Jump to content

Talk:Electric battery/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

bad reference

that "sugary drink" cellphone doesn't exist. it's a just a design concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.102.214 (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Inside?

what is inside a battery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.18.106 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A battery is an electrical/electrolytic circuit consisting in 1 or more electrochemical energy producing cells. And they all have 5 essential constituent ingredients. 2 of these are the electrochemical energy powered EMF voltages. 2 more are electrical resistance networks related to the transfer of the electrons into and out of (and within) the cell electrical circuits. And the fifth is an electrolytic ion motion of flow of the ions in the electrolyte in the direction of the dominant EMF voltage gradient. Since the primary purpose of a battery is to supply electrical energy to an electrical load, these constituents may be considered to be the following listing of a series connected electrical entities:
     1 A dominating negative electromotive EMF (at the point of electrochemical activity)
     2 The electrical resistance of the negative anode circuit
     3 The flow velocity of the ions within the electrolytic circuit
     4 The usually counter EMF voltage at the point of electrochemical activity within the cathode
     5 The electrical resistance of the cathode circuit

These constituents work together to provide the composite battery unit with an electrical energy power and energy supply characteristic intended to meet a certain set of specified electrical power and energy load requirements.WFPM (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed article name change: 'Battery (electricity)' to only 'Battery'

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

The most common popular usage of 'battery' in Wikipedia, by far, is for this article on the electrical battery, with the legal and military definitions trailing in that order, as listed on the 'Battery (disambiguation)' page.

This article is a highly read page, with more than 116,028 pageviews last month -the figure likely being over 123K pageviews since the server didn't record two days worth of data. That volume of readership compares with the second place 'Battery (crime)' figure of approx. 16,777 views, and the third place article 'Battery (military)' of approximately only 27 pageviews.

Since the second and third place articles combined amount to less than 15% of the readership of the electrical battery article, it would be preferable, i.m.h.o., to rename this article to plain 'ol Battery, with a corresponding renaming of the disambiguation page 'Battery' to 'Battery (disambiguation)'. The net result of such an article name change would be to make this article's webpage more quickly accessible to the casual viewers seeking information on electrical batteries (approximately 85% of the total pageviews for all 'battery' articles). The tophat note would also be revised to include some extra elaboration for the legal and military articles.

Prior to posting a formal name change proposition tag on this article's page, a survey of regular editors to capture opinions and or other comments would be helpful. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Page views don't count. If a hundred thousand can find the page each month, obviously the name works. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Saying that 100,000 people found their way to an article with a tricky name means little. If you really need something of importance, you'll go after it irregardless of the obstacles, or in this case tricky names. What we're discussing here is how to make life simpler for those 100,000+ people who need this information every month. I propose we do the name change and watch, and if the monthly stats for this article goes down, then the name change can always be undone. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

- A WP:RM was opened in July 2010 on this issue

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wh/kg

Wh/kg redirects here but no definition is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.240.251 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Rating? Why mAh not Wh?

Why are batteries almost always rated in current-hours -- mAh, not power -- Wh or joules? I can always multiply volts by mAh to get mWh, but why is current-time the standard? I assume it is somehow a more reliable measure (maybe at low temperature the voltage drops but the number of electrons ready to flow doesn't?) The fact that "Watt" doesn't appear on this page tells me that there is some fundamental reason Watts just don't make sense for batteries. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always seen Ah in supply and Wh in consumption and J in science. The battery industry uses mAh so that would be a good reason to use that here. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Years later...I've seen some rechargeable lithium-ion batteries have watthour ratings stamped on them; and some air transport regulations are phrased in terms of the maximum watthour capacity of lithium batteries that can be transported. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
First note that these are two different units. Amperes (A) is coulumbs of charge (C) per second (t), A = C / t. Thus mAh is essentially a measure of charge, or coulombs. Watts (W) is joules of energy (J) per second (t), W = J / t, thus Wh is essentially energy, or joules. But to answer your question, because batteries primarily store charge and not energy. Randy Yates, Eaton Corp., 10:39 EST, 20-Aug-2012.
So if batteries do not primarily store energy, what is it that lights up the bulb in my flashlight? 86.144.90.137 (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@BenFrantzDale: @Randy Yates: @86.144.90.137: It is wrong to say that "batteries primarily store charge and not energy". It is the opposite. Energy is one of the most fundamental concepts in science. Basically, everything has energy. Charge, on the other hand, is a way to understand and explain energy in certain physical interactions, like in electricity (electric field, electrostatics, electrochemistry). In general, "charge" is a measure of energy. The more charge you can store, the more energy. They are proportional. As to why in batteries Ah is used. It may have to do with the practical aspects of charging and discharging. A battery of 50 Ah can be discharged in one hour by using a current of 50 A. So, if I have a device that consumes 5 A, a battery of 50 Ah will power it for 10 hours. I guess it is simpler to understand it this way, because we can measure current with ammeters and clamps, instead of knowing exactly how much energy (Wh) this device will need for a certain period of time.----137.132.22.190 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

American invention?

