Talk:Lead–acid battery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Sign on half cell potential for lead oxide reaction wrong[edit]

For the cell to be non spontaneous in the "charging" direction as written, converting lead sulfate to lead oxide and lead metal, both half reactions as drawn should have negative cell potentials. if you flip the sign on the reaction shown so the potentials are -1.685 for lead sulfate --> lead oxide and -0.356 for lead sulfate --> lead, you get a full cell potential of -2.041 volts when charging. reverse them to show the discharge reaction, you'd get +2.041 volts when discharging indicating spontaneous reaction. this matches reality. as written, with the lead acetate --> lead oxide reaction as a positive potential,this page shows the charging reaction to be spontaneous with a potential of 1.329 V. (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reference: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, reverse the sign. While discharging, it should read -1.69V as its written on the page. (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the given spec, watt hours per dollar, supposed to really say amp hours per dollar?[edit]

There are some batteries that last longer than 800 cycles[edit]

Sungel has batteries that are supposed to last 1,500 cycles. Here's a link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are many. These are US made, UL listed too. Lifeline RV Batteries 1000+ Cycles @ 50%DOD
Lifeline Marine Batteries 1000+ Cycles @ 50%DOD
SunXtender Marine Batteries 1000+ Cycles @ 50%DOD
Chairman Wheelchair Batteries 1000+ Cycles @ 50%DOD mukster 07:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukster (talkcontribs)

Anode's reaction may be false![edit]

Hey, my professor recently showed us the anode half reaction for this battery and SO4-, according to him, is supposed to be HSO4-, which deprotonates into SO4 2- and H+ with 2 electrons given up. This makes much more sense, since SO4 2- is the correct form of sulfate, and lead would rather have a 2+ oxidation anyway. It's an image, so i don't know how to fix it.

I believe you are correct. The reactions given in this article are appropriate to dilute battery acid. At the high concentrations of sulfuric acid in an actual battery, the reactions should involve HSO4- at each electrode. The voltages given may be correct, since they seem to add up to about the correct value. Sandman42 13:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a water molecule was missing in the cathode equation. HarfangGS (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Recycling PBA Effective?[edit]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Zarautz 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)==Recycling PbA effective?== I remember reading that most PbA batteries ended up in piles in Indonesia. Can we have a good primary source reference that lead is actually recycled? (It seems believable, considering how easy lead is to handle and refine, but you never know). --njh 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MikeC195607:49, 09 September 2006 (UTC) The opening of the article states "Lead-acid batteries, invented in 1859 by French physicist Gaston Planté, are the oldest type of galvanic cell and are the most commonly used rechargeable batteries today.[Citation Needed] Well information for this statement may be found at Encyclopedia Britannica

In the United States, 99.2% of Lead Acid Batteries were recycled per EPA regulations. Please look here for documentation at Battery Council International. [[1]BCIRecylingRateStudyReport.pdf] mukster 00:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How to charge PBAs[edit]

Can somebody give a list of how PBAs are charged? (unsigned comment from anon)

BCI would have this information.

I'd love to see some sort of introduction to rechargable batteries for the hobbiest. Of the common types (PbA, NiMH, NiCd, & Li+), I'm not sure which is the easiest to charge - i.e., most resilient to 'dumb' charging from a solar cell, generator, etc. (Unsigned comment by 02:58, 17 August 2006, UTC)

Some of that information is in the Rechargeable battery page (which is hurting for more information and a good review at the moment). Of course, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, but I imagine quite a bit more could be said on that page. For your own edification, there are battery charging ICs that you can buy that take care of safely charging many different chemistries for under 10 bucks. The 'dumbest' batteries are indeed lead acids (in my experience), while the newer batteries need more complex control circuitry (like the Lithiums that are always exploding in laptops). But you do need to be careful designing charging circuitry for any chemistry. (Please remember to sign your talk pages). Matt B. 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The battery University site has good info on recharging PBAs. The link is already on the rechargable battery page. <>. Dan Oetting 15:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no such organisation as the battery university. That site exists and is run by one Isador Buchmann in order to promote his largely discredited book. That site has also been discredited. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merges[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm going to get started on cleaning up some of the existing sections of this article. However, it seems to me that Gel Battery, Absorbent glass mat and VRLA would fit much better into a "Types of Lead-Acid Batteries" subsection here. I'm going to add {{mergeinto}} tags to each of the articles, but I would imagine discussion would be most helpful here since it should be an all-or-nothing kind of thing -- it wouldn't be very productive if just one article moved :). Matt B. 11:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed in principle. But VRLA (Valve Regulated Lead Acid) is a wider class than the other two, ie it is usual to have a VRLA gel battery or a VRLA AGM battery. Gel and AGM describe the electrolyte status, VRLA is just a safety valve to avoid gas build up in a sealed container. But I'm no expert. Zarautz 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the way I worded it makes it sound like they are three different types. More precisely, I would imagine that Gel Battery and AGM would be subtopics of VRLA, which would be in a section under types of lead acid batteries (along with the old-fashioned wet version). I suppose theoretically you could make a Gel or AGM battery that isn't valve regulated, but I've never heard of such a beast (nor could I fathom a rationale for doing so). Matt B. 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a perfect match.

Further comment re different types of lead acid batteries:

I accessed this article to learn the difference between a deep cycle battery vs a traction battery. In terms of usefulness of this article, I think the different "design styles" of lead acid batteries should be listed - Starter, Marine, Deep Cycle, Traction, etc, and the differences and specific applications discussed. CofE001 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many types of batteries technologies that fill this in. Yes all sizeable batteries have vents, but would you please turn over your car battery and see the result :) acid everywhere! SO THE VALVES MATTER PER APPLICATION. The first main distinction is sealed or not (aka can you EVER take the lid off of it!) Next is voltage, plate thickness, construction methods, etc. some are distinct to a few distributors, patented, etc. Some are general and anyone can build em. Should you make the move to a more defined criteria list you are in danger of giving companies spaces. Throw them all together and you can't tell the difference when you don't know better. IS WIKIPEDIA GOING TO BE AN Encyclopedia Based Directory with examples of it's own? THEN WE NEED THE SPACE. I say leave em alone and maybe even add a section where you put batteries together by manufacturer or application. The Manufacturers can't do this as each only has a brand or two, but we can (GOOGLE PRECEDENT). Bigger is Better, CONTENT IS WHAT MAKES THIS POWERFUL. Mukster 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How effective are recycling programs?[edit]

In the Enviromental Cleanup Section:

The article mentions that new versions of recycling are needed to cut down on polution. Does anyone know exactly how poluting current Recycling programs are?

