|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battery (electricity) article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Battery (electricity) has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Battery (electricity) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Battery (electricity):|
It would be good to include this reference and accordingly update C-rate chapter. Please, if somebody thinks that this comment should go somewhere else, do so and replace it. The reference is: http://www.starkpower.com/highratedischarge.html. The description of C-rate seams confusing. It doesn't clearly state that for example at 2C discharge rate the battery would hold two times less.
- 1 bad reference
- 2 Inside?
- 3 Proposed article name change: 'Battery (electricity)' to only 'Battery'
- 4 Wh/kg
- 5 Rating? Why mAh not Wh?
- 6 American invention?
- 7 Propose article rename to "Electrical battery"
- 8 Introduction: enlarging the initial definition to include one-cell devices like the AA battery
- 9 Water-activated battery
- 10 Parthain Battery
- 11 Proposed navbox
- 12 proliferation of redundant BMS/balancing articles
- 13 spelling error
- 14 recharging hysterisis
- 15 Edit request on 3 April 2012 -- See also section background color
- 16 Principles of Operation
- 17 AgZn 'mysterious' reaction
- 18 Copyedit
- 19 Link between charge level and bounce height of dry cells.
- 20 Anode & Cathode confusion?
- 21 Article Title Change
- 22 Memory effect
- 23 Like Charges Should Repel, Opposites Should Attract
- 24 Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014
- 25 Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014
- A battery is an electrical/electrolytic circuit consisting in 1 or more electrochemical energy producing cells. And they all have 5 essential constituent ingredients. 2 of these are the electrochemical energy powered EMF voltages. 2 more are electrical resistance networks related to the transfer of the electrons into and out of (and within) the cell electrical circuits. And the fifth is an electrolytic ion motion of flow of the ions in the electrolyte in the direction of the dominant EMF voltage gradient. Since the primary purpose of a battery is to supply electrical energy to an electrical load, these constituents may be considered to be the following listing of a series connected electrical entities:
1 A dominating negative electromotive EMF (at the point of electrochemical activity) 2 The electrical resistance of the negative anode circuit 3 The flow velocity of the ions within the electrolytic circuit 4 The usually counter EMF voltage at the point of electrochemical activity within the cathode 5 The electrical resistance of the cathode circuit
These constituents work together to provide the composite battery unit with an electrical energy power and energy supply characteristic intended to meet a certain set of specified electrical power and energy load requirements.WFPM (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposed article name change: 'Battery (electricity)' to only 'Battery'
Rating? Why mAh not Wh?
Why are batteries almost always rated in current-hours -- mAh, not power -- Wh or joules? I can always multiply volts by mAh to get mWh, but why is current-time the standard? I assume it is somehow a more reliable measure (maybe at low temperature the voltage drops but the number of electrons ready to flow doesn't?) The fact that "Watt" doesn't appear on this page tells me that there is some fundamental reason Watts just don't make sense for batteries. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've always seen Ah in supply and Wh in consumption and J in science. The battery industry uses mAh so that would be a good reason to use that here. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- First note that these are two different units. Amperes (A) is coulumbs of charge (C) per second (t), A = C / t. Thus mAh is essentially a measure of charge, or coulombs. Watts (W) is joules of energy (J) per second (t), W = J / t, thus Wh is essentially energy, or joules. But to answer your question, because batteries primarily store charge and not energy. Randy Yates, Eaton Corp., 10:39 EST, 20-Aug-2012.
- @BenFrantzDale: @Randy Yates: @22.214.171.124: It is wrong to say that "batteries primarily store charge and not energy". It is the opposite. Energy is one of the most fundamental concepts in science. Basically, everything has energy. Charge, on the other hand, is a way to understand and explain energy in certain physical interactions, like in electricity (electric field, electrostatics, electrochemistry). In general, "charge" is a measure of energy. The more charge you can store, the more energy. They are proportional. As to why in batteries Ah is used. It may have to do with the practical aspects of charging and discharging. A battery of 50 Ah can be discharged in one hour by using a current of 50 A. So, if I have a device that consumes 5 A, a battery of 50 Ah will power it for 10 hours. I guess it is simpler to understand it this way, because we can measure current with ammeters and clamps, instead of knowing exactly how much energy (Wh) this device will need for a certain period of time.----126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is Benjamin Franklin mentioned first if he is not the originator/inventor? It's almost if you are claiming the battery as an American invention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Benjamin Franklin is just the name associated with the first naming of electrical battery. Knowledge of battery-like things existed in antiquity, and it is not clear clear what should be defined as the first battery. Who do you think can be named as the originator/inventor? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Propose article rename to "Electrical battery"
Introduction: enlarging the initial definition to include one-cell devices like the AA battery
Since most batteries now in use have only a single electrochemical cell (e.g. AA or C batteries, as opposed to the multi-cell 9 volt battery or the 6-cell 12 volt car battery) I have changed the first sentence to say,
"An electrical battery is device consisting of one or more electrochemical cells used..."
