest in the Stubblefield earth cell justifies its inclusion in Wiki. Edison 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of that list of tenuous links at the end of this article? Game Boy, for instance? Does anybody think they are useful? -- Heron 14:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as an A battery? The article on A doesn't mention it. Should it be removed from the list? Rmhermen 00:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
An "A" battery was used on battery powered vacuum tube radios from the 1920's onward. The "A" battery was typically a rechargeable lead acid battery or for portable sets a dry cell battery composed of several cells could be used. The current draw was usually over .5 ampere. It had to produce this fairly large current to power the tube filaments. Powering a tube radio from dry cells was very expensive due to their rapid exhaustion, even when hooked up in a series-parallel arrangement. The "B" battery was a low current, high voltage dry cell battery(one or more 45 volt batteries in series) used to power the plate circuit. A substitute today might be a number of 9 volt batteries in series. A "C" battery was a low voltage dry cell, 1.5 to 4.5 volts, used to provide grid bias for the circuit, and the terminology did not mean any equivalence with today's C cells. Today's equivalent might be 1 to 3 AA batteries in series. Except for rural users who had no electric utility and portable sets, the battery sets were largely obsolete by the late 1920's, when sets powered by 120 volt alternating current or direct current came along, eliminating the cost of buying batteries or paying to have the A battery recharged at a radio shop. Would a referenced historical section on these batteries be appropriate for inclusion? Edison 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just found Wiki articles on "A" "B" and "C" batteries which provide a similar explanation to the above. It seems odd to have individual encyclopedia articles on each size of battery. Edison 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Those three articles have been merged to Battery (vacuum tube). Note that these articles refer to battery use rather than battery size. -- PeterJeremy ( talk) 11:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
What sulfates? The context is missing, making this sentence rather unintelligible.
Our article claims:
Is there any evidence for this claim? My dictionary claims that by analogy with a battery of artillery, battery had come to mean a group of things joined together to give an enhanced effect; and that an electric battery is just such a battery of galvanic cells. Securiger 07:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Volta invented the electrochemical battery in 1799, but Franklin invented the electrostatic battery before that. It was Franklin who first used the word battery in the electrical sense, referring to an array of eleven capacitors, in a letter to Peter Collinson of the Royal Society in London on the 29th of April 1749. (There is a transcript of the letter here). You are probably right that Franklin was using the word in the sense of "an array of objects", not as in "a beating", but he probably chose that word (instead of the more obvious alternatives such as "array" or "whole bunch") because of its association with violence. -- Heron 14:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
http://www.howstuffworks.com/power-paper.htm/printable may be a good resource. Brianjd 08:11, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
In science and technology, a battery is a device that stores energy and makes it available in an electrical form.
...batteries usually consist of electrochemical devices such as one or more galvanic cells or more recently fuel cells...
I don't think a fuel cell "stores" energy. Brianjd 08:16, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
A friend of mine asked why batteries go bad -- you know, they just start pushing crap out their ends if they're not used for a while. Tried to find the info here, couldn't. Maybe someone should add it? Or am I just looking at the wrong article? Anyway, it should probably be pointed out better if it is in a different article. Cheers. CryptoDerk 17:33, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
That is an excellent question. I suspect that there are several different failure modes for batteries. Let me try adding my best guess to the article. Does anyone know any better? -- DavidCary 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
How many amperes are in AA, AAA, C and D batteries?
Or in other words, "How much energy is stored in this battery?" and "How quickly can I get all that energy out?".
We probably don't need the link to the battery disambiguation page, though it isn't very intrusive and doesn't hurt to have it either.
Someone put it there in response to my request when I reverted someone else's deletion of a link to one other specific meaning. At the time, I was under the mistaken impression that this Battery (electricity) article remained the default article rather than the disambiguation page. But that isn't the case, and existing links appear to have been changed (except talk pages which we don't need to worry about), so most anyone who ends up at Battery (electricity) should be where they belong. But then, maybe the discussion here will lead someone to wonder about similar meanings, and the link to the disambiguation page would be helpful.