Also, that whole section doesn't sound very professional.

"Effective Lead pollution control system is a necessity for sustainable environment. There is a continuous improvement in battery recycling plants and furnace designs for greater efficiencies. These recycling plants are ecology friendly as they follow all emission standards for lead smelters, but new methods should be devised or alternatives developed to the lead-acid battery so that lead pollution can be reduced to an essentially negligible amount."

Sounds alittle one-sided... -- 06:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Thanh Ho== How effective are recycling programs? ==

In the Enviromental Cleanup Section:

The article mentions that new versions of recycling are needed to cut down on polution. Does anyone know exactly how poluting current Recycling programs are?

Also, that whole section doesn't sound very professional.

"Effective Lead pollution control system is a necessity for sustainable environment. There is a continuous improvement in battery recycling plants and furnace designs for greater efficiencies. These recycling plants are ecology friendly as they follow all emission standards for lead smelters, but new methods should be devised or alternatives developed to the lead-acid battery so that lead pollution can be reduced to an essentially negligible amount."

Sounds alittle one-sided...

Internationally - Maybe. In the United States, Definitely Not! The lead-acid battery gains its environmental edge from its closed-loop life cycle. The typical new lead-acid battery contains 60% to 80% (sometimes 90%+) recycled lead and plastic. When a spent battery is collected, it is sent to a permitted recycler where, under strict environmental regulations, the lead and plastic are reclaimed and sent to a new battery manufacturer. The recycling cycle goes on indefinitely. That means the lead and plastic in the lead-acid battery in your car, truck, boat or motorcycle have been - and will continue to be -- recycled many, many times. This makes lead-acid battery disposal extremely successful from both environmental and cost perspectives.

BCI, Battery Council International, is the lead acid battery industry group in charge of industry standards. They have acted as a leader, actively promoting the recycling of spent lead-acid batteries and the use of recycled materials in the production of new batteries. As such the organization collects statistical data to provide the annual recycling rate of lead-acid batteries. BCI also developed model battery recycling legislation at both the state and federal levels in the U.S., as a way to efficiently recover valuable resources and keep recyclable materials out of the waste stream. The model has been adopted by legislatures in 37 states across the country.
US Lead Recycling Report ([2]Battery Council International - National Recycling Report 1999-2003)
([3]BCI Battery Recycling Page, ) mukster 00:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


The reaction shows that Lead Dioxide is on the Negative side, but later is says "The positive plates gradually turn the chocolate brown colour of Lead Dioxide" What's the deal?

Odd number of plates[edit]

"An odd number of plates is always used, with one more negative plate than positive." If there are 6 cells in series, how can this be true? --G N Frykman 08:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Each cell consists of alternating plates tied together to increase the surface area. K4ZL 11:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the books, the positive plate "grows" a little as lead dioxide is transformer to lead sulfate. To prevent one-sided growth from distorting the positive plate, it is exposed to negative plates on both side so that the forces will be symmetrical. So, one more negative plate than positive plates. --Wtshymanski 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The number of plates, or for that matter, the general composition of any battery has no bearing on the number cells that constitute that battery. For instance 6 AA batteries lined up end to end would create a 6 cell, 9 volt battery. If packaged in something like a banana, paper towel tube, or similar non conductive material it could be sold as a 9 volt. 6 batteries x 1.5 volts = 9 volts. Slippery, but feasible, cheap test to run with a battery tester.
Look at 2,6,12, and 24 volt batteries. The difference is the number of cells. Per this discussion, a VRLA Battery cell generates roughly 1.8 - 2.4 volts. They explicitly say 12 volt 6 cell battery - so divide by 6. ([4]Lead-acid battery WIKI PAGE)
Series Connections (Positive to Negative)

Add voltage to the system So 1 cell is a 1.9-2.4 volt battery sold as a 2 volt model. 3 Cells constitutes a 6 volt battery, and so on.

Parallel Connections (Positive to Positive)

Add amperage (sometimes referred to as current) to the system. So 3 cells in parallel are still at 2.1- 2.4 volts, but have 3x amperage.

Volts X Amps = Watts. Watts is common light bulb speak for power consumption.

Each 12 volt 50 watt lightbulb needs 4.2 amps to light them up. 50w/12v=4.2a

Each battery design must weigh these three things

composition (acid, gel, li-ion), cell structure (# and configuration of cells), and resources (weight, size, lifespan). The best batteries engineer specific compromises between these elements to produce power.

Mukster 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Approx how much does a typical lead-acid battery 2.1V cell weigh? {Weight of a cell is dependant upon the Ampere-Hour of the cell - there is no such thing as a "typical" cell.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Even number of plates[edit]

I was a battery design engineer and we had even number plate designs as did every US Manufacturer.

Then I wouldn't like to buy one of your batteries. Every battery I have come across (US and the rest of the world) has an odd number of plates. Wtshymanski was spot on above with the reason. I believe that perhaps he should have gone the extra mile and put the reason in the article. (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If the positive plate is subject to working surface impairment then the solution is to place it between the 2 negative plates in the cell. This occurs in other battery systems as well.WFPM (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

weird wording (electochemistry)[edit]

Each cell contains (in the charged state) electrodes of lead metal (Pb) and lead (IV) oxide (PbO2) in an electrolyte

seems like it would make more sense as:

.. contains in the charged state, electrodes of lead metal (Pb) and in an electrolyte, lead IV oxide (PbO2) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T boyd (talkcontribs) 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

The former statement is more appropriate since the electrodes are BOTH submerged in electrolyte. Prince jofer (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying. How about something like this:

  • In the charged state, each cell contains an electrolyte of approximately 33.5% v/v (4.2 Molar) sulfuric acid (H2SO4), between electrodes of elemental lead (Pb) and lead IV oxide (PbO2).