The history section further down explains this current meaning, and how it arose despite the original sense of battery as a multi-cell device like the voltaic pile.CharlesHBennett (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I restored the more than one cell as the primary definition: dry cells, AA cell, 9V battery, car battery, and laptop battery. I don't believe the distinction should disappear right now, but others can weigh in. Glrx (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- It looks rather stupid for an encyclopedia article to say "An X is only yin. X also includes yang." If I walked into my local Canadian Tire and asked for a dry cell, I'd probably be put in the room they use to hold shoplifters. Everybody calls that AA or D thing a "battery" and it serves no encyclopediac purpose to be more pedantic than the world.Is the purpose of an encyclopedia article to show how much smarter we editors are than the great unwashed, or is the purpose to provide (as neutrally and verifiably as this Rube Goldberg process can) the facts? If anyone with even less life than I thinks the distinction between 1 cell and many cells is that important, research it and show how the usuage has changed since the 17th century. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- A single cell is not a battery, and Wikipedia should not sacrifice correctness just to cater to widespread misconceptions. An appropriate formulation could be "A battery is an arrangement of multiple galvanic cells; however in colloquial English, the term 'battery' is often used incorrectly to denote a single cell." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Wtshymanski - I'm curious; why don't you think that the Parthian Battery is suitable for inclusion in this topic? (And for the record, nope, didn't get it from the discovery channel). Fleetingshadow (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's not a battery. See Baghdad Battery. Or, at least, the connection with modern batteries is so speculative that it doesn't serve the modern reader well to make any fuss over this artifact. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Any way I can convince you to at least provide a link in the See Also section to the Parthian Battery so that people who are curious could find out more? My own take on this is that it may be a curiosity, but it's also possibly a valuable milestone in our scientific history, and a great reminder that not only does a lot of reinvention go on over the millennia, but that civilization is not bulletproof. (eg. The Antikythera Device)
proliferation of redundant BMS/balancing articles
I happened across a couple of articles on related topics that I think should be merged, but my merger proposal on those pages hasn't generated much attention, so I want to call attention to the issue here.
I've found the following set of articles:
- Battery management system
- Smart Battery Data (which Battery monitoring redirects to)
- Smart Battery System
- Battery balancer
- Battery balancing
- Battery redistribution
Most of those should probably be merged, but so far I've only specifically proposed merging the last three. the discussion on that merger is at Talk:Battery balancing#Merger_proposal Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
hey sorry, i dont have an account and cant edit it as such, but i figured someone may be able to look over it in the secondary batteries section "Internal parts may corrode and fail, or teh active materials may be slowy converted to inactive forms." (use search on your browser and put in teh)
- Fixed. It’s unfortunate about the indefinite non-account-holder protection. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
A subtopic that I would find interesting is a discussion of hystersis effects in rechargeable batteries.
