Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Questionable Picture of "Dell laptop burnt by bad Sony lithium-ion battery"  





2 Much Material is Questionable  
2 comments  




3 Some Chemistry  
1 comment  




4 Just appalling  
2 comments  




5 High Temperature Charging  
3 comments  




6 Good content to add to this page  
3 comments  




7 Revert  





8 Casito you're a bloody fool  





9 Loss of rechargeability  
1 comment  




10 Badly formated additions  





11 A bunch info and answers to incorporate  
2 comments  




12 Freezer issue  
2 comments  




13 Invented by Thomas Edison?  
4 comments  




14 Higher-Capacity Lithium-Ion Batteries  
2 comments  




15 Polymers = flourinated?  
1 comment  




16 fixing energy numbers  
2 comments  




17 prolonging real-world battery life  
2 comments  




18 Toxicity  
1 comment  




19 Transwikied to wikibooks  
1 comment  




20 720 W / kg claim  
1 comment  




21 Claim in Electric Vehicle Article  
2 comments  




22 Lithium in Lihium Ion cells  





23 0% Li-ion becomes 100%  
1 comment  




24 quote: lithium-ion batteries should be charged early and often  
2 comments  




25 Battery types  





26 Deep Cycling  
2 comments  




27 Reliability of references  
1 comment  




28 Japanese expert  
1 comment  




29 "real world testing"  
2 comments  




30 "50 million ohms" ???  
3 comments  




31 Explosive safety devices???  
1 comment  




32 "Controversy"  
1 comment  




33 Fundamental Point  
1 comment  




34 recharge cycle  
2 comments  




35 Add power/size in Battery specifications?  
1 comment  




36 Link to page selling thinkpad batteries?!?!  
1 comment  




37 Physical size of battery  
1 comment  




38 Additions in the history section Aug 24  
1 comment  




39 Article authors confuse single electrode capacity improvements with improvements in overall battery energy density  
1 comment  




40 Charge/discharge efficiency  
1 comment  




41 Power/weight (specific power)  
1 comment  




42 Discharging below 3V  
4 comments  




43 Picture in infobox  
1 comment  




44 Exploding batteries?  
3 comments  




45 Contradiction  
1 comment  




46 Disputed  
10 comments  




47 Reliability of Battery University as a source?  
2 comments  




48 Move  
3 comments  













Talk:Lithium-ion battery




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 




Print/export  



















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.66.197.30 (talk)at16:17, 9 October 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff)  Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision  (diff)

WikiProject iconEnergy Unassessed
WikiProject icon 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChemistry B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhysics B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTechnology Unassessed
WikiProject icon 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconElectronics Unassessed
WikiProject icon 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 page
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconComputing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAutomobiles Unassessed
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Questionable Picture of "Dell laptop burnt by bad Sony lithium-ion battery"

How did the battery get on top of the laptop keyboard and stick there without burning anything else around it? There are no characteristic marks of warped, burnt, or ruptured plastic on the laptop shell. The authenticity of the picture is questionable. It seems to be a simulated fantasy scene and should be noted as such.

Much Material is Questionable

The manufacturers of Lithium Ion batteries have been reluctant to publish very much in the way of useable information on this battery technology. As a result many websites have sprung up, some with apparently reputable origins, to fill the void of information. Some seem to have published speculative information that has no citable origin. Many seem to just copied this information from the other sites. The remainder have published differing speculations. This article seems to have quoted and cited much of the uncited sources. As a result some of the information is useful, but some of it fails to square with real world Lithium Ion batteries.

For example, someone has stated that Lithium Ion batteries must never be deep discharged. Whilst it is true, they should never be discharged to zero volts, there is nothing to prevent a cell being discharged to 2.8 volts without harm (most implementations enforce a 3.0 volt minimum to provide a margin of error).

Someone (else?) has published a table of %age cell degredation with age and temperature (cited from an apparently respectable source). But real batteries are obviously unaware of these sources because there are numerous examples in the wild that have been regularly fully discharged (to 2.8 to 3.0 volts), stored at around 20 °C and kept fully charged in between times. These batteries are over 12 years old and are fully functional. The data in the article suggests that these batteries would have expired years ago, so something is clearly wrong.

I work in the aerospace industry, and am a user of Lithium Ion batteries in many guises. It is a continuing source of frustration that the battery manufacturers just won't tell you some of the things you need to know with respect to battery useage and life information.

Unless, this speculative data can be properly cited from a proper source like the cell manufacturers themselves, it should be removed or at least moved to a section of the article that makes it clear that the information is speculative and possibly inaccurate.

I B Wright 13:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you. Nothing is referenced properly. 213.78.42.15 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Chemistry

Although I agree that the entire article's slant towards the practical use and maintenance of li-ion batteries is very useful, perhaps this article could benefit from some more theory, something along the lines of a explanation of the chemistry behind it all. And perhaps, if there exists one, a diagram depicting an li-ion battery's internal design?

It looks like a chemical equation has been added to the article, but it presently reads as:

This drops an oxygen into the aether somewhere. Poor oxygen.