In summary, I don't really care whether it is kept or deleted, just pointing out in case someone else cares one way or another, so that they aren't misled by what I did in my edits. Gene Nygaard 16:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article currently contains the statement:
Aside from the fact that we could write that better, and attribute the currency (which I assume is US$), does anyone have a citation to back up the basic fact being asserted here? And what portion of "the battery business" does this represent? Disposable primary cells? ALL batteries, whether primary and secondary? Radioisotope Thermal Generators? I think we need more details, otherwise, we should remove this.
Atlant 10:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
what's a square prism. it's an oxymoron. Is there any reason why we cant use cube instead? tommylommykins 16:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Should we merge Battery pack into the Battery (electricity) article ? Technically, a battery pack is a collection of individual cells, the very definition of a battery. (Although some battery packs have a thermistor or other stuff to help the battery charger). -- DavidCary 13:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some people claim that hybrid-electric vehicles and BEVs ultimately consume more fossil fuel than internal combustion engines. They claim that constructing the batteries themselves requires lots of grid electricity (and it occurs in countries where most electrical power comes from fossil fuels). This large amout of fossil fuel consumed is never quite paid back by the better efficiency of the electric vehicles in operation.
A very rough estimate is made by j.pickens. It seems to support such claims. Does anyone know a more accurate estimate?
The argument sounds very similar to the Talk:Solar cell and Net energy gain.
-- DavidCary 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The article mentions the high cost of energy from batteries but gives no details. I gave a rough estimate of the electricity cost from disposable batteries in #Questions from the article below. It would be interesting if someone could work out some more accurate examples and add them to the article proper. It would be interesting to calculate the cost, weight, and bulk of the disposable batteries necessary to meet the electricity needs of a typical modern residence. -- Teratornis 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
i think an interesting thing to add would be the flow battery. i couldnt find it in wiki, but i think it is absolutely worth to add here. there is a link that explains to some extend the function and feasibility of a flow battery: http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/features/rerere/rerere.html
I've just updated the entry on
vanadium redox (flow) batteries, any objections if I link to it from this article? sections History, Summery(rechargable) and Chemicals used in constuction? Astaroth5 21:25 (UTC) 9th November 2005
I've taken a shot at doing the reorganization mentioned, but this is my first attempt at a major edit of a popular article, so if I've screwed it up, I'm Sorry! I've not removed any material at all, just reorganized it and added a little on flow batteries. Praise, comment, criticism, correction, or even just plain reversion ( if I have seriously messed up ) are all welcome! Astaroth5 22:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC) -Nice work. Thanks for being bold. Cheers, - Willmcw 00:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think some explanation of an ideal battery should be on this page. I might add the model of a battery having an EMF and an internal resistance. Fresheneesz 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because unfortunately it has no references. Otherwise it's a great article, though I think the see also section is unnecessarily huge and most of the topics should be mentioned in the main text in any case, so there's no need to relink them. Worldtraveller 00:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, I googled for ozone batteries and I found the following: http://www.nuenergy.org/theory/ioncell.htm "The energy density of the aluminum/ozone cell is excellent, even better than the lithium cell. There are no side reactions that take place between the electrolyte and the aluminum..."
Can anyone verify or perhaps add to the current current article.
Thanks :)
I certainly wouldn't invest in this technology. This appears to be a fairly standard Al-air battery where they use ozone in place of air. This supposedly gives a slight increase in the cell voltage. Although it is clear where air comes from, how is the ozone produced? They mention using high voltages. This would entail an energy input to make the battery operate. So where does the initial energy come from? I wouldn't take this idea to seriously until they have published some peer-reviewed experimental results.
Ahw001
06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Battery (electricity) to Battery. This is by far the most common usage of the term, so it should be at simply Battery with a link at the top to Battery (disambiguation) with the other meanings. Booking563 00:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Some text was recently added about high voltage capacitors that is not very informative. And it is not obvious what the substance of it is from going to the capacitors wikilink. I think there should be a more specific link or reference which fleshes this out.-- Technicaltechy 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
68.169.187.216 asked in the article (now moved here):
Atlant 23:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The article talks about replacing the fruit in the homemade batteries because it gets used up. I don't think it is the fruit that wears down the battery. Maybe the fruit gets old & moldy & doesn't conduct as wel, but it is not the cause of the battery not working. The energy comes from the chemical transformation of the metal electrodes into their oxides or their chlorides or whatever the transformation is. The fruit is merely the path that the electricity takes, like the wires in a circuit.