--DavidCary (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Exploding Batteries[edit]

I have added a section on the problem of exploding batteries to address the issues already raised. I work in forensic engineering, and dealt with a recent problem where a mechanic lost an eye through lifting an old battery from a car. I am posting the section because it is an unusual hazard that users should know about so as to prevent possible future problems. Peterlewis 16:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can a jolt cause a spark to jump between the terminals? Is this different from normal sparks from static electricity on people's clothing? Kallog 07:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd to me, static electricity shouldn't be able to build up inside a battery, nor should anything else cause a spark inside, perhaps if you short out or mistreat the battery in a similar way, it would case enough heat to set of an explosion. I suspect the most likely scenario would be that the casing simply exploded because of the built up pressure inside the battery. Batteries exploding is probably extremely rare, would be nice to see some statistics. --Apis O-tang 03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apis O-tang (talkcontribs)

I have witnessed a static discharge on the outside of a battery jar ignite the hydrogen contained within the jar. The act of touching a jar without first discharging any static electricity on one's person can cause such an explosion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the quantity of Lead in a Lead-Acid Battery?[edit]

I want to know What is the Quantity of Lead in the lead Acid Battery? 12:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Ranjeet

Lead content is probably in the range of 95% or more. Lead is used for both the positive and negative plates and the interconnection conductor bars and the battery terminals. The only non-lead components are the battery case, water, and acid. The plastic or glass battery case is quite thick though, since it has to be structurally strong enough to not rip apart or shatter when picked up. DMahalko (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The article quotes the Linden handbook as saying an automotive lead-acid battery is about 60% lead by weight. You couldn't make it 95%, you need electrolyte and a case. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


What is the density of Lead-acid batteries (kg/m^3 or whatever). I'm guessing about (11+2)/2 = 6.5 kg/L but wondering if anyone has real data? --Jaded-view 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The energy density and energy/size measures suggest a range of 1500 - 2500kg/m^3. -- answering my own question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaded-view (talkcontribs) 16:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Deposition here any depositon tecniques for lead,lead dioxide are present it is more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Float voltages[edit]

I think a typo crept into the article under the heading "electrochemistry." Flooded cells typically require the highest charging voltages, gel cells the lowest, AGM somewhere in between. The float values are listed backwards in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Surprising explosions[edit]

I am surpised, having studied this phenomena in several batteries, and it is worth emphasising for reasons of consumer safety. If you have a problem with public safety, please air your concerns here and desist reverting without discussion Peterlewis (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

CSIRO's UltraBattery[edit]

I don't know much about batteries so can someone with a better understanding of the problem go over this article about a supposedly revolutionary new generation of lead-acid batteries and update Wikipedia accordingly? Thank you. (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sulfate Ions[edit]

Don't sulfate ions migrate through the wires unless countermeasures are taken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Is there another image? The current image better belongs to the VRLA article. (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

is the one I just added better?Traveler100 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)DYHYHFD

Environmental concerns[edit]

This reads like a novel. Battery "progress" is ongoing and a continuous process. There are no "current attempts" Furthermore there is no such thing as a nickel-manganese battery, if there is i'd like to get some, they should be much cheaper and more friendly than NiCd/NiMH.

reverted back to my edit on july 5th, language may be coarse but the difference is critical. I would like to point out that the original change from ni-mh to nickle-manganese about a year ago was also dubious, and has no reference. Unit cost of nickel is a mute point, it may be 10 times more expensive than lead, but its mass is 1/4 and furthermore the ratio of active material to total plate mass, there is no comparison. NiCd is expensive for just about every reason from the case, to the electrolyte to the cadmium, not the high price of nickel, also note that wikipedia doesn't have a $/Wh listed for NiCd —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Why are there only reactions for the recharging of the battery but not the spontaneous reactions which produce voltages (i.e. the actual function of the battery)? I think there should be both.--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


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

The result of the move request was no consensus for moveJuliancolton | Talk 03:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead-acid batteryLead-acid electrochemical cell — The electrochemical battery is simply a pair of electrochemical cells. this article deals around how this type of cell works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The present title is common and accurate. I can go into Canadian Tire and ask where they keep the lead-acid batteries, but if I ask for electrochemical cells I'll be directed to some laboratory (if I'm lucky). --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The common name is lead acid battery and the name of the article should remain as is. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I oppose all these moves for the same reason, they are at the common name and moving them will not make the encyclopedia better. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely not. The Wikipedia name should be the common name used for the technology in vernacular usage. The cell chemistry is important and should merely be described in a section on Lead-Acid cell chemistry. N2e (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose and suggest speedy close (is that possible?). This is not what the general public would be looking for. HumphreyW (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "battery" is almost always used by consumers, battery manufacturers, etc. TJ Spyke 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: Converted to multimove due to the similarity of the requests. (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Could we get some science on the additives before putting them back in the article? There are lots of Web stories on the level of getting another few starts from a "dead" motorcycle battery with EDTA, but no-one has done any real science. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Battery images[edit]

Given that the first image I made was deleted inmediatelly, I'm placing the links to the images here for reupload to the article. In case improvements to the images need to be done, please state so so I can implement them.

