Talk:Lithium-ion battery

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

Specific Power[edit]

The specific power is currently listed as ~250-~340 W/kg, according to a 7-year old reference to panasonic's website. This: 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.

So called "low discharge," NiMH batteries[edit]

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 As the reference to this old, now outdated impression of NiMH, a 13 year old cite is given.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: does not even bother to mention they are "low discharge," however, they are: 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

Wikipedia does not predict the future. You should not edit war, but find an article that reports the current position, then use that as a reference. I find that my NiMH cells discharge themselves. Some, but not all of them are cheap or old. Dbfirs 12:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You may need a new charger: "An ideal charge rate is probably around 4-6 hours (for empty to full)." ...for AA.
I've been carrying three pairs of AA NiMH since 2003, one pair for my current camera, two as backup. If your batteries are 3-5 years old, yes that's discard time.
Welcome to the future: . Do you disagree with any of those specs? Some hold up to 85% charge after a year, 75% after three? Or this: "There's not much reason to get the normal NiMH's, since they're not any cheaper, and their capacity is only a little higher (2700 mAh for a normal NiMH vs. 2400 for a similarly-priced LSD NiMH)." (That's why the high-discharge are hard to find; simple economics.) ...Or dispute the 28 listed "good" brands that sell the modern NiMH's?
You write: "You should not edit war, but find an article that reports the current position." Edit war? I have yet to find anybody who disagrees with my proposed edits. The article itself agrees with my proposed edits. I cite that! ;) My problem, as I stated, is with the wording and what in modern, changed times looks like the opinion/insinuation/logic that Model T Fords are gutless, unreliable, and obsolete, and Model T Fords are the "common" kind, therefore Fords are crap. IE: Model T Fords should not be "compared" to Corvettes. IOW, what the hell do Model T Fords have to do with a modern article about cutting edge new cars? Put more politely for the gentle souls; the wording within the context of the modern marketplace is muddled and illogical and the paragraph seems self-contradictory.
If someone can can please explain exactly what the objection to my proposed edits are, I will try to reword or find a citation or six. If nobody can do that, I will improve the article as suggested for the reasons given.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:119B:90AC:21F7:9541 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford
You twice removed a reference without replacing it with a better one. That's why I advised you not to edit war. Sorry, I misread the edit -- you didn't remove the ref the first time. I agree that things have changed and my newer batteries don't self-discharge at the same rate as my older ones. I'm happy with the article as it now stands, except that we need an independent research reference, rather than manufacturers' claims. Dbfirs 06:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Winter & Brodd 2004, p. 4259

Current Production[edit]

It would be good to see some kind of breakdown as to current production of Li-ion batteries. Numbers made of various types / chemical technology, to get a feel for the way the market is going. Obviously there are varied applications - "horses for courses", but it would be useful to understand who is making what, especially those used in high density energy storage for power applications (rather than for powering portable electronic devices such as phones and toys, which are hobbled by fad physical size/design constraints). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 okt 2017 10:30 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguous statement in section 10.2 Degradation[edit]

Section 10.2 contains the following text: "... increasing if stored or used at above or below 25 °C" Should that read "... increasing if stored or used at or above 25 °C" ? The following sentence seems to indicate that it is elevated temperatures that increase the degradation of batteries. (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC) David Goodenough @ , 18:24H PST 7/4/2018

The reference reports research showing that a different sort of degradation (lithium plating) occurs below 25C. I think you are correct that the main problem occurs with storage and use above 25C. Can anyone read the full reference to check our guess that only minor degradation occurs at lower temperatures? Dbfirs 06:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps see my recent edit. Purgy (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's an improvement. I'd still like to know the exact details of the research, and why some people refrigerate batteries. Dbfirs 09:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest.[edit]

I suggest whoever confused LiMn2O4 with LiMnO4 should go and have a nice cool drink of some H202! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ned Godshall over-emphasis[edit]

@Ciscokid321: Your editing seems to be singularly focused on promoting the contributions of Ned Godshall, with undue repetition of his name, his thesis, his university, his patent, and such primary sources. You even omit the names of his co-authors and co-inventors in the text, and assign priority over other work going on at the same time. This would be much better if we wrote it more neutrally, preferably based on secondary sources. And if you are Ned Godshall, you should declare that WP:COI and let others decide how best to handle this. Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ciscokid321: You've continued editing the article for over an hour after I pinged you to this discussion. I will now revert to before your contributions, and then maybe you'll join the discussion here. See WP:BRD. Dicklyon (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Lede polymer[edit]

"Handheld electronics mostly use lithium polymer batteries (with a polymer gel as electrolyte)"

There is nothing in the source cited to support this. This whole article and the one on Lithium Polymer spread the myth that "lithium ion in a pouch is lithium polymer". See the introduction of this article for discussion about the widespread myth that commercially used pouch cells are lithium polymer:

These polymer electrolyte cells were a specialized thing that never really caught on. Gigs (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


From the Article:

In a lithium-ion battery the lithium ions are transported to and from the positive or negative electrodes by oxidizing the transition metal, cobalt (Co), in Li1-xCoO2 from Co3+ to Co4+ during charge, and reducing from Co4+ to Co3+ during discharge. The cobalt electrode reaction is only reversible for x < 0.5 (x in mole units), limiting the depth of discharge allowable.

In the discharged cell x=0, that is the material is LiCoO2. Not the depth of discharge is limited by (x<0.5) but the depth of charge. Overcharge means x>0.5 . The discharge limit would be an inequation like x>0 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C9:8F1D:3C86:CEE0:8DEF:59EE:EC46 (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)