Why is Benjamin Franklin mentioned first if he is not the originator/inventor? It's almost if you are claiming the battery as an American invention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.232.86 (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin is just the name associated with the first naming of electrical battery. Knowledge of battery-like things existed in antiquity, and it is not clear clear what should be defined as the first battery. Who do you think can be named as the originator/inventor? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Benjamin Franklin invented the forerunner from the Battery. Also interesting is the PC-Adventure-Game "Day of the Tentacle". Benjamin Franklin is into the Game and invented the Battery! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.54.208 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Propose article rename to "Electrical battery"

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 to move page. As in previous cases, the case that this is a strong primary topic for the term "battery" is not convincing a consensus of editors. Meanwhile, the world keeps on turning... - GTBacchus(talk) 03:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


Battery (electricity) → Battery — Administratively closing no consensus to move "Battery (electricity)"→"Electrical battery", but resetting/relisting for later alt proposal that seems to have some traction. DMacks (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

{{movereq|Electrical battery}}

Battery (electricity) → Electrical battery — I propose to rename this article to "Electrical battery".
Reasons:

  • "Electrical battery" was the phrase used in the first records of the naming of such devices
  • "Electrical battery" has remained stable in the opening sentence for a long time (several months).
  • The use of parentheses does not seem right for a common use item.
  • The typical reader would be comfortable with the term "Electrical battery". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what this has to do with disambiguation, nor do I see anything directly relevant at WP:COMMONNAME? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Electrical battery" is a construct designed to eliminate the parentheses, but people do not commonly say "electrical battery" in conversation and they write it but rarely. Why disturb this version for a rarely used one? By far the most common name is simply "battery", and the parenthesis modifies that. Let's stick with the parenthetical name: Battery (electricity). Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Electrical battery seems natural and avoids the parentheses. A good comparison might be association football. I would also support a move to just battery as this article is surely the primary topic. Iota (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Recommended alternative: As discussed previously above, this article, 'Battery (electricity)', should be changed to only 'Battery'
The most common popular usage of 'battery' in general, by far, is for the electrical battery, with the legal and military definitions trailing in that order, as listed on the 'Battery (disambiguation)' page.
This article is a highly read page, with more than 116,028 pageviews several months ago. That volume of readership compares with the second place 'Battery (crime)' figure of approx. 16,777 views, and the third place article 'Battery (military)' of approximately only 27 pageviews.
Since the second and third place articles combined amount to less than 15% of the readership of the electrical battery article, it would be preferable, i.m.h.o., to rename this article to the simplest form 'Battery', with a corresponding renaming of the disambiguation page 'Battery' to 'Battery (disambiguation)'. The net result of such an article name change would be to make this article's webpage more quickly accessible to the casual viewers seeking information on electrical batteries (approximately 85% of the total pageviews for all 'battery' articles). The tophat note would also be revised to include some extra elaboration for the legal and military articles.
Those wanting to simply life for the greatest number of people will likely find this suggestion compelling. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Binksternet, it is not helpful to say that nothing has changed. The past discussions were strongly focused on moving this page to "Battery". The Archive_2 links are not even relevant (concerning a spelling mistake, and a suggestion contrary to WP:COMMONNAME). The Talk:Battery link is either unclear in relevance (a few participants in a conversation spanning four years) or again reflecting consensus against moving this page to "Battery". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That list is a complete list of move discussions, all-inclusive for completeness' sake. Of course, the misspelling move was uncontroversial. However, I see a direct connection between the current proposal to move this article to "electrical battery" and the past one suggesting "electrochemical battery". What I mean by "nothing has changed" is that nothing in common battery terminology has changed since these past discussions. The leader in Google searches is still the battery which supplies electricity, and this page is the most-viewed battery article on Wikipedia. Battery (assault) is still a prevalent legal term and battery (artillery) is still a prevalent military term. Battery (baseball) is still an archaic usage. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The assertion that "electrical battery" is the common name is quite plainly false. There's nothing wrong with parentheses where there's a very obvious common name which requires them. The analogy made to association football falls down because at least there's a definitive official title to use as the name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move as nominated. Battery is the most common name it should remaias the name of the article. That said, I think the page should be moved. I believe this type of battery is the primary topic. The page hits quoted above seem to point to this being the primary topic also. If this is the primary topic it should be at the un-disambiguated name Battery and the disambiguation page should be at Battery (disambiguation) ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • More comments
  • Having looked up Britannica (1965), I find, as expected, that the only article under battery is the electrical battery (and types, such as atomic). I'd have preferred to move this article to "Battery" as it is the primary topic in modern popular usage, but I accepted the previous discussion that went against that proposal March 2006, March 2008. Personally, I note that the word derives from a broader meaning (something like "similar things that are used similarly, with force", whether a battery of punches used in battering someone, a coordinated assault, a group of large guns to be used in a coordinated assault, or an array of cells used together additively to produce a significant electromotive force).
  • I dislike parentheses because they are not usually used in professional publications where a more accurate title can equally be used. Apparently not everyone dislikes parentheses. In essence, this move comes downs to a preference concerning parentheses. If we must stick with parentheses, I would prefer "Battery (electrical)".
  • Noting Chris' objection, the equivalent of a definitive official title to use would come from the first description of the device, by Benjamin Franklin, which is the "electrical battery". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Further Comment: I believe there's significant interest in the proposal to change the current title 'Battery (electricity)' to the prime topic 'Battery', and move the disambiguation page to 'Battery (disambiguation)'. Although some areas of the world might refer to an 'electrical battery' in the first instance of mention, the use of the plain 'battery' appears by far the most popular usage worldwide. A quick Google check shows only 1.2M usages of "assault and battery", and only 32,000 usages of "criminal battery", versus about 140M usages or so of battery as an electrical component -which occupies the top ten results (not counting a news item). Yes, Google checks are non-binding on these discussions, but they're a good reality check for what's used on the web. While some might prefer more technical terms such as 'Electrochemical battery', I believe most interested editors would be able to live with the plain 'Battery' for the primary topic, accompanied by the normal hatnotes and disambiguation page. I would urge editors to allow this change (to just 'Battery') to move ahead and improve the title on what's plainly a highly viewed article on Wikipedia. HarryZilber (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Suggested tophat notes:
"This article is about the electrical device. For the criminal term, see: Battery (crime). For the military term, see: Artillery battery. For other uses, see: Battery (disambiguation)."
HarryZilber (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


New proposal to rename this article as the primary topic 'Battery'