Image 2

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

KVDP (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Accumulatory" is a poor name, should perhaps be "accumulator". Numbers in the captions don't appear on the figure, so no way to identify what parts are described. It's not called "filler material", the lead dioxide and lead sulfate are the active material that makes the battery work. The fiberglass mat is the separator, they aren't separate.Light grey and yellow text is illegible on a light background. And the spelling of "sulfuric" is wrong. Similar remarks for the other figure; they are called "plates", not panels. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, will work on removing the extra "seperator" soon, in all images. Will also correct the sulpheric typo. As for the colors, ... I don't think I can alter this, materials have their own unique color and changing this for the sake of making the text more readable would make the image less clear. Also, I looked into using numbers in the drawing but the image has too bad a quality to use these (numbers would be too small/pixelated and thus unreadable, also hard to place them inside of the image). Perhaps these other issues can be resolved with an svg of the image later-on. Otherwise, people can use the new image I made called EC battery electric wiring (more accurate/clear). KVDP
Finished; note that I didn't change the drawing itself of the accumulatory image since I intented to show a different part; had the name wrong though, changed this. Changed text below too. (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Over at Commons I've reverted your upload of the first image, tagged your wiring diagram for deletion and raised your recent contributions on the vandalism noticeboard.
  • Don't upload over other people's work. This wasn't a derivative image, it was a whole new image - so use a different filename. Overwriting others creates problems for licensing, your images aren't good enough to warrant it and most of all it's just plain damned rude to the original uploader.
I just saw it as a retouching of the image; the only thing I did was add some coloring and remove the second battery (which btw didn't have any function anyhow). Given that the original file only appeared in 1 (russian) article, and given the lack of things indicated on the image or clearly shown parts, I think the original uploader would be quite happy seeing his image improved/made more useful. I don't think that he will appreciate the newly added "no permission" template neither; for all we know (we don't speak russian I think, so we can't read his image description), he made the image himself, and also had it shown at KVDP (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It was already in use at :ru:, and you thought it would be a good idea to replace it with another, covered in English-language text? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Your wiring bears no relation to reality. Once again, you demonstrate your utter lack of interest in basic technical accuracy and your disrespect for anyone who does care about such things.
I care about it too, why else would I draw it ? I wasn't completely sure whether it's correct, given that I could not find any image on the wiring on the web. I was planning to correct the image if I made a mistake based on the suggestions of the community at wiki commons. You'll probably state then again that this is unfair to the community to correct my mistakes, but really there wasn't an image before and now there is. And I did most of the work anyhow, you just need to state what needs to be changed. Is there really a problem ? I think the readers of the articles will certainly don't think so. KVDP (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You clearly don't care about accuracy, because you have shown no effort to achieve it, you frequently explain your gross fabrications as "permitted invention" and you can state things like, "I wasn't completely sure whether it's correct, given that I could not find any image on the wiring on the web." yet you continue to fabricate and upload bad images. These are not the actions of a cautious or competent editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
How can I achieve complete accuracy if there aren't any good images available and if I didn't have any training in engineering neither ? I just try to do as good a job as possible in making my images, hence relying to a degree on the quality of information that's available and then alter the image if it's still incorrect based on your instructions. It's in analogy to sculpting something in shape (correcting things version after version) rather than using a mold (the latter producing something which is completely accurate, inmediatelly). Ofcourse it's better to use a mold, but if you don't have one, you can't use the technique. As for not stopping uploading new images, I will stop, once I finish brushing up the articles that are important and still unclear to read. When that time comes, I'll disappear as swifly as I arrived here. User:KVDP
If you don't have the technical training or technical expertise in the subject then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to upload technical images in the first place? Just saying. HumphreyW (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Your continued behaviour in just these ways, and your refusal to work co-operatively on an encyclopedic project, is becoming a problem for the project, not just wasting the time of individuals.
Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been trying to work cooperatively with the community; isn't this just what I'm doing ? I don't mind spending hours and hours of my time in creating these images, just for others to get a better understanding of how things work. Isn't it suitable that every member of the community is atleast prepared to do so aswell ? If sometimes a member needs to spend some time to just state what needs to be altered on an image (thus give up far less time than the person who created this), then is this not but a fair price to pay, given the many and many people these images reach and help ? KVDP (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
"just for others to get a better understanding" Have any of your images ever communicated a better understanding? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Up until I looked at the "wiring diagram" I thought I knew how a car battery worked. Surely to goodness it can't be that hard to come up with a more physical representation of the way the plates are interconnected, without all those confusing pink lines coming out at top and bottom of the plates (or "panels" as some would have it.) None of these images are useful to explain how a battery works- the artilce is better off without them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Freezing point depression, error[edit]

The more concentrated the sulphuric is, the lower it's freezing point. The sulphuric is the depressant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This statement (as noted by unsigned above)is in error and needs to be removed. Donald Cameron, electrochemist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polydon68 (talkcontribs) 17:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement says that as the battery discharges, the sulphuric acid concentration decreases (i.e. less depressant), and the electrolyte freezing point increases. I think this is correct. Jojalozzo 03:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Storage: remove electrolyte to preserve charge?[edit]

Lets say you have a number of lead-acid battery devices which are not used frequently, such as snowmobiles, jet ski's, and so forth. As discussed in the article, lead-acid battery cells will normally slowly self-discharge in storage, and the lead plates will become sulfated and the battery life will decline.

What would happen if the electrolyte were removed from the battery cells when the equipment is stored for the year? Just drain or siphon the electrolyte out and store the acid in a plastic container next to the battery.

It would appear that this should halt the discharge process since the plates now hang in open air and there is no complete circuit from one plate to the next. The cells may retain a small amount of moisture, but this should drip off into the bottom area under the cells after a few hours.

Though draining the cells like this may be harder to do than it sounds. It may not be possible to insert a siphon tube into the fill caps on a standard car or ATV battery and be able to push the tube to the bottom of the cells, because the plates may fill the cell enough to block passage. The battery could be tipped over to drain the electrolyte out the fill holes, but they aren't designed to do that and the acid may leak all over the place, damaging the floor, etc.

Typical wet-cell lead-acid batteries appear to be designed to be filled when put into service and then never emptied completely dry after that, unless being discarded.

DMahalko (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this dry storage isn't unusual. It used to be (before sealed no-maintenance batteries) the standard way of delivering them in bulk to retail shops and garages.
I've got a 1930s MG car, a J2. Dad bought it in the 1950s and began restoration that still isn't finished. The batteries are the usual glass bottles in wooden crates for the period and these have always been dry-stored like this. Whether they're 1930s or 1950s, they're still usable if you fill them up and charge them.
It's near impossible to drain a modern battery like this, owing to the use of permeable bag separators around the plates. This splits each cell's fluid reservoir into multiple "reservoirs" and they'd need to be up-ended to drain out, not siphoned. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It should ne noted that the chemical makeup of the plates when they are manufactured and delivered as a 'dry charge' battery is not the same as what the plates become once acid is added and the battery placed in service. While removal of the acid would, on the face of it, seem to provide a storage solution, it won't in fact work. The chemical makeup of the 'in service' negative plates is such that they react with the oxygen in the air once they are exposed. This reaction is exothermic and the heat build up will result in permanent distortion of the plates. This reaction would also theoretically occur if the elecrolyte falls below the top of the plates, but in this scenario, capilliary action keeps the exposed parts of the plates moist. Even so, some oxygen will be absorbed by the electrolyte and deterioration of the exposed parts of the plates will slowly occur if the deficiency isn't quickly rectified. (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Does charge current really matter? Is general wisdom wrong?[edit]

After thinking more about the topic of battery charging, I do not understand why so much emphasis is applied to the charging current. We are told that the charging current must be limited or the battery may be damaged. This appears to be patently false if we consider a non-charging power supply.

