Jump to content

Talk:Lithium-ion battery

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2602:306:cfce:1ee0:119b:90ac:21f7:9541 (talk) at 12:09, 1 October 2017 (→‎So called "low discharge," NiMH batteries: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Longer-term historical perspective, and projected futures

The article seems to have a lot of snapshot/current material, but the Historical section doesn't have good info on the energy density and power density of lithium-ion batteries over time. It seems to me that we would have a better article if this were improved.

Same breadth is missing on future projections of where this technology is, or can be, going. This article in Nature Energy is a good summary overview of the future work areas: Foundations for the future: Challenges remain in understanding battery processes that govern operation and limit performance,

Includes this, which might be helpful for improving the historical progress part of the problem:

Batteries store electricity in the form of chemical energy. Portable electronic devices, electrified transportation, and grid-scale applications require batteries that are environmentally benign, safe, possess high energy density and long cycle life, and consist of low-cost materials. The commercialization of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in the early 1990s is regarded as the most significant milestone in the revival of battery technologies since their invention by Alessandro Volta at the end of the 18th century. Despite remarkable achievements in the development of lithium-ion batteries in recent decades, the speed of battery development remains rather incremental: over the past 25 years the energy density of commercial lithium-ion batteries has increased fairly linearly by just under a factor of four. State-of-the-art commercial lithium-ion batteries have an energy density of less than 300 Wh/kg, which falls short of the US Department of Energy's target of 400 Wh/kg by 2017.

—N2e (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future Developments

What's the policy for handling 'news' vs. 'main' issues? LIB is such a broad and active area, that there is always 'news' that could fall into many sections, or sometimes one event might be mentioned in many sections. It looks like this article is primarily for main, well established content and that 'news' should be handled separately.

I pushed the yasunaga Nov-2016 announcement to research.

I'm going to add text under 'Terminology' that redirects news to the main research article.

If there's a better/preferred way, let me know. I see a lot of activity in history, but not much chatter under talk, re news vs main stream policy. LarryLACa (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the link for the reference How to rebuild a Li-Ion battery pack currently number 66, is no longer available on the given link but is available via the wayback machine but not from the most recent snapshots. I was able to find the, probably, intended link at: http://web.archive.org/web/20120101184353/http://www.electronics-lab.com/articles/Li_Ion_reconstruct/index.html which also included a link to download the article as a .pdf file: http://web.archive.org/web/20120103172408/http://www.electronics-lab.com/articles/Li_Ion_reconstruct/How%20to%20rebuild%20a%20Li-Ion%20pack.pdf

I am not clear how to fix this up - hoping someone else has the ability to do it. SlySven (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick & dirty. :) Thanks! -Purgy (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Lithium-ion battery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

batteryuniversity.com

May I please ask for a source for discrediting batteryuniversity.com website? When and why and by whom has this been done?