Administrator's note: formal WP:RM proposal is now changed to rename to "Battery" (i.e., primary topic). No need to restate your same opinions if you commented on this one above. DMacks (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Battery was 7676.
Battery (electrical) was 141.
Battery (crime) was 6769.
Battery (electricity) was 38103.
Artillery battery was 2927.
Are there better traffic numbers out there? Glrx (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am not comfortable concluding that Battery (electricity) is so dominant that it should be [WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]. Glrx (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • CommentOpposeIt is utterly and demonstrably incorrect to claim that "Electrical battery" was the term used initially for a device which creates electric current electrochemically. See the citations from the 1700's for "electrical battery" at Google Books: [1]. It referred to a set of Leyden jar capacitors connected in parallel. In the early years after the Voltaic pile was discovered "Electrical battery" still referred to a set of condensors, as shown by [2] from 1801 and [3] from 1805. The Voltaic "pile" versus condensor "battery" distinction was still made in 1830 and after, although some started calling a pile a battery. In 1830 Noah Webster used the military and legal definitions first, and the pile definition last, preceded by the condensor definition. "Electrical battery" still meant either device in 1859 and in textbooks many years thereafter. The proposed move is a solution in search of a problem. Most users are not going to type in "electrical battery" when they want information about electrochemical sources of electricity. The present title is fine. Edison (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Edison, could you rephrase your point in relation to the first reference, in the first sentence, of the article, perhaps in a separate section. I think it is true that Franklin's "Electrical battery" was not electrochemical, but no one said it was. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment - from your oppose it sounds like you are opposing the old proposed move; [[Battery (electricity) -->> Electrical battery. The discussion changed above, we are now discussing moving Battery (electricity) -->> Battery and Battery to Battery (disambiguation. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • OpposeI oppose the garbled and confusing way this proposed move is presented, on procedural grounds, since the header and start of the section propose one move (to electrical battery") then it changes to a different proposed move, to "Battery." I oppose the move described in the header, since "electrical battery" is neither the original name of the device nor the most common descriptor today as an electrochemical source of power. I oppose the new move to "Battery" since the electrical usage is not that much more common than some other usages in published sources found at Google Books. Besides the electrochemical device (1.26 million results at Google Books) there is the widespread artillery use (914000 results at Google Books), usage as a crime (189000 results at Google Book), and even the baseball use (45000 results at Google Books). No encyclopedic purpose is served by the move. Edison (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Further comment: Yikes!! Is there somewhere to go to nominate this {Moverequest} discussion as the most confusing in WP's history?? To clarify the above:
    • this article would be renamed from 'Battery (electricity)' to 'Battery' ,
    • the existing disambiguation page 'Battery', would be renamed to 'Battery (disambiguation)'
Again, everyone, please remember that article titles should reflect popular usage. This article is the most sought after topic when people refer to or search for 'battery', so I encourage all to put their own personal preferences aside in order to help casual users and laypeople searching for information. Every single extra step that such users have to go through to find useful information will discourage a certain percentage from reaching their goals -and please let's not be cynical about that. If the great majority of users are looking for info on this topic, we should let them get to their goal with the simple single word search term 'Battery'. HarryZilber (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2010 (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.

Introduction: enlarging the initial definition to include one-cell devices like the AA battery

Since most batteries now in use have only a single electrochemical cell (e.g. AA or C batteries, as opposed to the multi-cell 9 volt battery or the 6-cell 12 volt car battery) I have changed the first sentence to say,

"An electrical battery is device consisting of one or more electrochemical cells used..."

The history section further down explains this current meaning, and how it arose despite the original sense of battery as a multi-cell device like the voltaic pile.CharlesHBennett (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored the more than one cell as the primary definition: dry cells, AA cell, 9V battery, car battery, and laptop battery. I don't believe the distinction should disappear right now, but others can weigh in. Glrx (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Including the excluded case makes an encyclopedia article internally inconsistent.
It looks rather stupid for an encyclopedia article to say "An X is only yin. X also includes yang." If I walked into my local Canadian Tire and asked for a dry cell, I'd probably be put in the room they use to hold shoplifters. Everybody calls that AA or D thing a "battery" and it serves no encyclopediac purpose to be more pedantic than the world.Is the purpose of an encyclopedia article to show how much smarter we editors are than the great unwashed, or is the purpose to provide (as neutrally and verifiably as this Rube Goldberg process can) the facts? If anyone with even less life than I thinks the distinction between 1 cell and many cells is that important, research it and show how the usuage has changed since the 17th century. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
agreed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-179 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A single cell is not a battery, and Wikipedia should not sacrifice correctness just to cater to widespread misconceptions. An appropriate formulation could be "A battery is an arrangement of multiple galvanic cells; however in colloquial English, the term 'battery' is often used incorrectly to denote a single cell." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.110.66 (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Water-activated battery

These aren't described, please include, see Water-activated_battery 91.182.45.110 (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Parthian Battery

Wtshymanski - I'm curious; why don't you think that the Parthian Battery is suitable for inclusion in this topic? (And for the record, nope, didn't get it from the discovery channel). Fleetingshadow (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not a battery. See Baghdad Battery. Or, at least, the connection with modern batteries is so speculative that it doesn't serve the modern reader well to make any fuss over this artifact. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Any way I can convince you to at least provide a link in the See Also section to the Parthian Battery so that people who are curious could find out more? My own take on this is that it may be a curiosity, but it's also possibly a valuable milestone in our scientific history, and a great reminder that not only does a lot of reinvention go on over the millennia, but that civilization is not bulletproof. (eg. The Antikythera Device)

Fleetingshadow (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It does not belong at See also. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed navbox

What do you think so far? It covers battery types, parts, sizes and brands and would supersede both Template:Battery sizes and Template:GalvanicCells. --Schala ★ 04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

proliferation of redundant BMS/balancing articles

I happened across a couple of articles on related topics that I think should be merged, but my merger proposal on those pages hasn't generated much attention, so I want to call attention to the issue here.