If you were to take a 9 volt 200 amp power supply and connect it to a six-cell "12 volt" lead acid battery, it does not matter how many amps are supplied because 9 volts is not enough to "push" power into the battery. If anything the lead-acid will backfeed the 9 volt supply until the cells are depleted to the point of being damaged from discharge.

Probably the correct answer here is that the charge voltage is what really matters, and most low-end AC-powered battery chargers do very little regulation of the charge supply voltage. The cheapest chargers are little more than a transformer and a bridge diode with no filtering, so the charging voltage is basically a 50/60 Hz DC pulse train. For something as crude as this, the supply voltage is all over the place but is set to be roughly high enough to be able to push current into the battery. So in this situation, yes, limiting the charge current is a good idea because the charge voltage is unregulated and unmonitored, and it is up to the battery to be able to absorb excessive charging to a certain extent.

Probably a truly good battery charger would actually regulate the charge voltage to the hundreths of a volt, so that a float charge current really is no more than the 12.605 volts of a fully charged lead-acid battery. Then it wouldn't matter what amperage is supplied, since the battery won't accept the current if the charger supply voltage is slightly below the fully charged cell voltage by a few hundreths of a volt..

DMahalko (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your points are reasonably valid. It is true that the generally available AC mains powered car battery chargers are simple unregulated power sources. It is generally the users responsibility to note when the charge cycle is at an end by observing the dip in charging current or the gassing of the cells. Further, the ammeter on theses devices does not usually indicate the average charge current, but instead indicates the Root Mean Square of the current (because they are moving iron meters) - meaningless as far as battery charging is concerned unless you know how to convert one to the other (The conversion factor actually changes as the charge proceeds for reasons that are not likely to become clear in a simple post such as this).
If your charger has an open circuit voltage of 12.605 volts, it will fail to charge a 6 cell lead acid to any significant extent. As the battery charges, the voltage rises to somewhere around 14.4 volts (actual value dependant on chemistry, construction and even useage). The charger needs to supply at least this voltage in order to supply any current to a nearly charged battery.
Simple mains chargers of this type should never be used to charge sealed type 'maintenance free' batteries. Thes batteries use a slightly different chemistry and require a charger that cannot provide more than 14.4 volts at full charge (It is when the voltage exceeds this value that gas is generated in these constructions). Suitable chargers are more sophisticated than the simple types, often incorporating a microchip to monitor the charge and switch the charger from normal mode to a regulated constant voltage mode as the charge nears completion. The really sophisticated chargers even feature a constant current mode for when the battery is fairly discharged (3 stage charging). (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Depending on its condition, a given cell has a functional relationship between the charging voltage and current, so charging limits can be defined in terms of either or some combination. As mentioned above, hydrolysis is more easily avoided by a voltage limit. Effects that are more easily understood in terms of current include "surface charge" where there is insufficient time for ion motion to distribute the charge well through the plates. An effect better understood in terms of both is heating. The heat generated (in energy units) is approximately equal to the current times the excess voltage over the open circuit voltage. David R. Ingham (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead-Acid Battery Float Voltages Incorrect[edit]

Article is semi-locked so I can not edit it, but I want the correct information out there (I work for a company that makes float chargers).

Section 2, Voltages for Common Usages:

Continuous-preservation (float) charging: 13.4 V for gelled electrolyte; 13.5 V for AGM (absorbed glass mat) and 13.8 V for flooded cells

Should read:

Continuous-preservation (float) charging: 13.05 V for gelled electrolyte; 13.4 V for flooded cells and 13.6 V for AGM (absorbed glass mat).

These are the industry standard voltages. The presently listed voltages are much to high for gel and flooded, people may damage their batteries if they use them.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by HonestGeniusAcumen (talkcontribs) 19:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made the changes you requested. Do you have suitable sources (references) for these figures so they can be added as in-line citations to allow independent verification of the new voltages? If you do, please provide them here on the Talk page so we can add them to the article. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 10:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoa there. A new user comes here and makes unsourced statements. References should be checked before any changes are made to the page. The previous state of the page was the current consensus and it should remain that way until properly sourced references have been verified. HumphreyW (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources for information, but no "official" references I have found. Spend a few minutes on google and you shall see the present voltages are off. As I stated I work for a company that produces float chargers and we have put significant time in arriving at these voltages as the correct ones. We work closely with several battery producers, keep eyes on the competition and do our own testing.

The present voltages are off base, the fact that they are out of order says a lot as well (AGM should hands down be the highest float voltage). They were not entered by someone with experience in the battery industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HonestGeniusAcumen (talkcontribs) 23:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Show your verifiable and reliable secondary sources please. HumphreyW (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Power-Sonic makes glass-fiber-cloth sealed lead acid batteries. Their technical manual for these batteries is at: On (internal) page 18 of that manual, the recommended float-charging voltage is given at 2.26-2.31 Volt/cell for 20 deg C with a decrease of 2 mV/cell for each deg C above 20 of temperature. Multiply this by 6 for a 6 cell battery to get 13.56-13.86 at 20 deg C and a temperature coeff of -12mV/deg C. These numbers do not correspond to the values currently shown in the article. I suggest it be corrected. --New Reader of Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Like much of this article for lead-acid batteries, much of this sounds like hearsay. Voltages for FLOAT have been passed down through manuals with very little physical verification. But much worse is, the voltages for BOOST are completely missing ?? On many AGM type batteries there is a printed instruction like: float (maintenace) voltage 13.6; boost (cycle use) voltage 14.9V, with a charger manufacturer making the (good?) guess of limiting the boost voltage to 10% of the time until reaching this voltage. Michael5net (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Plates construction[edit]

I've noticed two problems in that section of the article. First, I don't recall both plates are constructed using paste, but only the positive ones (and using directly lead dioxide, not tetroxide), although it might be the technology is changed from that what I remember. The other is that although it is mentioned that grid is made from lead alloys with calcium, antimony, etc. it is not specified when it is alloyed with which metal; from what I can recall, calcium alloys are better for starter batteries, antimony for deep cycling (IIRC, perhaps it's vice versa.) I might be able to dig that information up, but my sources might be outdated and I have none in English, so it would be nice if someone else finds about that... Arny (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Both plates are constructed from paste. The idea is that the paste is porous and allows the electrolyte to contact a much greater surface area of active material. There would be no point in just making the positive plate this way if the same were not done to the negative. The capacity would be determined by the total available effective surface area of the smaller plate. (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Xelinium, 7 March 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Well, i propose to modification of the following line: "Minimize corrosion by coating with a suitable rubber or plastic spray or using a commercially available product."