Is there any source for Franklin connecting capacitors in series and in parallel? I can well believe he connected them in parallel, because that is basically the same as having a larger Leyden jar. But the concept of series and parallel electrical connection were cutting edge in the 1830s, when Joseph Henry distinguished "intensity" (series) from ""quantity" (parallel ) connections of cells and of windings. Morse, for instance, in the 1830s had no concept that a low resistance electromagnet and a single cell could not operate a telegraph over an appreciable distance through the high resistance of the wires. To connect several Leyden jars in series to increase the voltage, Franklin would have needed to charge them individually with his friction machine, and place the jars on a thick clean glass surface to avoid the table they sat on from draining off the voltage between the outer foils of the jars. Absent a verifiable source, this claim should be removed. Edison 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed this section:
because of the two contradicting viewpoints. We need more authoritative sources if we're going to say which type lasts longer, if such a judgement can be made at all. -- Heron 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia article for the B battery, used in tube radios. Now there is no link to it from here, and no link to it from the article on battery sizes. There used to be an article on the "A battery" used in tude radios, but now if you go to "A battery" you are misdirected to "AA battery," which has nothing whatever to do with the big old battery used to provide filament current for vacuum tubes. See my discussion above from June 7. I own a couple of radios from the 1920's which use A batteries, B batteries, and C batteries. I guess I will re-link this article to "B battery" and add a link from battery sizes to "B battery." How does one find an article which has been deleted, like "A battery"??? Edison 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Found the batteries under Battery (vacuum tubes)#A battery etc and added links where appropriate. Also added historical info on the use of lead-acid batteries for electric cars in the early 20th century, radio batteries in the 1920's, and local batteries for early 20th century phone. These were probably a very big portion of the sales of batteries in the early 20th century. There should also be info on battery-powered flashlights. Edison 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The A/B/C battery pages have all been merged into Battery (vacuum tube) and links fixed -- PeterJeremy ( talk) 11:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you know that in the 50s or the 60s, modern science has invented the nuclear battery ? I've seen depictions in old science books, one saying that one of these can put out 250,000 volts, but the amps are low. It was the size of a "D" cell, was either a Kr-85 or a Cerium -150 unit. Martial Law 21:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the description a bit. Batteries don't produce DC, since the current depends on the load. Look at the load current in any electronic device any you'll usually see lots of rapid changes (lots of AC.) Instead, batteries produce constant or DC voltage. The term "DC" means "unvarying" when used in this way. (Engineers use AC/DC to mean varying/unvarying, rather than their more obvious meaning as direct current and alternating current. Hence "DC voltage" means "constant voltage" and not "direct current voltage.") For this reason batteries are known as "DC devices."
Also, the idea that batteries produce a constant direct current is a very common misconception. L. McDermott just described this misconception as common among grade school science teachers (article in American Journal of Physics, Sept 2006 issue.) For this reason we should avoid saying that a battery can "produce current." It's more accurate to say that a battery produces voltage. A load can draw a current, but this current depends on the load, and if the value of load should vary, the current will also vary. Indeed, if the load is a changing capacitance, then the battery will "produce AC." -- Wjbeaty 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to not find any information on this page about water-activated batteries. They are quite neat devices and are in common use in certain areas such as weather balloons. [ This] page has some basic information about these batteries. I recently took several photos of a water-activated battery that I'm putting on the Commons shortly in case someone wants to use them. I will add the links to this page when I do. JLamb 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Started new page for water-activated batteries. Mainly wanted to start it to post my photos on. I'm sure someone will enjoy expanding it. JLamb 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
My Battery Summary!! By : Farasat Siddiqui (c)
Batteries
A battery can be thought up as a medium that stores energy or a can full of chemicals that produces electrons. Batteries come in all types of different shapes, sizes and prices. They range from small circular batteries used in watches costing only a few dollars to batteries for car engines costing $30,000.
Primary and Secondary batteries are the 2 categories of batteries. Primary batteries are the “cheaper” and most often used batteries but they can be "wasteful” they have to be thrown away because they are not rechargeable. Usually these are AA, AAA, D, C; etc.These can cause toxic waste problems. On the other hand Secondary Batteries are the rechargeable type. These are usually car batteries, computer batteries etc. Secondary batteries or rechargeable batteries are made up of 2 components, wet cells and dry cells. Wet cells are used to start up things and dry cells are used up to make batteries able to be recharged.