I know of the other appearance of this reverted tag, and in no way I want to fight against this opinion, I just want to know, and a single revert appears to me as a cheap means to get to know. -Purgy (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purgy Purgatorio: batteryuniversity.com is been generally discredited in most parts of the industry almost since its appearance (and there is no such organisation anyway). The web site certainly gives the appearance of being authoritative and unless you are in the know, most observers will believe it (and some equipment suppliers have erroneously included features to offset a non existent 'feature' claimed by the book and/or web site).
The website was created by one Isidor Buchmann with the sole intention of promoting his equally discredited book. Neither the web site nor the book have any backing from a recognised authority on lithium-ion batteries (Cadex International does not count as Buchmann is its CEO). They are both self published sources so they, and any derived source, is unacceptable to Wikipedia standards anyway. If you try to use batteryuniversity as a reference for a claim in an article you will find it is black listed. Buchmann wrote his book at a time when the battery manufacturers were very reluctant to give out any information about their batteries. Whenever there is an informational vacuum, charlatans spring up to fill the void. Buchmann did this by hoovering up every unproven 'fact' he could find on blogs, usenet and chat rooms and putting it in what appeared to be the only authoritative book at the time.
The how to rebuild a Li-ion battery pack document contains many pieces of information that were originally documented at batteryuniversity.com as did many other papers at the time. The nonsense about batteries lasting longer if kept at 40% charge rather than full charge came entirely from Buchmann, and has been denied by the battery manufacturers (and is demonstrably untrue). Indeed if Buchmann (and How to rebuild a Li-on battery pack) were to be believed, no lithium-ion battery pack could possibly last longer than two years. Buchmann came up with his unfounded 'facts' to explain why many laptop users required a new battery after about two years. The reality was that using them on battery every day meant that the charge/discharge life was used up in around two years (and that life was only 500-800 cycles in early batteries - there are 730 days in two years). There are no shortage of examples of much less used batteries that are well over twenty years old - something impossible according to Buchmann.
Buchmann was also responsible for the nonsense about laptop batteries' lives being shortened when left in a laptop running from AC. His claim was that the batteries were being overcharged (because AC was connected). If this was true then there would have been a lot of battery fires (because overcharging 'always' results in a battery fire). The reality was that the batteries were being heated up by the laptop's internal components (processor, hard drive, graphics processor etc.). Lithium-ion batteries do not like temperatures much above 25 Celcius (not the 45 Celcius Buchmann claims). Some laptops did not suffer this problem but only because the heat producing parts were away from the battery (not usually deliberately, but by the luck of the design)
By the way, I have worked with Lithium-ion battery powered systems for over 25 years and have access to much real information on these batteries, though much of it is under non-disclosure agreements for reasons that are unlikely to become clear. --Elektrik Fanne 13:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your ample and plausible explanation of your reasons to hold it as discredited. -Purgy (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Purgy Purgatorio: There was an exhaustive discussion on the subject at the time batteryuniversity was blacklisted. It is probably in an archive somewhere. May we restore the unreliable source tag? --Elektrik Fanne 13:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, please do to your preferences. I thought it were evident from my question that I do not object. Reverting my own edit is, according to my taste, not sufficiently sourced by explicit refs. :D Cheers! -Purgy (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Older reference: /Archive_1#batteryuniversity.com. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditioning

I came to the Wikipedia LIB page trying to find the truth about LIB DoD and SOC storage impacts on battery life (defined either as number of full discharge/charge cycles or lifetime A-h capacity). The page is extremely opaque on this. Given where we've been (see /Archive_1#batteryuniversity.com above), I've updated the conditioning section to note conditioning as unfounded. I know it needs a citation, but I'm erring on the side of being useful instead of formality. Sorry, but I think this is one of the points users want to see. LarryLACa (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thing is, conditioning with regards to batteries happens in the industry. Solid electrolyte interface formation and hence loss of Li-ions from the electrolyte would be detrimental to the cells, so this happens before the final cell is closed & filled with the electrolyte that is in the finished electrolyte. You are completely right that conditioning as in especially NiMH is not necessary.--Ischariot ucl (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electrochemistry

The reaction under electrochemistry appears to come from a battery manufacturers data sheet that has been withdrawn and is currently linked to an extract from web archives. The style of chemical notation with "x-1" and x notation doesn't make a lot of sense and the reference isn't ideal. There also seems minor issues with the balancing of reaction.

There is an alternative reaction in course notes hosted by the University of Florida at http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Documents/SLC/SLC%20Subject%20Supplement%20-%20Lesson%2012%20Final.doc that derive from a variety of organisations, including Griffith University, providing half cell and full reactions with primary references to textbooks. Although this source is promising, I'm not certain the site hosting the paper intends the content to be public, nor am I certain the copyright holder wishes this to be open on the web. I've taken the reaction provided, edited the Wikipedia article to comment out the original reaction and references and amend new reactions with references to the primary sources in the link. This would be in the spirit of a reference to the primary sources.

I've retained the original reference in a subsequent paragraph, where it seems to be more reliable.

Hopefully this passes independent scrutiny and enhances this article. (Peguin blue (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Peguin blue, if you have a reasonable belief that the page cited may disappear at some point from the Internet, you should ensure that it is archived, and a link to the archived content also placed in the article (I didn't check the edits, so I'm not sure if this was done already). --Izno (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Izno Hi; thanks for commenting Izno. I probably haven't articulated myself clearly. The issue is that I've found a secondary source (linked above) with simpler half cell reactions that trace back to two primary references. The primary references are books, so I've included these, with the reactions, in the main article. However the secondary reference looks like copyright material that may not have intentionally been made available freely on the web. If I initiate an archival of that secondary source, I may be compounding inadvertent release with copyright violation. The secondary source looks solid and its content citing primary sources should equally be solid. Those can be used in the main article, since they are textbooks. However, I'm not keen for Wikipedia to be known for exposing copyright material or initiating duplication of copyright material on its main pages. You can look at the secondary source in the link above to assess whether you agree with my assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peguin blue (talk • contribs) 09:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anodes