To: "Corrosion in battery's terminals can be efficiently mitigated by coating them with common vaseline paste, plastic spray or using a commercially available product."

Sources: Well it's old and common practice used by many repair shops at least in Spain, France, and Italy. NB: Vaseline == Petroleum jelly.

Xelinium (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Cj005257 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Plain plates[edit]

"The lead acid cell can be demonstrated using sheet lead plates for the two electrodes. However such a construction produces only around one ampere for roughly postcard sized plates, and for only a few minutes."

The first one I built used plain roofing sheet lead, with slight surface corrosion, and gave about 1Ah per square inch of each plate. How to reconcile these 2 things? Tabby (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The only way we can on the Wikipedia - let's find a citation to a reference. Surely there exists a lab manual out there that talks about demonstrating the lead-acid principle. 1AH for plain sheet lead sounds very good, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
First: your experiment is Original Research which is not allowed, so there is nothing to reconcile. However:
If you take a very low current from the construction, you might well get an Ah out of the cell. But taking a current that will actualy do something useful, quickly exhausts the cell. This is a well known limitation of the lead acid construction where the greater the discharge current relative to capacity, the less capacity you actually get. A rule of thumb states that if you discharge a battery at 1.5C (e.g. you discharge a 10Ah battery at 15A) instead of lasting 40 minutes, as you might expect, it only lasts 20 minutes. Higher discharge rates lower the capacity even more. The actual derating depends on cell construction and our simple cell exhibits the effect far more than a plante plate construction would. The derating curves for any battery can be found in almost any manufacturer's data leaflet - an example of which can be found here (the curves in question are on page 2 and 3). As you can see discharging at 1C, the battery lasts 40 minutes instead of an hour and discharging at 6C gives less than 3 1/2 minutes instead of 10 minutes. (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


SLA cover off 4964-2.jpg

Picture of SLA with top cover off, showing that SLAs are in reality VRLAs, something not mentioned in the article. (SLA is the most widely used term for VRLAs.)) Tabby (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 14 May 2011[edit]

In the paragraph 'Initial Charge' under the title 'Electrochemistry' there is a mistake with one of the words. The sentence The process is driven by the forcible removal of electrons from the cathode and the forcible introduction of them to the cathode. is very contradictory. The first 'cathode' (in bold) should be changed to 'anode'. This is because electrons are removed from the cathode, not the anode. It occurs in redox reactions, where the oxidation and reduction can be remembered through 'Oil Rig'. Oxidation is loss, Reduction is gain. The anode experiences oxidation, and the cathode experiences reduction. Therefore the sentence should be corrected to: The process is driven by the forcible removal of electrons from the anode and the forcible introduction of them to the cathode.

Regards, Stefan

FWIW, Stefan, when I wrote that it was in a little larger context, which has been whittled away. The "forcible" was meant to explain the reversal. I kept the anode/cathode terminology constant for the battery, which was temporarily reversed during recharging. Riventree (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 21:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Voltages[edit]

There seems to be a discrepancy between the open-circuit voltages given for a battery at full discharge:

Under "Voltages for common usages" it is 11.8 V to 12.0 V at 20 deg C (and this is confirmed by which mentions 11.89 V at about 70 deg F)

But in the graph under "Measuring the charge level", full discharge (0%) is given as 10.5 V while 11.8 V corresponds to about 40% charge.

Keep Well, CBLZA (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this. I've discharged 12v lead-acid batteries to less than 6v at room temperature, and if discharged long enough, I'm sure it could get down close to zero. If you can read a voltage, then there must be at least a minute amount of charge left in order to get a voltage reading. Note the article states an "approximate" charge capacity also.-- (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is true that you can discharge a battery to 0v as you have discovered. However, if you repeatedly do this you risk damaging the battery. An individual cell should not be discharged below 1.8v in order to avoid irreversable effects in the chemistry. For a 6 cell battery, this works out at 10.8v, but as the 1.8v figure is rounded, the minimum voltage is regarded as 10.5v. Most rechargeable chemistries have a minimum voltage beyond which they should not be discharged. The only exception that leaps to mind is the Nickel-Cadmium cell which can be discharged to 0v (but not reversed). (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Capacitorial, 4 August 2011[edit]

Under the section marked as "=== Initial Charge ===", the cathodic reaction (as given) is not correct.

Instead of:

Cathode Reaction: Pb(s) + 2H
(l) → PbO
(s) + 2H+
(aq) + 2-

it should be:

Cathode Reaction: Pb(s) + 2H
(l) → PbO
(s) + 4H+
(aq) + 4-

The lead oxide formed is "lead(IV) oxide" (correctly written in the formula, but incorrectly written in the text above, where it appears as "lead (II) oxide" (also, it is conventional to have no space between the metal symbol and the oxidation state given in roman numerals, hence I suggest replacing the existing text "lead (II) oxide" with "lead(IV) oxide" and not "lead (IV) oxide"

As for a source, any chemistry textbook would support the formation of a lead(IV) oxide electrode over a lead(II) oxide electrode in the lead/acid battery. However, whatever the case, the way the section is written presently is self-contradictory!

