Talk:Fuel cell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Electrical engineering (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Fuel cell demonstration[edit]

i would like to know was the crude fuel cell discovered by grove alone ? And in second edition of book " Fuel Cell Systems Explained " it is mentioned that in 1939 the first fuel cell was demonstrated by lawyer and william grove. it is bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.78.177.180 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow, aren't we talking about stuff on the net? Books are a no no. 99.8.5.34 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Any type of reference we have whether it be books or the internet should be used on Wikipedia. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I added new citations pointing to the original fuel cell scientific articles from 1838, and from this info it is hard to definitively say who invented the fuel cell first - Grove or Schönbein. I can only find rough overlap based on the dates of their letters to the journal. I welcome comments and the addition of any other scholarly documents others can find to substantiate the timing of both scientists' experiments. Timtempleton (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Great job, Tim. I moved the refs out of the WP:LEAD section, as they belong in the main text below, and I replaced the two refs that you deleted, concerning Grove's later publications. Did you mean to delete them? If so, why? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for the delayed response. I removed references that were to books and not to the actual pdf files. I thought that limiting references to easily verifiable online sources strengthened the articles. Any chance you can scan and upload the pages you reference?Timtempleton (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:RELY and WP:VERIFY, many books are considered reliable sources. There is no requirement that every reference be online; please read the Wikipedia policies more carefully. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Tim, actually book and paper references are superior to online refs, if the bibliographic information is complete, as they cannot go dead. Adding a url to these, of course is even better, but whether it is online or not is not important, as long the source cited was published in by a reputable publisher. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Books are not better at all, as they are "fixed" in time and dont get updated (they outdate quickly), a lot of people update online refs all the time and sometimes update the new information in the article too, but if you go for your favorite book, maybe upload your front[1] and back too for better book promotion. so both are ok, as long as the source is valid.Mion (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cost reduction[edit]

Cost reduction over a ramp-up period of about 20 years is needed in order for PEM fuel cells to compete with current market technologies, including gasoline internal combustion engines.ref name=Meyers1>Meyers, Jeremy P. "Getting Back Into Gear: Fuel Cell Development After the Hype". The Electrochemical Society Interface, Winter 2008, pp. 36–39, accessed 7 August 2011/ref

I think the whole reference is outdated, 5 years have passed, next to that it contained no proper arguments why. so i removed it. Mion (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Meyers' article is well-researched, with rigorous sourcing. I don't think we can ignore it in the cost discussion, until we can replace it with more recent peer-reviewed research (or real-world data) that covers the same points about commercialization and profitability of the technology in automobiles. Once fuel cell cars are introduced, we should have newer real-world cost data. BTW, the DOE estimates that are currently cited all assume high-volume production of 500,000 units. Once fuel cell vehicles are introduced commercially, volume will not be anything like 500,000 units for many years (if ever), so the government's estimates are purely hypothetical. I clarified this and replaced a clearer statement about what Meyers is saying, noting that his article was written in 2008. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The 500,000 are not only automotive fuel cells, the technology is shared in stationary FC and such which prob hit 100,000 units in 2015 already, that article is outdated as Meyers failed to take that into account.Mion (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
see [2].Mion (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the US government source (its footnote 1) says that the hypothetical costs are based on the manufacture of 500,000 fuel cell cars per year. So when the cars are actually sold in show rooms, we'll see the sticker price and the number of units sold, and then new and more reliable estimates may become available. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
yes, they made a hugh mistake in vision on the market until 2012, i'm glad the market is correcting it as we see a turn around in 2013 in the USA.Mion (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Daimler states that a mass market is only 100,000 ""the term ‘mass-market’, Truckenbrodt said this equated to volumes of 100,000 vehicles over the product lifecycle"""[3]
Lets first go from 2012 to 2013 for the Doe report[4], new measure values where introduced, there we see that the 500,000 figure is produced by Strategic Analysis, Inc, the presentation:[5], an impressive break down of costs of a PEMFC, which could be in any system, different production numbers are mentioned including the 100,000.Mion (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

[left] Agreed. I put in the 2013 DOE estimates. We need to be clear that actual commercial production of automotive fuel cells has not yet begun. Please see WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." George W. Bush projected that you would be driving a hydrogen car today, but you're not. Schwartzenegger said there would be a hydrogen highway from LA to Canada by 2010, but there is not. Every single projection about hydrogen cars has proved to be a disappointment. Once we have some actual sales figures and sale prices, there will be encyclopedic information to write about, and all of these silly projections can go away. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. both Bush and Schwartzenegger are politians, their main job is to enable options and make people enthousiast, in fact they made a good research network, and as usual in Nation politics, the time line is less important. And i am not so sure that actual commercial production of automotive fuel cells has not begun as the Daimler plant in Canada produced its first automated automotive fuel cell[6] and a few Asians are in the same stage, as for the factual numbers, follow the news. Mion (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

market refs[edit]

needs to be updated in time .Mion (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Is there a cite or not? Why did you delete the old cite? Should we just delete the information about deliveries? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
need some time to work on it for proper reference for double checking, growth numbers are not to far off, but yearly shipments is quested.Mion (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
When you add cites, please add all the required information, including author name, publication and publisher information, dates and, if available, page numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
when you feel the added refs need additional info from the article, feel free to add them yourself, its not a reason to remove proper refs. see Help:Citations quick reference - footnotes , Mion (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
and tell me, what was your reason to remove the second reference too ? i reverted that edit, as i dont agree with it.Mion (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The reference I removed did not support the text that you added. Also, I had fixed many spelling errors and typos. Please correct errors, don't add them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

[left] Feel free to add the drop-in info with a proper reference, but don't revert to the version with all the typos and other errors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/,
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Update article[edit]

this article can be update by fr.wikipedia version.

Introduction clarity[edit]

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure "Hydrogen produced from the steam methane reforming of natural gas" (2nd para.) doesn't make any sense. I don't know what it should be, but maybe it could be reworded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileperegrine (talkcontribs) 07:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)