--Hi, would it be worth adding a new article on anode materials & development thereof. The section is not up to either scientific standard nor does it include the reasons for why we don't just use alloying materials like lithium. Ischariot ucl (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC) An article on anode materials for Li-ion batteries split into intercalation, conversion and alloying materials might make sense.[reply]

@Ischariot - I have partially addressed the issue of 'new development' by referencing Research in lithium-ion batteries in the main article, see also Future Developments. I think the Researc article is a reasonable place to focus news. From my limited exposure there is an unsurveyable wealth of variation of LIB design. Just last years articles on LIB nano tech alone exceeds the available effort to surface them in Wikipedia. Perhaps the Research section would be a good place to expand on variety. LarryLACa (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LarryLACa - Very valid points. It just feels fairly arbitrary what is included and what isn't as research, which I can live with in the research article, because as you rightly say there is an insurmountable wealth of it, but why pick out certain developments in the main article? Maybe just shift everything over to the research article. --Ischariot ucl (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Power

The specific power is currently listed as ~250-~340 W/kg, according to a 7-year old reference to panasonic's website. This: https://na.industrial.panasonic.com/sites/default/pidsa/files/ur18650rx.pdf spec sheet from panasonic indicates a specific power up to 800 W/kg, based on a 46-gram battery providing 10 amps at 3.7 volts. Higher drain batteries exist, but I can't find a spec sheet as detailed or credible to indicate that.

Theoretical maximum voltage from the chemistry

Like for article Alkaline battery it would be nice to have included the theoretical maximum voltage from the chemistry. --Mortense (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lithium-ion battery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So called "low discharge," NiMH batteries

In this section; Lithium-ion_battery#Self-discharge, so called "low discharge," NiMH batteries are described as if they were the hot, new, rare technology, when in fact they are now the default type, and the older now obsolete high discharge NiMH batteries are not easy to find, —not the default as implied. As the reference to this old, now outdated impression of NiMH, a 13 year old cite is given. (There is a new NiMH chemistry on the market every six months.) The problem is; it is unfair, widespread, (and I suspect partly industry-motivated) to compare new Li-ion chemistry with obsolete NiMH chemistry. In context of the section and paragraph, one wonders why the older crap was even mentioned (as I suggested in my comment.).

Some manufacturers now brag of 1-year charge holding capacity and are attempting to encroach on the alkaline market. "Rayovac Rechargeable LD715-8OPA AA 1350mAh"..."Replaces Alkaline AA Cell."

The only old chemistry NiMH AA Batteries I cold find online were for original equipment replacement and for "solar [garden] lights." Inferior in every way, including price.


I corrected the article, immediately it was reverted. (Same-same in the NiMH article...hmmmmm)

Original Wiki said: 

"For comparison, the self-discharge rate is over 30% per month for common nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries,[1] dropping to about 1.25% per month for low self-discharge NiMH batteries, and 10% per month in nickel-cadmium batteries."

I changed to: 

For comparison, the self-discharge rate is over 30% per month for older obsolete chemistry nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries,[1] dropping to about 1.25% per month for common modern low self-discharge NiMH batteries, and 10% per month in nickel-cadmium batteries.

But I should have changed to: 

For comparison, the self-discharge rate is  about 1.25% per month for common modern incorrect link: low self-discharge NiMH batteries, and 10% per month in nickel-cadmium batteries.


So called "low discharge," AA batteries are now to be expected; this site: https://www.gamut.com/p/duracell-battery-nimh-aa-battery-size-2400-mah-capacity-NzgwNjE=?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&adpos=1o4&scid=scplp174K882&sc_intid=174K882&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhNanrfzO1gIVhWp-Ch0T7w3iEAQYBCABEgJX9vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CIz2mJP9ztYCFch9AQodYOUA6g does not even bother to mention they are "low discharge," however, they are: https://www.duracell.com/en-us/product/rechargeable-battery Soon, "low discharge," will be as dated as "talking" motion pictures, "color" TV, and "electric" toaster.

I intend to undue the revert. --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:119B:90AC:21F7:9541 (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lithium-ion_battery&oldid=803253398"