There are many battery types like, conventional lead acid at 35 watts per kilogram, sealed lead acid at 39 watts per kilogram, bi-polar acid at 50 watts per kilogram, nickel cadium at 55 watts per kilogram, nickel iron of 55 watts per kilogram, nickel-metal hydrate at 90 watts per kilogram, sodium sulphur at 110 watts per kilogram, and at the most lithium at 155 watts per kilogram.
Batteries operate from electrolytes. An electrolyte comes in liquids and it is a combination of chemicals. Batteries have two terminals. These are Positive and Negative. What is usually found at the top of a standard everyday battery is the positive terminal, the “thing” that comes out. It connects the battery to another object to make it work. A battery also needs a voltaic cell. A voltaic cell works by using a strip or rod of copper and sulfuric acid mixed with water. More cells create higher voltage.
From this you can see batteries have different forms, different types, different prices, and complex structures. Batteries are used in everyday life and people would be amazed by how many things would go wrong if batteries did not exist.
Moved to this talk page by Sillybilly 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Most sources associate Volta's pile with the year 1800. Many phrase this in wording like "Volta announced his development of the pile in 1800." 1800 was the year when Volta sent a description of the pile to the Royal Society (in April), which was read before the Society in June, and according to one source "caused a sensation."
Some sources describe Volta as having invented the battery in 1799. This seems very likely, but quick searches didn't turn up anything really definitive as to when he actually did the work that he wrote about in April, 1800. The actual 1800 published paper does not address this.
Many sources do actually say that Volta first constructed the pile in 1800, e.g. "In 1800, Volta constructed the first galvanic cell," [3]." Others say that Volta anounced it in 1800.
I suspect the sources that say he first invented or constructed it in 1800 are likely mistaken and careless, but in any case, it seems that it was the pile's announcement which "caused a sensation" and was really the significant event.
I think the safest thing to do is to stick to the statement that Volta announced the pile in 1800, while noting in a footnote that some sources say he invented it in 1799. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is this page so consistently vandalized?? -- Thenickdude 02:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody include information about battery discharging ?. Regards. -- Mac 07:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a recurring safety problem with lead-acid batteries, i.e they occasionally explode when their hydrogen+oxygen emissions are ignited by a nearby flame source (e.g. a pilot light). The reason for the emissions is touched upon, but there's no detail discussion. Since there's a growing trend to electric micro-cars, will there be a resulting epidemic of house explosions when they are being re-charged indoors at night? 154.20.137.51 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
let's talk about the processes behind the white precipitate which appears on AA batteries' terminals after a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.94.245 ( talk • contribs).
Can anybody give information about battery engineer and battery engineering ?. Thanks in advance. -- 193.145.201.52 13:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What is a Life Cycle & Reverse Capacity Tester? What is reverse capacity [4] ?. -- HybridBoy 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've opened up a 9V battery and discovered 6 AAA sized batteries with the same voltage as a AAAA battery. I would like an explanation of this. I used a Duracell battery and this is a link to a picture of what i found:
http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/aaa003.jpg
This image was sent in by me. I could not actually put this image here because every time i attempt to upload the image, nothing happens at all.
Efansay 06:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The thing that really impressed me with this article was the good breadth of coverage of the subject, and the article was also quite well written. Having said this, the lead section does need to be totally re-written to summarise the main points of the article, and more inline citations are needed to support what is being said, especially in the "Battery explosion", "Battery packs" and "Traction batteries" sections which are without references.
The one other significant issue relates to the structure of the article and the positioning of the section on "Types of batteries". I would have thought that this section could have come much earlier, probably after "Classification of batteries". The "Effect of a battery's internal resistance" section also seemed somewhat out of place but I'm not sure where it should be moved to. You may wish to consider making a couple of sub-sections in the "Battery lifetime" section, and consider breaking up the very long paragraph on automotive lead-acid rechargeable batteries.
Minor points: Is the positive electrode really called the cathode? I thought it was the anode. There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs, which should probably be expanded or incorporated into another paragraph. Also I couldn't see where some of the abbreviations in the Table (eg., ANSI, NEDA, IEC) were spelt out. This line at the end, "See also: battery electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicle", needs to be incorporated into the text. No need to number the bibliography; it's confusing.
