Talk:UltraBattery

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Issues

I have a few problems with the current article:

NPOV: I can see only praise. No drawbacks whatsoever. I find that unlikely. In particular because:...
...the article says that licenses for commercialization are in place since 2007. So, why have I (i.e. presumably the general public) never heard of these things during the last ten years? What seems to be the problem? Why haven't they long taken over all markets if the're so great?
"Applications": It seems to me, this section could be reduced to the sentence "The UltraBattery can replace all current conventional lead-acid batteries." I don't see the need to list every possible use of lead-acid batteries here, as this is well covered in other articles. It would be much more interesting, if its inventors had thought of some new applications heretofore closed to conventional batteries.

--BjKa (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the article is copy/pasted from this PDF.

--150.135.213.114 (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That link has rotted but is archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20200313103213/http://www.evolvingenergy.com.au/uploads/2/9/8/5/29857561/evolving_energy_-_ultrbattery_technology_explained.pdf - and looking at it more closely I can see that it has basically been duplicated here and most of the links/references in it also reproduced as references for the article. To be honest this seems to me to be a WP:ONESOURCE and I have tried to flag it as such. SlySven (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead-Carbon

I believe, but am not certain, that this article describes 'Lead-Carbon' batteries, which are available from a number of manufacturers, but not widely so. Whether these manufacturers are 'legitimate' or licensees I have no idea. That said, one example is SunPal, which is not small. See product description, which is clearly referring to the same, or near-identical, technology.

Googling 'lead-carbon battery' will find many more. Scholar has a lot of relevant content also.

I propose, once people with more expertise have looked into it, that this page is retitled 'Lead-Carbon Batteries', that it be referenced from the lead-acid page, and that it then becomes a starting point to move the article away from the current 'blurb' to something better.

Because the tech sounds extremely promising - Indeed, I am waiting on a shipment from SunPal for my off-grid bloc.

‒ Jaymax✍ 06:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Lead-Carbon batteries, they are a different technology which uses carbon in one of the plates of the lead-acid battery to improve it. Ultrabatteries are a product which incorporates a battery and a capacitor in the same housing with some management technology, and is a different invention. There are many references to this. You just need to google "Lead Carbon" to see the all the links, but [1] is an example where you will notice the manufacture makes no reference to capacitor technology. The link provided above to the Sunpal product is misleading, or just wrong. Removing the link to Lead-Carbon. Grahamatwp (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]