I've found the following set of articles:

Most of those should probably be merged, but so far I've only specifically proposed merging the last three. the discussion on that merger is at Talk:Battery balancing#Merger_proposal Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Lfstevens (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

spelling error

hey sorry, i dont have an account and cant edit it as such, but i figured someone may be able to look over it in the secondary batteries section "Internal parts may corrode and fail, or teh active materials may be slowy converted to inactive forms." (use search on your browser and put in teh)

Fixed. It’s unfortunate about the indefinite non-account-holder protection. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

recharging hysterisis

A subtopic that I would find interesting is a discussion of hystersis effects in rechargeable batteries.

Edit request on 3 April 2012 -- See also section background color

The background color of the 'See also' section should be changed to white

Keenox (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done; can't be done. Background color of the "See also" section is not independently specified. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it already white?--Lead holder (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Principles of Operation

This section seems a bit esoteric. My eyes started crossing almost immediately. I was surprised that several concepts I expected to see were not there. So, here is my thoughts: I have a bit of trouble with the first sentence; converting chemical energy directly to electrical energy. Not that it isn't true, but it isn't clear to me what that means. "Chemical energy" seems way too abstract, and in point of fact, it is a specific kind of chemical energy that is used. So, the term is too general and not useful. Also, while there is a lot said about the two half-cells (separation, etc. etc.), the point is not made that a battery works by separating a spontaneous redox (chemical) reaction into two halves and forces the electrons to flow through an electrical circuit to complete the reaction rather than what they would normally do (react "directly"with , "flowing directly" from oxidant to reductant (ignoring solvation shells, etc.)). A battery harnesses the energy of the chemical changes to do work by putting the work in between the two half-cells. Perhaps this is just my chemical background, but it just seems more intuitive than to talk about half-cell reactions. I was also surprised that the word "ion" was not explained, nor electrolyte. Perhaps there is just too much introductory material I am expecting, but it seems that it is less important that the reader know the name of a negative ion (anion) than they know that the ions carry the electrons which do the work. How about this proposal: "A battery is a device that converts the energy of a redox reaction directly to electrical energy. A redox reaction is a chemical reaction in which one chemical loses electrons (the oxidant) and one gains them (the reducer). A battery works by separating the oxidizer and reducer into two parts (half-cells) and forces the electrons lost by the oxidant to move through an electrical circuit (and do work) in order to get to the reducer and so complete the chemical reaction." Since the article does not allow editing, I leave this as a proposal. Does it help ?173.189.75.206 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you register a pseudonym, you can edit. Aren't all chemical reactions "redox" reactions? Is "chemical" energy a really esoteric concept that needs much amplification here? We can talk about ions and redox and such later on in the article as necessary. If you have to define " a 'foo' is a 'bar baz grault'" in the first use of a term, it's probably too dense and should be rewritten to give the reader a better run at the concept. We don't want the readers' eyes to glaze over before they've even found out what is in the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

AgZn 'mysterious' reaction

Why is AgZn said "Reactions are not fully understood." under here? Could someone please clarify?

Thanks.

Charon77 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit

Per tag, copyedited this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:

  • I recommend making Battery a disamb page and renaming this one Electric battery.
  • Deleted a few hundred words and upgraded/killed some refs.
  • Re-orged the lifetime section.

Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting video that I would not take seriously if it weren't from a vlogger I am familiar with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRf9JTg3QwA

Not encyclopaedia material but I wonder if any studies or such have been done on this at all. It's interesting at least although has no practical use.

--Lead holder (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

An easy method of telling charged batteries from discharged batteries is of no practical use? Call me Mr Skeptical, but I didn't believe it. Snopes claims it is an urban myth. So I decided to try it, and to my astonishment, the batteries behave exactly as shown in the video. I even tried it with AA and AAA size batteries and it still works. I found a few forums where people tried to explain the reason with one 'genius' claiming that the batteries loose electrolyte as they discharge and therfore become lighter. Apart from the fact that he totally failed to explain where this mass disappears to, the electrolyte takes no part in the reaction of an alkaline battery. We can't put this in the article of course, because this is just original research at present. But the difference is so marked that it must be documented somewhere. I B Wright (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Anode & Cathode confusion?

The sign(+/-) is exchanged in Operating principle section Sandipk100 (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No they are not. In a primary battery, the anode is the negative electrode and the cathode the positive. Have a look at anode and cathode to see why they are correct. Personally, I believe that the terms 'anode' and 'cathode' only serve to confuse readers in articles on electrochemical cells and batteries. This is especially so in rechargeable batteries because the anode and the cathode change ends between charge and discharge. I B Wright (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Title Change

Technically, shouldn't the title be "Battery (electrochemistry)" instead of "Battery (electricity)"? Sure batteries produce electricity, but so do other devices. Chemistry is the method of production of electricity in this technology. --71.10.146.139 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The part in the brackets is there to distinguish this particular kind of battery from other types, such as artillery batteries; hence the disambiguation link. Article titles do not have to provide precise categorizations (Batteries of electrochemical cells are already categorized appropriately); Wikipedia has other mechanisms for that (arguably the Category:Battery_(electricity) could be changed. --Nczempin (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Memory effect

The words in this section state things that the supporting link does not say at all. In fact the link supports conflicting information the NiCd article. I was going to completely rewrite this section, but as I am not an expert on this, I have to give the benefit of the doubt that whoever wrote that knows at least something more than I do. Also to be fair, the references in the other article aren't all that stellar either. Maybe I'll try to go find something more academic. In the mean time, I'm going to just put a "see also" link there. At least others can be as confused as me at the conflicting statements.Autumn Wind (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Charges Should Repel, Opposites Should Attract

Please alter this statement to "One half-cell includes electrolyte and the negative electrode, the electrode to which anions (negatively charged ions) migrate" to "One half-cell includes electrolyte and the positive electrode, the electrode to which anions (negatively charged ions) migrate" because the previous sentence states that like charged particles are attracted to like charged electrodes which is incorrect.