According to a site I found [1], a very similar equation is given (replace 'x' with 0.5 and write it with reactants and products exchanged):

The charging process would proceed left to right in the form I've given; the discharging process would proceed right to left.

But it would be nice to have a real, honest paper source to dervice this from. Heck, I checked all of the references currently on the Wiki article, and I couldn't find the source for the original equation either. Queer.

  1. Electronics Lab, "How to rebuild a Li-Ion battery pack". http://www.electronics-lab.com/articles/Li_Ion_reconstruct/index.html, Retrieved 2006 April 17

OldMiner 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some electrons in the formula for the reaction. I am trying to check my understanding of things with a few calculations of the weight of stuff in a battery to provide a certain capacity in amp hours and without knowing how many electrons move around for a certain chemical reaction, the reaction formula is pretty useless. It isn't completely useless, as I can add up the atomic weights and get an idea, but I could be out by a factor of 2 or 3 or whatever if the electons released are numerous for one lot of stuff in the formula. Since batteries are about getting electrons moving, logically the formula would be for releasing one electron unless otherwise stated.

There are actually lots of different chemistries of rechargeable li-ion batteries which are lumped in one in this article, commonly found are: LiFePO4,LiCoO2,LiMn2O4,Li(NiCo)O2 see here: http://www.iloveebikes.com/batteries.html Some of the advantages and disadvantges listed in the article apply just to certain chemistries, also the numbers thrown around are not common across all the chemistry variants. Especially the safety aspects. Various (nanotech-)enhanced cathode materials add to the confusion and variety. I think the article is long overdue for a total overhaul and possibly splitting apart. 194.126.108.2 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just appalling

This is one of the worst articles I have seen. It's just embarassing to read. The whole page should be scrapped and started from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddy011 (talkcontribs) 23:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please work on this article: Should start out with introduction as "Battery technology is very secretive". Looks like two half cells to me, two metals laminated with lithium electrolyte (nonaqueous). I emailed a Japanese manufacturer, will see if he answers; and will post results here.

Sirmikey1 (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Temperature Charging

I have experienced very high temperature with power socket attached to the notebook (cable come from adaptor) when charging batteries with almost discharged capacity. Is it normal for lithium batteries?

This webpage seems to state that Li-ion cells should not heat up when charging. It sounds like something may be wrong with your charger or your cell. Maybe it would be worth getting someone to have a look at it?


"Look at the manufacturing date." Yeah, right. Like they tell you!

The increase in temperature ist most likely not from the battery itself, but from the internal current converter, which converts the current from the AC adaptor to the right current for your battery. --Seidler2547 10:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading that shorted Lithium ion battery emits dangerous high frequency Xray. What the hell? Sirmikey1 (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.231.103 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good content to add to this page

The two/three-terminal approach is VERY manufacturer specific. Laptop batteries often have 5 or more terminals.
A good guess would be: One terminal is ground, one terminal is the protected battery output, one terminal is the input charge voltage (usually 5 volts). A fourth terminal might be a serial communication indicating battery life.
If you wanted to trick a phone into thinking the battery is there, it might be as simple as ignoring the charge-voltage pin and putting the battery across the other two, or it may be as complicated as using a microcontroller to "talk" on that last pin (depending on its purpose). Of course, you would have to have the equipment to figure the purpose of all of these pins out... this isn't the sort of thing I would recommend to even an intermediate electronics engineer. --Mcmudge 18:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This (more than two terminal) discussion may warrant it's own article, or just it's own section for now. It's more of a battery management topic than it is a battery (stricktly the individule cell) topic. I once dissasembled some 40 1.4Ah 18650 cell phone cells (5parallel 8series) to build a scooter pack. No, they didn't last long as they were undersized for the task, as I expected, sized to deliver crusing power(15A) but not accelleration power(50A). A second set of 96 naked ~1Ah prismatic cells (12p 8s) pack is still working well and delivering 10 miles of range [1]. Anyway, the first 18650 cells came in pairs with the milti-terminal management circuit. The circuit was connected to each pair of cells, as they were originally packaged, and though the phone used them both in series for power the circuit had a center tap, which I can only speculate was there to actively keep the pair in ballance. Other than that the only part of the circuit I can positively identify is a 5A fuse, which seperates the positive battery terminal from the positive pad. The other three terminals all appear to be gounds, though only one of them goes directly to the negative battery terminal. I suspect that these circuits are only half of the charge circuit, the other half residing in the phone/device or charger. --D0li0 12:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this cell pic: http://www.eco-aesc.com/en/laminatecell.html Sirmikey1 (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

While 82.32.184.126's edit added a considerable amount of information, it amounted to little more than vandalism and has been reverted as such. I believe it was completely inappropriate for several reasons:

Anything that the author's information may have added to the article was more than outweighed by the edit's poor tone, marginal relevance, and likely copyright violation.