I've decided to put this article on hold as the article is close to GA status, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi King, I'm pleased that progress is being made with this article, but it is still not worthy of GA status at this time. I've added a couple of maintenance tags for further guidance. Please consider re-submitting the article after improvements are made. -- Johnfos 03:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw this on GA, and decided to take a look. In my first quick pass, I found a grammatical error, a technical error, and a significant omission, which I fixed (see history). If this is indicative of the article as a whole, it is still not ready for GA. I don't have time to do a full review, but I would suggest withdrawing the nom and getting some expert help before renominating. You also might consider breaking it up and moving some detail to child articles, as it is a very comprehensive subject. Sorry to be brutally honest, but if you really want this to be GA, you should appreciate the feedback. It's difficult to cover such a broad topic well, so you have taken on a big task. Good luck.
Also, if the nom is not withdrawn, I would suggest only a subject matter expert review this, as it is a very technically demanding subject. Dhaluza 21:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- - - -
As noted above, this is a technically demanding subject and I think the people who prepared the article have done a pretty good job.
Looking at the introduction, I think it is a bit too long. Some ways to improve it might be:
- don't get into factors affecting capacity in the introduction
- don't get into how to prolong battery life in the introduction
- don't get into factors affecting capacity in the introduction
- If the second sentence is about electrochemical cells THAT ARE NOT batteries, it is confusing to have it here because it interrupts the story.
- I think the Baghdad battery could be left out of the introduction. Interesting sidelight, but not required reading for someone looking for a basic understanding of batteries. (IMHO)
- Did batteries really become portable and useful "soon" after 1800? Personally, I find that difficult to believe.
- Jumping from the invention of the thing in 1800 to the environmental concerns around disposal is a big jump. There should be at least a sentence or two in between about the refining of the technology and the current (no pun meant) huge use of batteries.
- I gather that rechargeable battery means the same thing as secondary battery, but I had to get a long way into the article before that was clearly said. It might be better if this was made clear as soon as the second word was used. Also, if both words mean the same, do both need to be used in the introduction?
I hope some of this comment is useful. Wanderer57 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was posted as good article candidate on September 7, 2006. I have read the article, and while it is a pretty good article, I don't think it yet qualifies as a Good Article. Most of the article is well-written, interesting and in-depth. However, there are several substantial issues that I feel need to be changed before the article can pass GAN.
In conclusion, I think this article has a lot of useful and well-written information. It needs some high-level rearrangements and someone who knows a lot about this to read it start to finish and make corrections. Right now, I don't think it qualifies for GA standards. -- Zvika 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I came here looking for some info on energy density, but a quick scan revealed none, so that would a useful addition to the article. I'm referring to Watt-hours per kilogram figures for the various types, sizes and anticipated future designs. If it was there but I didn't see then maybe it could be given its own section. EdX20 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of whatever type of batteries Energizer e squared titanium batteries or Duracell PowerPix NiOx batteries are? I can't find anything about them on Wikipedia. 69.148.183.20 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Opening an electrotechnology article with a schematic symbol is not useful - anyone who knows electrical schematics will already know the symbols, and someone seeking general knowledge of a topic will only be baffled by the non-physical representation inherent in a schematic symbol. Even worse, North American and European conventions differ for some schematic symbols. Use schematic symbols only if they are critical to explanation and if you can't use a simpler block-diagram format that requires minimal prior knowledge to understand. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 02:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently the article claims "Secondary batteries always yield less energy than was used to charge them... However, modern lithium designs have almost negated this wastage as they can have efficiencies of around 99%.[46]"
The reference given [6] does back up this claim: "Charging lithium-ion batteries ... The charge efficiency is 99.9% and the battery remains cool during charge."
However, I am still skeptical. I suspect that what I would call the "efficiency" (the total energy I get out of a battery, divided by the total energy I put into the battery) is much less than 99.9 percent.