86.31.136.103 (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Have a read of Anode. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

In the second paragraph, there is a spelling error. The word "irreversibly" is misspelled as "irrevesibly." ClaimOne (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done --   Edderso     talk    contribs  17:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014

In "primary batteries and their charecaristics" in the "Battery Chemistry" section, it is written that the cathode of a silver oxide battery is AgO, but the formula for silver oxide is actually Ag2O 212.251.231.126 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out. Arjayay (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

Please change "An electric battery is a device consisting of one or more electrochemical cells that convert stored chemical energy into electrical energy." to "A battery is a device consisting of two or more electrochemical cells connected in series." The author of the Wikipedia page "Electrochemical cell" also confirms that a battery contains more than one cell and this is specified in parentheses at the end of the second sentence. I have also cut down this sentence as it was unnecessarily verbose. 124.190.92.221 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done:. Usual usage calls one or more cells a battery. Cells may be in parallel, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The lay person may refer to a battery as one or more cells but this is not the correct definition. This author gives one of the better explanations that I have seen http://www.gcsescience.com/pe1.htm. If you had two sets of cells in parallel this would be two different batteries and this is why I only described a battery as cells connected in series. The current trend in physics (and more specifically electricity) is that a battery is multiple cells in series and I think it is important that Wikipedia reflects the status quo in this field.

I propose this as the opening paragraph as it explains both sides of the argument:

"A battery is a device consisting of two or more electrochemical cells connected in series. However, in every-day usage a single cell is often also referred to as a battery. Each cell contains a positive terminal called a cathode and a negative terminal called an anode. Electrolytes move through the internal circuit to balance the build up of charge which allows electrons to continuously flow through the external circuit and perform work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.92.221 (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be changed. The word battery always refers to a group of more than one cell even though single cells are commonly mistaken as batteries. Hopefully someone can get this corrected or it will be wrong forever :( Snkn179 (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2014

In the history section this needs to be added: First record of man made battery dates back to 250 BC to 250 AD known as Baghdad Battery. However this battery could produce limited current. 142.166.124.54 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery and references withing.

Not done: The article for the Baghdad Battery says that modern experts do not consider it a battery Cannolis (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2015

The start of the "History" section-- "The usage of "battery" to describe a group electrical devices dates to Benjamin Franklin....should be "a group of electrical"....add the word of. Bwhite8727 (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The Voltaic Pile, or, "Battery"

There is quite a bit of evidence the Voltaic Battery was in use in China (circa 2200 B.C.).. There is also some evidence the Sumerians used batteries about the same historical period.. It is unfortunate that scholars tend to assign "Discovery" of a tool, process, or use, that are only described in Western Methodologies.. The Exclusion of discoveries in other Cultures and Societies, is a disturbingly Parochial phenomena.. Wikipedia should be aware of these disparities and attempt to include evidence of discoveries in other cultures and societal groupings.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.128.191 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

Add to Further Reading section Baxter, Richard. Energy Storage: A Nontechnical Guide, PennWell 2005. ISBN10 1-59370-027-X see also "http://www.pennwellbooks.com/energy-storage-a-nontechnical-guide/" EmeraldBlue312 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of that particular book? Stickee (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please consider adding Nickel-Iron battery under "Wet Cell" topic

The Nickel-Iron cell continues to have practical use, especially in terms of sustainability & self-sufficiency contexts. My thought is that it would be appropriate as an additional link in the sentence about other battery types. The linked article is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery

-Dan Warwick, MSEE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.216.53 (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

More:

Sorry, I have limited energy, but am almost certain that lead-acid chemistry was not the first to be used. Text should be corrected. Iirc, electric cars, ca. 1900, used nickel-iron batteries, iirc invented by Thomas Edison. (They were preferred, especially by women at the time, to gasoline-engine cars.)

As well, quite-old (early 20th C.) railroad signal systems using relays and rechargeable batteries probably used NiFe chemistry. Very likely that they did not release hydrogen when charged. Right in the center of Waltham, Mass, is a small windowed building containing relays and rechargeable batteries. Unlit, one can see what's inside, but not well.

I seem to recall an old trademark comprising "NiFe" as its primary graphic element, found in old industrial magazines, but not sure. It must have promoted NiFe batteries.

÷×÷×÷×÷

Sorry, but I think the introductory text needs rewriting in terms more commonly understood.

÷×÷×÷×÷

Regarding "piles", Spanish uses the term "pilas" as we use "batteries".

Also regarding the term, I once read that early infrared-to-visible image converter tubes of WW II vintage operated on DC in perhaps the 1 kV range, roughly, but presumably in the μA or nA range. Their power came from stacks of hundreds or maybe a few thousands of layers of iirc copper and zinc foil discs separated by paper discs. Apparently, no explicit electrolyte was added, nor extra moisture. Whether the stack was compressed, I don't know. The Zamboni pile comes to mind.

These tubes comprised an IR photocathode, iirc close to a green phosphor screen, and were used at night. Focus as such didn't exist, and close proximity sufficed. Decades ago, they were readily available on the surplus market.

User: nikevich, uncertain whether logged in or not.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

anion and cation link simply to ion from this page.

this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion#Anions_and_cations would be a better link for anion and cation

Thanks. Chris 100.34.34.131 (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo

I removed the opening paragraph of the history section. The writings of Childress are fiction, totally without basis in reality. See his biographical article. There is no reason to include a wholly, fictitious claim about the history of batteries. 21:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Nick Beeson (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

Below is the first paragraph of the topic.

An electric battery is a device consisting of two or more electrochemical cells that convert stored chemical energy into electrical energy. Each cell has a positive terminal, or cathode, and a negative terminal, or anode. The terminal marked positive is at a higher electrical potential energy than is the terminal marked negative. The terminal marked positive is the source of electrons that when connected to an external circuit will flow and deliver energy to an external device.

The fourth sentence must be corrected to "The terminal marked negative is the source of electrons..."

Jorge Sampaio

Jrgsampaio (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks. --allthefoxes (Talk) 03:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You made an incorrect edit to the article by doing that. Batteries are active devices that convert chemical potential energy into electrical potential energy. The positive mark on the battery case indicates that end to be at a higher electrical potential and hence is the source of high potential electrons. Hence, electrons flow from the positive marked terminal through the passive devices of the circuit to the end marked negative. I refer you to any good chemistry or physics text. Many people are confused about that point, so don't feel bad. Zedshort (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. VQuakr (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Simply saying "Incorrect" does nothing to elucidate the subject. Do you have something to back up what is obviously your opinion? Zedshort (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Battery (electricity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

– When we refer to a "battery", we almost always mean it in the electrical sense, so this is a possible primary topic. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Challenge

I have no trouble in accepting the concept that energy cells which produce electrical (DC) current from electrochemical reactions are defined as "batteries". I just DEMAND several AUTHORATATIVE references. These should be from sources discussing the broader energy cell context, and not discussions of the (narrow) electrolytic assembly. The definition should clearly explain that mechanical, radioactive, capacitive, kinetic, etc. energy storage devices are NOT "batteries".Abitslow (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You're going to have a hard time finding a list of all the things that something is not. Can you find any examples of people referring to, say, RTGs, hydro-storage, supercapacitors, or fuel cells as batteries? --Skrapion (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Anode is the source of high potential electrons and is labeled with a positive sign

We have a problem here with this article. It seems that some people are reverting well sourced material from the article based on their wrong headed ideas of how batteries work rather on published sources. If you would take the time to read a good chemistry or physics text you will find that those sources say explicitly that electrons originate at high potential at the anode (marked with a positive sign), they then flow through an external circuit performing work, and then they return to the cathode (marked with a negative sign) of the battery at zero potential. The source of confusion enters when physicists and chemists append labels to sketches of batteries and their circuits. The high potential anode is always labeled with a positive sign (indicating higher potential to perform work) and the low potential terminal is marked with a negative sign (indicating lower potential). While the electrons are negatively charged and originate at the anode, the positive sign is appended to that terminal to indicate that it is the source of high potential energy electrons. I will now quote from one of the sources I have on my desk.

From Chemistry, 2nd edition, by Raymond Chang page 533: By definition, the electrode at which the oxidation occurs, is called the anode; the electrode at which the reduction occurs, is called the cathode. Bold emphasis is the author's.

On that same page figure 19.1 : Cell diagram of a galvanic cell. The Zn and Cu electrodes are immersed in ZnCuSO4, and CuSO4 solutions, respectively. The function of the salt bridge (the inverted U tube) is to provide an electrically conducting medium between the ZnCuSO4, and CuSO4 solutions. It consists of an inert electrolyte solution (such as KCl solution). The opening of the U tube are lightly filled with cotton swabs to prevent the KCl solution from running into the containers, while allowing the anions and the cations to move across. Electrons flow externally from the Zn electrode (anode) to the copper electrode (cathode). The bold emphasis is mine.

In addition to that, I have another chemistry text and several physics and electrical engineering sources on my desk that explicitly express the idea that the electrons flow from the terminal marked + (positive) through a passive device such as a resistor where they perform work, to the terminal marked - (negative). Batteries are marked with a positive sign and the simple circuits illustrated explicitly show the electrons flowing from that terminal through the external circuit to the terminal marked negative. Unless you are prepared to argue with published sources written by people with PhDs in chemistry, physics, and electrical engineering, I suggest you accept their sign convention. I will revert the reversion once again and bring in other people if necessary, but I assure you that you are wasting everyone's time. Zedshort (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As the sources on my desk may not be common, I will provide an online source.

On page 180 of this online source: https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_2/intro_physics_2.a4.pdf

Beginning of quote from that source:

A lead-acid battery consists of two plates. The anode (positive pole) is made out of ordinary

lead. The cathode (negative pole) is made of lead coated with lead oxide. Both are immersed in a solution of water and sulphuric acid. At the anode :

Pb + HSO4- → PbSO4 + H+ + 2e-

while at the cathode:

PbO2+ HSO4- + 3H+ + 2e- → PbSO4 + H2O

or overall:

Pb + PbO2 + 2H2SO4 → 2PbSO4 + 2H2O

End of quote.

Note that the anode is supplied high potential electrons by the reaction that takes place there. When an external path is supplied, the reaction progresses as electrons move through the external circuit, while internally the cations that originate at the anion flow to the cathode. The electrons pass through an external load, lose their potential energy and finally join the cations at the cathode. The chemical reaction continues until the chemical potential of the battery is used up. The author explicitly states that the anode is marked positive and the anode is marked negative.

I understand how difficult it is for people to dislodge wrong ideas that are lodged within them, but this is not about you or about me, but about writing an article that is clearly written, and well sourced. Our opinions do not matter. Please provide good sources. Zedshort (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I’ve got a chemistry text book here in front of me by Brown, LeMay and Bursten, ISBN 0-13-578345-3. It has a diagram of a battery that clearly shows a negative sign on the anode and a positive sign on the cathode. Constant314 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The source I referenced also has such an unfortunately and mistakenly labeled illustration. Now what? How does one go about making a decision as to what to believe and what to use to write this article? In addition to that silly illustration, which incidentally shows the battery as an open circuit suggestion the accumulation of a few electrons on the anode and hence does not really counter the text, there are a dozen other pages of illustrations and detailed text that consistently states the opposite and there are all my electrical engineering texts, and physics texts that say otherwise. While a picture is worth a thousand words, it does not follow that one mislabeled sketch outweighs the entire text and a great many others. Did you read from the online source that I provided? I hope you might do so. Zedshort (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


The online source you gave, under the heading of Symbol for a battery says "the + sign (and longer plate) indicate the anode, the side of the battery from which positive current flows (where we are suffering from Franklin’s Mistake, because the actual motion of charge in the chemical reaction above is negative electrons flowing the other way)." However, it still agrees with the convention that electrons are emitted from the electrode with the negative sign and absorbed at the electrode with the positive side. Also, if you look at the equation that you gave above for the anode
Pb + HSO4- → PbSO4 + H+ + 2e-
you will see that the excess electrons are generated at the anode. Constant314 (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Poor choice of source; it cites Wikipedia. "High potential electrons" is meaningless. By definition the anode is the negative terminal (electron source; current sink) of a discharging battery. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, just wow. Reverting material I posted on any talk page is a serious matter. I shows an unwillingness to talk at any level. EB is a tertiary source and is OK to refer to and certainly appropriate in this discussion. So, here it is again:
Encyclopedia Britanica article on Batteries: "The anode of an electrochemical cell is usually a metal that is oxidized (gives up electrons) at a potential between 0.5 volt and about 4 volts above that of the cathode." How I wish people on WP could express themselves in such a clear and succinct manner.
I suggest you ease up on the reverting and deleting of material, especially on the talk page. Zedshort (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There was an editing conflict while I was posting. I thought that I recovered without losing anything. If I causes your edit to be deleted I apologize for that.Constant314 (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The terminal that gives up electrons is the negative terminal. Electrons are negatively charged. Nominal current direction is the opposite of direction of electron flow. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is the problem. While people may call the terminal that gives up the electrons the negative terminal, it is more appropriate from the standpoint of Potential Energy to say that terminal (the anode) is the source of high potential energy electrons. In physics texts the anode of a battery or a generator is marked with a positive sign indicating a higher potential. Check any physics reference. The terminal on the batteries you have at home are marked positive and are the anode and the source of high potential electrons. While the electrons are negative charge, they do not leave the anode and move toward the cathode until connected to an external circuit. From the anode, they flow through an external circuit, losing their potential to do work, they flow from there with virtually zero energy left to the cathode where they combine with the cations that have gathered there. Hence the circuit is complete.
I have no clue as to what this means: "Nominal current direction is the opposite of direction of electron flow." Do you have a source for this? I understand that the electrons will flow in a direction opposite the electrical potential since the flow from the high potential anode to the low potential cathode. Perhaps that is what you meant.
There are two issues to address in your comment. I’ll address the easy one. I’m sure Vquakr meant conventional current when he said normal current. If you see a schematic with a battery and a load, it is conventional to show current as an arrow coming out of the positive terminal through the load and back to the negative terminal. That would be the conventional current. The electron current flows in the opposite direction (from the negative terminal of the battery to the load and then to the positive terminal of the battery.) That is the convention. It has always been that way. Constant314 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
You are correct then you say the electrons flow from the terminal marked + (typically found in the physics and electrical engineering texts) through the load and to the terminal marked negative. With that, I will say that we are making progress. But, what you say here: "The electron current flows in the opposite direction..." makes no sense. The direction of current flow is opposite the potential energy increase direction, afterall, the elecrons will only flow "down hill" in a potential sense. You are confusing the direction of increasing electrical potential with the current flow direction. The electrons flow from high potential anode (marked +) to the load where they lose their energy, and finally end of that they end at the cathode (marked -). The direction of increasing electrical potential is in the direction opposite the current flow, that is why the electrons flow and deliver their energy to the load that stands between the anode and the cathode.
You might find this helpful Electric current#Conventions. It explains the difference between conventional current and electron current. Constant314 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The second issue is that there are no high potential electrons involved. Electrons guide electromagnetic energy to the load, but they don’t carry it to the load as potential energy. Energy flows to the load via the electromagnetic field surrounding the conductors from both terminals of the battery. Constant314 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
With that, I will say that you have given yourself away as an enthusiastic acolyte of physics and chemistry, but need go to back and crack your books. When you do so, be ready to change your preconceived ideas about how these things work or you will make no progress. Sincerely. Zedshort (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand that resorting to an encyclopedia can create a circular reference, but really, I seriously doubt that EB is quoting WP. They would have to be out of their minds to make that mistake. Zedshort (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you describe what you mean by "high potential energy electrons"? In this context that is a meaningless phrase. Electric potential is environment-dependent. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
In order for work to be performed, the electrons must be higher in electrical potential than the point to which they will flow. As those electrons flow from the high potential, through a load they give up their potential energy. In the case of their flowing through a resistance, that Potential Energy will manifests as heat. If the potential was delivered to a flywheel, the energy would manifest as rotational kinetic energy, nevertheless, those electrons would loose their potential to do work. A battery delivers high potential energy electrons to an external circuit from the anode to the load, and they end at the cathode where they join the cations within the battery, completing the circuit. The idea of a potential energy, whether in the form of a gravitational potential energy, or chemical potential energy, or an electrical potential energy is nothing new. Electrical potential is indeed environment dependent, and in the case of the battery attached to a load, the battery anode is the high energy source (high potential), the load receives that energy, and the electrons return to the cathode with zero potential. The flow of electrons is in the direction opposite to the Potential increase. Zedshort (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
You are poorly differentiating electric charge, electric potential, current, and energy. For example, the electrical potential at the cathode is only zero if measured in reference to the cathode. We agree, though, that in a discharging battery electrons leave the anode (negative terminal) and return to the cathode (positive terminal). You just have the nomenclature backwards. In an electrolytic cell (example: a recharging battery), the positive terminal becomes the anode and the negative terminal the cathode, because electrons always flow from the anode (site of oxidation) to the cathode (site of reduction). In terms of references, I seem to have misplaced my intro gen chem book from college. My current citation is the MCAT chemistry handbook (pp 313-314), which I concede is not an exemplary source. I'll grab a more authoritative text next time I'm at the library. VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Put the battery in a black box and have the two terminals come outside the "device".

A battery / electrochemical cell has unambiguous positive and negative terminals. One of the terminals has a higher potential/voltage than the other. A voltmeter can be used to label the positive and negative terminals coming out of the black box. To first order, the voltage across a battery does not change.

The terms anode and cathode distinguish the direction of (conventional) current. If the black box terminals are not connected to anything, then there is no anode or cathode because there is no current into or out of the device.

The mnemonics are CCD ("cathode current departs" the device) and ACID ("anode current into device").

When a battery is discharged (providing current), conventional current departs from the cathode and flows into the anode: the conventional current is from the positive terminal to the negative terminal. The positive terminal is the cathode and the negative terminal is the anode.

Here, current means conventional current. As pointed out above, the negative charge of an electron means the electron flow is opposite to the conventional current. The electron flow is opposite to conventional charge flow: electrons depart from the anode and enter through the cathode.

See Galvanic cell.

For secondary batteries, the role of the positive and negative terminals changes when the battery is charged. During charging, the positive terminal is the anode and the negative terminal is the anode.

Glrx (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. We simply don't use plurals for disambiguation; see WP:PLURAL. Also, the disambiguation page at Battery contains many more entries than just Battery (crime). VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


Battery (electricity) → batteries – Avoids the need for the (electricity). batteries can be used. The crime battery is never pluralized as batteries, so there's no ambiguity. 2602:306:3653:8920:71:C15E:DC2D:F2C3 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Batteries are grouped artillery weapons. They still exist, and the literature about them extends back centuries. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Largest Batteries

The article suggests that the largest batteries are in backup power for telephone exchanges and computer data centers. I wonder if those are truly the largest batteries. In particular, I wonder if batteries in non-nuclear submarines aren't larger. Anybody have a citation as to the largest batteries? Constant314 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question. Tesla just announced a 100 MW, 126 MWH battery project for Australia, and I bet that's bigger than any submarine battery. This is claimed to be 3 times the size of any other utility grid-connected battery. Looking at the article on the GUPPY conversions in the US Navy, looks like peak power was on the order of 5 MW or so, much smaller than many utility-connected batteries. But that's for 1950's submarines. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Add Lithium Polymer battery, aka LiPo battery

Please add LiPo battery to the page. They typically power consumer drones, aka UASs. I believe a LiPo battery is very closely related to the Lithium Ion battery. I know the modern LiPo can hold as much as a 3.8 volt nominal charge per cell.

Also, it would be nice if there was a short discussion on exactly what "nominal" means as it is used with "nominal voltage", "nominal capacity", etc. For example, if I check my 12-volt car battery, it might show 13.5 volts. If I fully charge my 11.1 nominal capacity (3 cell) drone battery, it shows 12.6 volts. A more modern 4 cell LiPo has a nominal capacity of 15.2 volts, but will show close to 17.2 volts fully charged. Mark The Droner (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Is 1.5 V really the maximum theoretical voltage for alkaline?

Alkaline (zinc–manganese dioxide) is listed as having 1.5 V as the maximum theoretical voltage. Is that really true?

I have just measured a Duracell AA battery marked with "ALKALINE"/"DURALOCK"/"MN1500"/"1.5 V LR6" (most likely "Coppertop") with a Fluke 175 multimeter (with a fresh 9 V battery) to 1.624 V. This was confirmed by using another multimeter (within about 0.2%, 0.003 V).

Measuring 20 other batteries from three other manufacturers (all marked with "Alkaline" or "ALKALINE") gave results in the range 1.609 - 1.621 V.

We don't do original research here, but surely it must be possible to find a source?

--Mortense (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battery (electricity). 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) 23:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

electromotive force falls under discharge

The article states that an ideal cell would maintain its electromotive force (emf) under discharge until exhausted at which the emf drops to zero. This ideal emf is determined by conditions at the atomic level. We know that the emf of a car battery drops under discharge and this is hard to understand. The physical chemistry of a non-ideal cell should be explained in this article or some reference to the explanation should be given. As it stands the article seems to say that the laws of physics make a prediction which turns out to be wrong in the real world - as though there were any other. Bukovets (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that a cell has non-ideal behavior is stated in the very next sentence. The world ideal does not mean as predicted by the laws of physics. Constant314 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battery (electricity). 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) 22:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battery (electricity). 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) 14:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2017

Cations are reduced (electrons are added) at the cathode during charging, while anions are oxidized (electrons are removed) at the anode during charging as quoted from the page is definitely wrong. Please update the information 202.12.94.240 (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not incorrect, but it is not well explained. I checked two chemistry text books. It seems that the anode is always the source of electrons to the external circuit. This means that the plate that was the anode during discharge is referred to as the cathode during charging and the plate that was the cathode during discharge is referred to as the anode during charging. Constant314 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2017

Battery is deprecated in realtime usage everywhere. Hence Battery name must bear coiled Magnet or Magnets that generate electricity or power when coiled or rotated.

Small motors do have magnets that makes them rotate. They too generate huge amount of power or electricity to run bikes, cars. They are found in Fans above. Reference Links:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bF6TqCF7OA&sns=fb

Battery modified with black permanent magnet instead of coal particles, and spiral coil for conducting electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcAkqUbitjU&sns=fb Rayzweb (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The video linked to is some kind of "free energy from magnets" perpetual motion deal. Seen it before. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electric_battery/Archive_3&oldid=1190233394"