This is the first time I've tried to request editing so apologies if I've missed something :)

Capacitorial (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article so that it can be freely edited now. Please feel free to make these changes to the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Terms 'Anode'and 'Cathode'[edit]

The terms 'Anode' and 'Cathode' are too vague to be used in identifying the plates in a rechargeable battery. In a non rechargeable cell, the anode is the negative electrode and the cathode is the positive. In a rechargeable cell, the position is complicated because the terms switch electrodes as the cell is charged and discharged. The 'cathode' is not necessarily the negative electrode as many incorrectly assume, but is always the electrode by which the conventional current flow leaves the cell (from the greek 'cathodos' meaning 'way out') See the articles at anode and cathode for a fuller discussion of the point. (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We do lack a convenient term.
All of these naming conventions suffer at some point during the process. In the initial build of the battery (just lead plates in acid) and in the discharged state of the battery (lead sulfate plates in acid) neither anode, cathode, positive, or negative apply. The plates are identical chemically and electropotentially so the battery could be charged in either direction next time. What do we call the electrodes then?
Likewise, anode and cathode reverse their meaning during charging, so a term like "forcible reintroduction" rears its ugly head. Mea culpa. I thought using anode/cathode for the terminals on the battery as they are normally operated (during discharge) would be clearest. Unfortunately, that confused people as well.
Perhaps we should consider steering away from pure terminology changes for a bit? Just a thought- NOT a condemnation or complaint.
Riventree (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Confusion rains even further because just to underline the whole point the article did not use the terms for the discharging condition, but the charging condition.
The plates are designated as positive and negative plates at the manufacturing stage, because the way batteries are made today, the plates are chemically different. Nearly all flooded lead acid batteries merely require the addition of acid and they will produce power almost immediately (so called 'dry charged'). Even the gel batteries are made this way as it saves the manufacturer having to perform a 'forming' charge. (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The point is entirely valid as the articles on anode and cathode make abundantly clear. I have known all sorts of manufacturers (both battery and equipment) make the same error. My laptop has a remote control with a battery holder that takes one of those CR2032 coin batteries (primary). It is helpfully marked 'ANODE UP', presumably in a misguided attempt to provide some sort of clue as to which way up to insert the battery. It is not physically possible to install the battery with the negative side upward (just as well, as I doubt that the remote control would benefit from the incorrect polarity that would result). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

positive and negative designations might be incorrect[edit]

In the description of how this battery works, there is a basic error of terminology. The lead dioxide electrode must be the positive electrode according to fundamental logic. During discharge the lead dioxide is undergoing electrochemical reduction, which means that electrons are entering it from the external circuit. By convention, current in these systems flows oppositely to the electrons, which means that current flows in the external circuit, through the "load" or e.g. starter motor, from the lead dioxide electrode to the lead electrode. Therefore the terminal voltage of the lead dioxide electrode is positive with respect to the lead electrode. On charge the lead dioxide/lead sulfate electrode is positive because the power supply is sucking electrons out of it and pumping them to the lead/lead sulfate electrode. The terminology of "positive" and "negative" is the most fundamental terminology for a battery. It works, as long as one understands which one is which. The terminology of "anode" and "cathode" is only useful when specifying whether reduction or oxidation is occurring. Thus during discharge the lead electrode is the anode because it is being oxidized. During charge, the lead electrode is the cathode because it is being reduced. (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A good catch. This seems to have come about because another editor removed the confusion caused by the terms 'anode' and 'cathode' (which you correctly noted are meaningless in the context of rechargeable battery technology). However, that editor was himself (or herself?) confused.
The terms 'anode' and 'cathode' don't of themselves have anything to do with oxidation or reduction (though that may be an effect - as in this case), but are determined merely by (conventional) current flow alone. Thus the terms are applicable to something like a vacuum tube even though no oxidation or reduction is occuring.
Incidentally, you could have corrected the article yourself - that's what Wikipedia is all about. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Open circuit discharged battery voltage: discrepancy between graph and text[edit]

The text says "Open-circuit at full discharge: 11.8 V to 12.0 V" But the picture below (the graph) shows that a fully discharged battery has around 10.5V open-circuit voltage. Which one is right? Or did I misunderstand something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Electron Flow[edit]

The description of electron flow in the section "Electrochemistry" is backwards. Electrons flow from negative to positive. This is fundamental knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. You could have corrected the article yourself. I have added something to both sentences just to clarrify that it is the external circuit that is being referred to. (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead acid battery case development[edit]

The modern battery case for the lead acid automotive is one of the most reliable designs imaginable. It is also simple and efficient in design and in electrical power delivery capability. It is worthy of considerable discussion as to its evolutionary changes in construction into the modern molded polypropylene battery case and in the design of its electrical circuit and battery terminal connections. None of this is mentioned in the article about the battery. The question Why?WFPM (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you haven't had time to write it up for us yet? WP:BOLD. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Because I don't have any references. And I'm always getting shot down for lack of references. When I'm interested in ideas, I steal them from where I can find them. And I've never worked on Lead acid batteries, but just bought them and admired their ideas. In the case of battery designs, I've had to make part function and failure mode analysis, so I know about the details of analysis. But as to the details and history of the evolution of the lead acid battery case design I know very little. And unfortunately, I'm not a reliable witness vis a vis the details that I know about. How's that for a catch 22?WFPM (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I've often thought it was a great pity that they burned all the books in the world after the Internet came along. It's made referencing Wikipedia much more difficult, though admittedly few other drawbacks have been encountered. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It's just that we don't realize that we're making history as we move along and we don't feel that it's incumbent on us to document it. You get a better feel of that if you change careers and find that you're behind and need to study to catch up. And I have changed careers several times. And if you change languages you also have to work on changing your vocabulary. I understand people that keep diaries, but I don't feel important enough to want to do that. But I appreciate other peoples efforts to document ideas about things. And I certainly appreciate scientists, like Isaac Asimov, who said that his goal was to help and even goad people to learn about things and stimulate their imagination. He was only 6 years older than me, and it's too bad he's not still around to give us scientific knowledge help. And he had a marvelous reference system as well as almost total recall. His book "Atom" was published 6 months after his death in 1992. Most of our memories are faulty, and get distorted with time, so admittedly they're not reliable as references.WFPM (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll try and find some references but various materials have been used for battery cases, including lead-lined wood, glass and celluloid. Celluloid is a bit dodgy because it is flammable and is attacked by sulphuric acid with a specific gravity above 1.2. Biscuittin (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Discharge cycles[edit]