So is my intuition wrong, and Li-ion batteries really are this amazingly wonderful? Or is the efficiency mentioned really measuring something else -- perhaps:
-- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The best one can hope to achieve is the same charge out as went in. To achieve 99% efficiency then the difference between V_charge and V_discharge would have to be just 1%, as well as leakage being zero. That sure is asking a lot. Tabby ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
its funny how someone who originaly typed up this article just automatically decided that the Baghdad Battery is a battery for sure. Its not a proven fact until it is, its just speculation and should be treated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Today, this channel has revealed the existence of several unusual batteries, incl. a "nano-battery", of which 250 can be placed across a human hair. Its on, as of the sig. time here. 205.240.146.242 ( talk) 05:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No consensus and it's been open for nearly 2 weeks. I don't see an end to the impasse here. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 11:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Battery (electricity) is the only article on batteries that has more than 5kb. all the rest are only stub articles. When someone says battery, they are referring to an electrical battery more than 99% of the time. Battery disambiguation should be moved to Battery (disambiguation). 199.125.109.76 ( talk) 17:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Battery (electricity) is definitely the primary article, but in any case, it should probably be listed at the top of the disambig page. Sam Staton ( talk) 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose suggested move - I don't think a Google test is necessarily an appropriate way of determining the primary topic. The word 'battery' may most commonly refer to the electrical device, but I think the other uses are sufficiently significant that a disambiguation page is the best option. Terraxos ( talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per many of the arguments above. Article length is not an indicator of importance. There are too many notable uses for "battery" to use the un-disambiguated space for one of them. Binksternet has it right when he said "Using a disambiguation page as an intermediary step means that nobody gets shunted to the wrong page; the dab is the right page for all." Parsecboy ( talk) 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have occasionally added historical and scientific entries about batteries, typically in the mode of adding to rather than replacing existing material. I have not looked at this article for many months, but there seems to be a significant removal of history (speculation about Baghdad batteries in place of well-founded information about Galvani) and removal of scientific information about charge storage (Amp-hrs) and current (Amp) associated with a battery. In its place seems to be more technical information (e.g., different types of batteries). I'm fine with more info about battery types, but not with removal of the other info. There has got to be room for both the scientific and the technical. There is a need for an editor to take control of various subsections, to decide what should be kept, and then find out who did the good writing and lock out others. In many ways this article has gone downhill in the past year. WMSwiki ( talk) 01:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a formula that will reliably relate the capacity to the battery life at discharge rates / times other than 20 hours? -- Random832 ( contribs) 03:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The text for the first photo about the names for the different type of batteries is confusing and makes things less clear User:Sobreira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.220.99 ( talk) 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone dropped a bunch of text in from http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640015888_1964015888.pdf. It's not appropriate to lift text from a source without credit and usually constitutes a copyright infringement. However, the source might have some good information that could be usefully added to the article. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 02:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
When were ordinary AA/AAA/C/D batteries first commonly sold? - 69.87.203.130 ( talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Article currently mentions special chargers. But in fact the basic slow nicd charger does the job fine. And 'some claim' is an odd phrase for a phenomenon that's well established and is even built into a few commercial products. Tabby ( talk) 16:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I read through the reference (#58 http://data.energizer.com/SearchResult.aspx). It seems to me that these specs may not necessarily be typical of generic alkalines. Comparing various D cells from Eveready: the Energizer, and e2 offerings are at 20Ah or 21.5Ah, but their Eveready line is at 19.5Ah. They show obsolete batteries that are at 17Ah, which could be representative of non-name brand Alkalines. Russella ( talk) 05:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The article currently points out that "The relationship between current, discharge time, and capacity for a lead acid battery is expressed by Peukert's law."
Are there other equations for other kinds of batteries? -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the NanoBattery here: http://www.physorg.com/news3539.html Why did it disappear? Is there something I don't know. It says in the article it was planned for automobiles. Then nothing. Does anyone know? Cott12 ( talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There are many types of electrochemical cells besides batteries. I think that article should be reseverved more for a discussion of the chemistry and physics (half cellls, potentials, concentration, reaction series, etc.) leaving this one more applied to the business of rotting zinc to illuminate bulbs and related matters. I'm removing the merge tag again. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The section on Secondary Batteries in this article is taken verbatim from the following web site, without attribution: http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet90/b90dudle.htm Among other difficulties, this leads to a reference to "Figure 2", although the figure is not present in the article, as well as a reference to "one of the authors", who presumably does not know that his work has been placed in Wikipedia. 28 November 2008
A new type of battery based on sugar, was developed by Sony. Should information about it be included here? Ervinn ( talk) 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |