Talk:Rechargeable battery

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rechargeable battery article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics High‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
High	This article has been rated as High-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

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freezing

You guys need to add a section discussing the merits of freezing or refrigerating rechargeable batteries to rejuvenate them (restore their ability to hold a charge). Trust me this is not a myth. I have quite a few batteries in the freezer right now.--God Ω War 01:46, 3 August 2006.--Patl (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recharging while power is on

I've heard that leaving a small device (such as a cell phone or PDA) on while recharging can shorten the life of a battery. Is there any merit to this? D4S 06:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends on the device. If the voltage and current delivered to the battery aren't affected (because there's ample power from the wall socket) then certainly not. If there's less juice delivered to the battery, it might make a difference, or it might just charge more slowly. The best thing to do is to read the owner's manual, but there may be a more general answer we could give. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the cell phone while recharging doesn't effect the life of the battery, but it delivers less juice to the battery causing the charge to be longer so people take the phone off before the phone is properly charged causing the belief of the short battery life crises.

Can rechargeables damage devices?

I have a high-power red laser pointer (containing a standard silicon laser) that runs for about 2 hours on two single-use CR123A 3V 1000mAh cells (total voltage around 6 volts). I wish to use rechargeable batteries of the same voltage/power but have been told by the seller that rechargeables could damage the laserpointer. Is it really possible for rechargeables which provide exactly the same voltage and power (3v, 1000mAh per cell) to cause damage?

Sorry if this is not the right place to ask such a question, but I knew the clever people at Wikipedia might have the answer :)

Thanks in advance for any help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.110.75.70 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Even though rechargeables often produce slightly different output (as noted in the article) and don't last as long, I doubt it would be damaging. The manufacturer should know best. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, depends. You can use fewer parts if you use specific battery characterisitics, cheaper product but sloppy design. Example is cheap White LED flashlights: 3.7 V lithium battery, 3.2 V LED forward voltage, 10 Ohm battery internal resistance, therefore ~50 mA current and bright but within many LED current limits. If you use 3 Nickel Cadmium cells which have lower internal resistance (~1 Ohm each) you fry the LED with 150 mA. A light with 3 AG10 alkaline button cells (1.55 V each; about 5 ohms total) for 4.5V and a 25 Ohm series resistor (in the flashlight) would still work with 2 lead acid cells (4.4 volts and 2 ohms total). Laser diodes will emit at low currents but only emit coherent light (lase) at high currents, near the point where they fry. (Many non-laser LEDs emit coherent light at high currents.) Rapidly pulsing the current with high peak current but low average current ("strobing") also increasing efficiency and visibility. The circuitry for peak current limit and pulse generation should be fairly battery independent.Shjacks45 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting the battery for recharging

A section should be made how the batteries can be connected for recharging. This can eg be done using WiTricity or a regular solid wire connection KVDP (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another believer that Tesla was God. Will the miracles never cease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shjacks45 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charge cycle

I suggest include in the article what is a charge cycle . --Nudecline (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were other batteries

Another wiki had Lithium-Cobalt(III)Oxide and there was an industrial battery promoted by a Vancouver company using Lithium-ManganeseDisulfide. The NiH2 battery should have a redirect to fuel cell technology as that's what it is. The Nickel Metal Hydride and Platinum in the Nickel Hydrogen batteries both act as fuel cells, the Raney Nickel ("Metal Hydride") catalyst (like Palladium metal) stores Hydrogen in its molecular lattice. In both cases Nickelic(III)Hydroxide serves as the oxidizer. There should be a note about battery chemistry: acid aqueous, alkaline aqueous, and non-aqueous. There is a -0.8 volt shift between hydrogen in acidic (where H has zero volt potential) media to hydrogen in Alkaline media, also affecting other metals such as zinc and aluminum. The charging efficiency of aqueous batteries is affected when hydrogen potential is lower than the metal, even considering the lower hydrogen ion concentration in alkaline solution. Shjacks45 (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in Wikipedia regarding Ultrafire/Truefire/othersfire (brandnamefire) batteries. There is, AFAIK, limited usage and market for these types although many internet sites, mainly Asian, are selling them, information regarding them is very limited. This needs adding either by brandname or original name, of which I can't find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatwey (talk • contribs) 07:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maximum safe discharge current

I'm missing in the table maximum safe discharge current (internal impedance) and maximum safe charging current.

Preventing crystal growth and loss of charge capacity?

As I learn more about how rechargeable batteries work, it appears the main cause of loss of capacity is due to crystal formation while the cell is discharged. This is mentioned in the lead acid battery article and probably should by included here.

Once crystallized, the chemicals are so stable that they don't react (or react extremely slowly) when the battery is charged again, and is why lead acid batteries must be rapidly recharged after discharge or their charge capacity can become permanently damaged, and is why nickel cadmium batteries can develop the so-called memory effect.

One of the reasons lithium ion cells are so robust is due to the fact that stable crystals apparently don't form so easily in them when discharged, though it does still happen if the cells are subjected to many discharge/charge cycles.

It looks like paste-electrolyte rechargeable cells are more prone to crystal formation, as are gel-cell and absorbed glass mat lead acid cells, due to the lack of mechanical motion around the plates.

Are there any mechanical means of preventing crystal growth in wet cells? They normally charge through atomic diffusion only, and electrolyte motion in the liquid is kept to a minimum. What happens if the electrolyte is actively agitated within each cell? Would that impede crystal growth by preventing settling?

Can chemicals be added to the electrolyte of a cell which atomically "get in the way", to poison crystal growth, without affecting the charge-holding capacity?

I seem to be wandering deep into battery electrochemistry research.. :)

DMahalko (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We look forward to the results of your research. I've read that large lead-acid battery banks are sometimes charged to the point of gassing to agitate the electrolyte, but this is more to equalize electrolyte concentration from top to bottom in the cells than to affect crystal growth sizes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After some more exploring it appears the situation is reversed for nickel cadmium vs lead acid, but the problem of lost cell capacity is still crystal formation.

The memory effect is apparently due to crystals forming while a NiCd cell is kept continuously charged, and discharging to depletion can help to more fully re-dissolve crystals in NiCd cells, and reduce the memory effect.

In both cases as crystals form, the crystals apparently can grow large enough to mechanically short out the cell either by pressing on the conductive plates or growing and bridging the plate gap themselves. (It's not clear to me yet, if either or both are possible in lead acid and nickel cadmium.) DMahalko (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As most people know, the memory effect was a myth dreampt up by salesmen trying to hawk (the then new) nickel-metal-hydride technology at a time when the capacity was approximately the same as nickel-cadmium, but the price was five times higher (i.e. why would anyone in their right mind specify them?). The myth was subverted from certain specialised nickel-cadmium batteries of sintered construction and made for spacecraft use which do exhibit this effect, but only when discharged to exactly the same point on each cycle. For all battery types likely to be encountered by the average consumer, no 'memory effect' has been shown to exist. All nickel based batteries suffer from a problem that some take to be symptoms of memory effect, but the cause is quite different and easily repairable. 86.157.171.34 (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the User:DMahalko that this article should say some words about rechargeable batteries "wearing out" and what those causes are. The memory effect article says that the true memory effect is not relevant to normal wearout. What is actually going on in typical batteries? What is the name of this "problem ... that ... is quite different and easily repairable"? --DavidCary (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency

There was a lot of poorly (ie none at all) referenced data for the "efficiency" of the various battery chemistries, there are several ways to report the efficiency noted in the following documents: http://my.ece.ucsb.edu/York/Bobsclass/194/LecNotes/Lect - Batteries.pdf http://www.evs24.org/wevajournal/php/download.php?f=vol4/WEVA4-4002.pdf

If a comparison between the batteries is to be made they will need citations with the same form of measurement. When discussing energy storage the Energy Efficiency is clearly the most representative measure, rather than the (larger) Coulomb or Voltage Efficiencies.

The Efficiency column has been removed until a suitable set of references can be obtained for the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.70.32.210 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alkaline

The rechargeable alkaline battery doesn't belong in the table. It's simply an alkaline battery sold at inflated prices with some bull story. The few user reviews i've read were negative. Not even sure if they are still being sold, the precharged low self-discharge NiMH has probably removed the last niche market they had. And since those have become the standard NiMH battery sold in the shops, maybe that discharge figure of 30% for NiMH should be changed, or they should be listed separately? Ssscienccce (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Current Flow'...

All instances of 'current flow' are confusing and fundamentally wrong. Current doesn't flow, current *is* a flow of charge:

Since a current is a flow of charge, the common expression "flow of current" should be avoided, since literally it means "flow of flow of charge.

- Modern College Physics: Sears, Wehr, & Zemanski

See also: ELECTRIC CURRENT IS A FLOW OF ENERGY? Wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.226.224 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium–titanate

I was told by Leclanché SA (Switzerland) that they sell their "TiBox" for 10.000,- CHF/US$ for private customers. Power content of the "TiBox" is around 3200 Wh --> 0.32 Wh/US$ 213.180.184.217 (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But an 8-pack of rechargeable AA cells at Wal Mart is .68 watthours/$US. What's a "TiBox" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad chart

the chart/photo captioned "Graph of mass and volume energy densities of several secondary cells" list aluminium cans as a type of battery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.187.131 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rechargeable battery. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rechargeable battery. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907073602/http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/115-7/innovations.html to http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/115-7/innovations.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Company claims

"company claimed"
We should be very careful with these, are many companies are quick to make bold claims to inflate their value, and then fail to deliver.
Heck, there are companies claiming free energy out there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musaran (talk • contribs) 12:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes at File:Secondary cell energy density

There are several mistakes:

Why LiFe are separate, although they are just have different type of cathode?
LiPol are not real LiPol, it is just a hybrid, if not only polymer separator?
Why certain types of LiIon are separated and all other are together? There are a lot of different chemistry combinations.