There is a field of information related to cycles. It says 500 - 800 cycles. It should be 50 - 80 cycles. Here is some link from people dealing alot with batteries: . And make some difference between starter batteries and deep cycle batteries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but batteryuniversity and particularly the guy who runs it, Isidor Buchmann, are completely discredited sources. Much of what appears on that site just does not agree with real world batteries. In any case it is a self published source and thus unacceptable. I B Wright (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
What you say may be correct, but the fact remains that the 500-800 cycle claim requires a supporting reference. (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The information provided on batteryuniversity appears to be about as accurate or indeed as inaccurate as all the pronouncements that are made about batteries. I B Wright, tell us why we should believe you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papahadeda (talkcontribs) 23:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There are several discussions on on the talk pages of some of the other rechargeable battery types. The concensus is that batteryuniversity is an unreliable source. In any case, it is not an acceptable source of referencing because it is a self published source. That is: the author of that website has published the information unsupported by any reputable authoritative body. Although the site appears to be supported by Cadex Int., that does not count as the CEO of Cadex is the same individual who has published batteryuniversity, one Isidor Buchmann. (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Petersfield UK, are you serious? Your opinion, the opinion of one person, a consensus? Are you sufficiently qualified to argue one way or the other? References do not create truth. Tell us why we should believe you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papahadeda (talkcontribs) 23:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@Papahadeda: Regardless of anything, the reason batteryuniversity is unreliable is given above in that it is a self published source. Wikipedia does not allow self published sources. If it did, you or I could publish a web page claiming anything we liked and then use it to support that claim in an article. Further a study of the web site reveals that it is also a self confessed form of blog which is not allowed. There is consensus among users elsewhere that batteryuniversity is an unreliable source and it is currently being considered for black listing. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
... and is now blacklisted. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. I don't get it. What exactly is a reputable source? Get real. A surprisingly high percentage of PhD theses, academic publications and patents, when carefully checked out, turn out to be phony. Your desire to see batteryuniversity blacklisted suggests there is an element of personal animosity at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papahadeda (talkcontribs) 10:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. See WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:SELFPUB for starters. A website of the type discussed above would require to have the backing of a reliable supporting third party authority on the subject being discussed. Batteryuniversity has no such backing. (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Sometimes the makers of so-called battery cures go crazy when someone points out that their products don't work. Everyone else is wrong, they are the only ones who are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papahadeda (talkcontribs) 12:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How does tell the difference between an opinion and a fact?

Dubious claim in article[edit]

Article claims that the various voltages for certain conditions have to be adjusted by a temperature coefficient of so many volts per degree celcius (no problem). The claim specifies that the adjustment applies only to 6 cell batteries. An individual cell has no intelligence to know how many other cells there are in the battery. I believe that if the figure is correct (it is unreferenced), it will apply to any battery. (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. They somply took a 6-cell adjustment and failed to divide by 6. (It should be −4 or −3.9 mV/°C.) I'll try to track down a reference. Thanks for flagging it in the article! (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
See discussion about the temperature coefficient at Chris goulet (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead crystal battery[edit]

I see RS Components are selling Lead crystal batteries. [5] How do they work? Biscuittin (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead acid batteries don't use lead as their electrode, they use a layer of lead peroxides over the lead substrate. "Lead crystal" batteries use an improved crystalline structure for this peroxide layer. The advantages are lower resistivity in the layer and also a greater tolerance for high currents - either delivery or charging. In practice this means that something like a starter battery can be much smaller than before. They also have a longer service life, as most batteries are killed by mis-use, rather than dying of natural old age.
As I recall, it's quite an old technology, but it has been a very long time before there was a cost-effective way to make them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's the original patent for the technology – 1977. US 4140589  Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The RS batteries apparently use silicon dioxide (silicic acid ?) instead of sulphuric acid. I don't understand how because SiO2 is not very soluble in water. Biscuittin (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
There is some chemistry here I don't know about. The better plate efficiency reduces the need for sulphate ions, allowing a change of the acid species. That's then an advantage because less sulphate ions can mean less cadmium needed in the plate alloy and cadmium's a nastier metal to work with than lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice to have third-party sources. From the very enthusiastic description in the two sources found so far, it appears to be another variety of VRLA lead-acid battery with some flowery language to describe the commonplace. Not really a fundamentally new type of battery, if anything just an improvement on existing VRLA starved-electrolyte batteries. Leaving it in would be undue emphasis on one manufacturer's brand name, not an overview of essentially different technology. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It is significantly different because the electrolyte (although it is acid) is not sulphuric acid. See Rechargeable_battery#Recent_developments (if it hasn't been deleted again). Biscuittin (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Technical details seem to be a bit sketchy at present. From what I have been able to research, the prototype batteries used lead peroxide style plates but with sulphuric acid electrolyte. The production batteries are using silicon dioxide (which is not silicic acid). SiO2 is indeed not very soluble in water, so much so that it is completely insoluble in water. Instead the SiO2 is dissolved in an organic solvent (Sorry: I have not been able to find out what this is) in a similar manner to Li-ion batteries. The manufacturers make many claims as to the advantages, but we must wait and see whether these are just marketing ploys or whether the advantages are real. (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Deep-cycle "does not imply the battery can be discharged more deeply"?[edit]

I'm removing this parenthetical remark:

("deep cycle" does not imply the battery can be discharged more deeply than a flat-plate battery; this is a widespread misunderstanding of the term).

It is not helpful since it does not tell what "deep cycle" means instead. All information that I can find points to the fact that DC batteries are more suitable for repeated deep discharges than starter batteries. I can only guess what was meant by this statement; maybe that neither starter batteries nor DC batteries can be discharged deeper than 0% ? Han-Kwang (t) 14:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Howto template from Absorbed glass mat[edit]

I removed this template because the section is clearly not even remotely a set of instructions. Apparently this is controversial. Before putting it back, please explain how this section is a set of instructions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Pay particular attention to the sentences that address the reader as "you". The paragraphs before that are also just lightly rephrased instructions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


The article needs to address the usual industry standards like "OpzS" and "OpzV". --BjKa (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Can the charge polarity be reversed?[edit]

Both the positive and negative plates are made from lead, and initially during manufacturing, there is no reactive difference between the plates like in other batteries such as zinc / carbon. The reactive difference seems to be introduced during the initial charge known as forming.

So apparently if you take a discharged lead-acid battery in good condition, and connect it to a charger backwards, is it possible to cross the fully neutralized charge potential and reverse the polarity of the plates? Since the plates normally soften and become spongy when discharged, they will likely be extremely fragile by forcing a full discharge like this, before crossing the center and recharging in the opposite direction.

If this is not possible, what is it in the chemistry or cell construction that prevents reversing the charge polarity? -- DMahalko (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Google says yes. The question was asked in the 1920 Chilton's Motor Age[6] and has continued to be asked up through Q&A sites like Quora and Snpoes. So we might mention the fact briefly in the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lead–acid 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)