Edit request on 3 April 2012 -- See also section background color
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
The background color of the 'See also' section should be changed to white
- Not done; can't be done. Background color of the "See also" section is not independently specified. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Principles of Operation
This section seems a bit esoteric. My eyes started crossing almost immediately. I was surprised that several concepts I expected to see were not there. So, here is my thoughts: I have a bit of trouble with the first sentence; converting chemical energy directly to electrical energy. Not that it isn't true, but it isn't clear to me what that means. "Chemical energy" seems way too abstract, and in point of fact, it is a specific kind of chemical energy that is used. So, the term is too general and not useful. Also, while there is a lot said about the two half-cells (separation, etc. etc.), the point is not made that a battery works by separating a spontaneous redox (chemical) reaction into two halves and forces the electrons to flow through an electrical circuit to complete the reaction rather than what they would normally do (react "directly"with , "flowing directly" from oxidant to reductant (ignoring solvation shells, etc.)). A battery harnesses the energy of the chemical changes to do work by putting the work in between the two half-cells. Perhaps this is just my chemical background, but it just seems more intuitive than to talk about half-cell reactions. I was also surprised that the word "ion" was not explained, nor electrolyte. Perhaps there is just too much introductory material I am expecting, but it seems that it is less important that the reader know the name of a negative ion (anion) than they know that the ions carry the electrons which do the work. How about this proposal: "A battery is a device that converts the energy of a redox reaction directly to electrical energy. A redox reaction is a chemical reaction in which one chemical loses electrons (the oxidant) and one gains them (the reducer). A battery works by separating the oxidizer and reducer into two parts (half-cells) and forces the electrons lost by the oxidant to move through an electrical circuit (and do work) in order to get to the reducer and so complete the chemical reaction." Since the article does not allow editing, I leave this as a proposal. Does it help ?220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you register a pseudonym, you can edit. Aren't all chemical reactions "redox" reactions? Is "chemical" energy a really esoteric concept that needs much amplification here? We can talk about ions and redox and such later on in the article as necessary. If you have to define " a 'foo' is a 'bar baz grault'" in the first use of a term, it's probably too dense and should be rewritten to give the reader a better run at the concept. We don't want the readers' eyes to glaze over before they've even found out what is in the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
AgZn 'mysterious' reaction
Why is AgZn said "Reactions are not fully understood." under here? Could someone please clarify?
Per tag, copyedited this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:
- I recommend making Battery a disamb page and renaming this one Electric battery.
- Deleted a few hundred words and upgraded/killed some refs.
- Re-orged the lifetime section.
Link between charge level and bounce height of dry cells.
Interesting video that I would not take seriously if it weren't from a vlogger I am familiar with.
Not encyclopaedia material but I wonder if any studies or such have been done on this at all. It's interesting at least although has no practical use.
- An easy method of telling charged batteries from discharged batteries is of no practical use? Call me Mr Skeptical, but I didn't believe it. Snopes claims it is an urban myth. So I decided to try it, and to my astonishment, the batteries behave exactly as shown in the video. I even tried it with AA and AAA size batteries and it still works. I found a few forums where people tried to explain the reason with one 'genius' claiming that the batteries loose electrolyte as they discharge and therfore become lighter. Apart from the fact that he totally failed to explain where this mass disappears to, the electrolyte takes no part in the reaction of an alkaline battery. We can't put this in the article of course, because this is just original research at present. But the difference is so marked that it must be documented somewhere. I B Wright (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Anode & Cathode confusion?
- No they are not. In a primary battery, the anode is the negative electrode and the cathode the positive. Have a look at anode and cathode to see why they are correct. Personally, I believe that the terms 'anode' and 'cathode' only serve to confuse readers in articles on electrochemical cells and batteries. This is especially so in rechargeable batteries because the anode and the cathode change ends between charge and discharge. I B Wright (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Article Title Change
Technically, shouldn't the title be "Battery (electrochemistry)" instead of "Battery (electricity)"? Sure batteries produce electricity, but so do other devices. Chemistry is the method of production of electricity in this technology. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The part in the brackets is there to distinguish this particular kind of battery from other types, such as artillery batteries; hence the disambiguation link. Article titles do not have to provide precise categorizations (Batteries of electrochemical cells are already categorized appropriately); Wikipedia has other mechanisms for that (arguably the Category:Battery_(electricity) could be changed. --Nczempin (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The words in this section state things that the supporting link does not say at all. In fact the link supports conflicting information the NiCd article. I was going to completely rewrite this section, but as I am not an expert on this, I have to give the benefit of the doubt that whoever wrote that knows at least something more than I do. Also to be fair, the references in the other article aren't all that stellar either. Maybe I'll try to go find something more academic. In the mean time, I'm going to just put a "see also" link there. At least others can be as confused as me at the conflicting statements.Autumn Wind (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Like Charges Should Repel, Opposites Should Attract
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Please alter this statement to "One half-cell includes electrolyte and the negative electrode, the electrode to which anions (negatively charged ions) migrate" to "One half-cell includes electrolyte and the positive electrode, the electrode to which anions (negatively charged ions) migrate" because the previous sentence states that like charged particles are attracted to like charged electrodes which is incorrect.
Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Done --17:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
In "primary batteries and their charecaristics" in the "Battery Chemistry" section, it is written that the cathode of a silver oxide battery is AgO, but the formula for silver oxide is actually Ag2O 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)