That is why I decided to remove it--Divega (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rechargeable battery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

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

Lifespan and cycle stability

Can we mention (and make a seperate page) for the Ferrocene-viologen flow battery designed by Harvard University ? Appearantly, it lasts up to a decade and it's water-based, so at its end-of-life, the recycling would be very easy with this battery-type. references: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/flow-battery-energy-grids-harvard-university https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2017/02/long-lasting-flow-battery-could-run-for-more-than-decade-with-minimum-upkeep KVDP (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rechargeable battery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper clippings

Wikipedia is not a collection of randomly associated facts. A list of randomly selected headlines is not suitable content for an encyclopedia article. Electric cars have their own articles and detailed discussion of that application belongs in those articles, not in this overview. We should explain what "charging time" means, not just recite random news bites. We should explain what the objectives of research in rechargeable batteries is, not just note down Professor Wesley Crusher's latest 3-d nanotechnology research paper. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs a correction

Under ”Charging and discharging” the image “Secondary Cell Diagram.svg” contains in the right part the words Charge, Negative and Anode. One of the words is wrong. When charging a secondary cell the negative electrode is the cathode. To call the negative electrode an anode (only) is a misuse by some lithium-ion cell researchers and manufacturers. Professor George Zheng Chen at University of Nottingham has suggested using the word negatrode for the negative electrode to avoid confusion [1]. Or maybe negode could be a suitable word, just two syllables like anode. The words anode and cathode were introduced by Michael Faraday in 1834 and in his paper these two words are clearly related to the current direction, not the electrode polarity. Adding some arrows to the image, indicating the current direction and the ion movement direction, would be helpful in understanding the electrochemical process during charging (or discharging). --Stenallan (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing "batteryuniversity.com"?

I've resolved my own issue. To summarise (my deleted, original comment and the results of my findings), I tried to update a section with references to Battery University, but it turns out the site is on the spam blacklist because of unreliable/anecdotal information being passed as fact (source). Hopefully this will save any future editors running into this issue some time. --Achiox (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damage during storage in fully discharged state

This section is mixing up battery chemistries. It talks about sulphation in lead-acid batteries left in a discharged state, and then goes on to state that batteries should be kept at a charge of 30-70%.

In reality, lead-acid batteries suffer from sulphation when left at any state of charge other than 100%. The 30-70% state of charge is a figure given for lithium-ion batteries, and then solely from a long discredited source. In general, nickel-cadmium, nickel-iron, nickel-metal-hydride can be kept in any state of charge from 0 to 100% without damage. These chemistries can be stored indefinitely at zero charge. However, the lithum-ion chemistry should never be allowed to discharge below 3.0 volts per cell (2.4 volts for some older Sony chemistries) as irreversible damage will occur. They can be stored at any voltage above the minimum given, but attention should be given to the cells self discharging below that voltage especially if there is a monitoring circuit providing a current draw. 86.146.209.211 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Accu"

ACCU and Accu (battery) both redirect here. The former page describes it as "a battery that can be restored to full charge by the application of electrical energy", and I notice a lot of eBay listings for batteries have the word "accu" in the title. I assume it's short for "accumulator", but is it slang, and where does it come from? China? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five minutes on the Web suggests this might be another gift that Wikipedia has given the language - I found a site where some translators are arguing about this and citing Wikipedia as their example of usage. It's not English as I understand it - there seem to be German batteries with a trademark of "Akku". Here's where someone from East Cheem pipes up and disparages my parochialism by saying he just bought a new accu for his lorry on the way to a football match.--Wtshymanski (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Akku" translates from German to English as either 'battery' or 'accumulator' (dictionaries variously giving either or both). German sourced rechargeable batteries have, in the past, been sold under the pseudo translated term of 'accu' which could be regarded as an abbreviation for 'accumulator'. 'Accumulator' is an archaic [British] English term for a lead-acid rechargeable battery with particular referral to the single cell lead acid battery used to power the filaments in very old valve (vacuum tube) radios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.153.165 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Date of discharge" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Date of discharge. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 23#Date of discharge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]