--Casito 03:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Casito you're a bloody fool

You complaints / reasons for a revert were...

yeah, and I made it extremely clear at the outset what it was, and also made it quite clear that I wouldn't have any problem with any EDITS anyone felt like doing. (why didn't I do it myself at the time? at the time was a 9k gsm connection)

rubbish

now that is nothing less than complete and utter bullshit

mm, it was a copy paste that people were invited to edit.

yeah, look at the site in question (http://www.surfbaud.co.uk/index2.php), just above the bottom of the home page, just above the text that says "Copyright © 2005 Surfbaud. All rights reserved."

you'll find some white font coloured text, a pretty adequate demonstration of my intellectual property.

Casito you want to be king of this topic at the expense of actually adding any relevant and useful data for the benefit of the users you go right ahead, you think the tone of this post is openly hostile? It is, but directed at you personally for acting like a tosser, not at wiki.

You say you're a 22 year old mechanical engineering student, I'm a mid forties bloody well qualified and very experienced engineer, and here you are passing judgement on my knowledge for the benefit of everyone else.

You wanna pass judgement on a shitty bit of page editing (which I explained above was due to a flaky and slow connection at the time, and when I got back ashore I clean forgot about this article till just now) go right ahead and I'll agree with you all the way, which is why I said UP FRONT in the posting please feel free to edit or amend this at will so it fits in better.

Lose the egos guys... this is Wikipedia, not an IRC channel. There is not need for phrases like "it amounted to little more than vandalism" and "acting like a tosser". (Leigh8959 March 5 2005 5:30pm PST)

Loss of rechargeability

Does anyone know why Li-ion batteries slowly lose their ability to recharge? I would be interested in a chemical explanation.

This article simply lacks any chemical explanation. -- Toytoy 15:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
At full charge the cathode contains several high oxidation state metals that gradually either react (get reduced by reaction) with the electrolyte or lose oxygen. This process causes irreversible reactions that gradually results in the buildup of inactive species at the electrodes. Also overtime the active materials slowly delaminate from the current collectors resulting in less 'active' material involved in the cycling process.
But this process is very, very slow. The quoted 5% a month is way off, perhaps 0.5% or something. Personal tests have shown that these batteries keep charge for a year without trouble, and the millions of laptop and mobile phone users who use them daily is proof that the batteries are solid in the main. The only limit I know of is that the cells start to fail when you recharge them too often, the lower limit being around 300 charges. This is why iPods were having troubles, as they charge every time they are conneted to a PC, and they could be in constant use. 300 charges is under a year in those cases. Djvivnji 09:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badly formated additions

Toshiba is licensing the process from Altair the patent holder.

This is a encyclopedia article, not a spec comparison sheet. All we need is the range of capacities available in general, not company specific info. Rmhermen 21:35, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Can's the encyclopedia display information about the progress that has been made through out the development life of this technology? How about this? In particular I'm trying to show the rescent increases in power density.

2003

2004

2005

--D0li0 01:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First these selected data don't show a state of the art. They are just randomly selected data. Second the Wh/kg data don't show any trend so why list them? Third, you are still using a press release of a possible future battery which is not independently verified for the current data. Rmhermen 23:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
They do show the potential of the art, which will become the state of the art. No trend? How is 300-800, 2000, and 5600 W/kg not a trend, it seems to me to be a 10 fold increase in power density from 500 to 5000. The Altair posts may have been unverified claims, but once Toshiba licensed and build it's prototypes and tested them this technology became proven, no? Do Toshibas measurement devices somehow differ from those you or I might use to measure these cells? So you're saying we have to wait till they go into mass production and we can test them ourselves? --D0li0 01:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
IO didn't say that the the W/kg data didn't show a trwend. I said that the Wh/kg don't. I said that the W/kg data appear to suffer from selection bias. Toshiba's claims are unverified. You are quoting a company advertisment for a prototype. No one beside Toshiba has one of these batteries and therefore no one run any independent test and verified or dissproven their data. Companies have a long history of painting pretty pictures of their products more gleamiong and impressive than reality. And don't forget thee difference between Li-Ion and Li-polymer. When this does come to market, it may well be considered a new type of battery. Rmhermen 13:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Humm, well I guess I'll wait till they go into production or are otherwise validated. Sorry for being such a pain, I'm just really excited about these cells! How about a link to the Electric_vehicle page? --D0li0 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A bunch info and answers to incorporate

If you'd like to write some content, here are some things I know about Li-Ions. A lot of this is already covered, but I'm sure there's plenty of info that can be added. I am an electronics engineer -- I make circuits that directly use, charge and protect lithium ion, lithium polymer, ni-cad and ni-mh cells. Please incorporate this information as you see fit. This information applies to both Lithium-ion and Lithium-polymer batteries.

The reason for performance loss is oxidization. This is created by time, charge, and heat. To prolong the life of your battery, keep it somewhere cool (the refrigerator; not the freezer) at a 40% charge. Buy your batteries when you need them; don't buy a second battery until it is going to be used. In applications where the number of recharges is more important than single-cycle capacity, lithium batteries are never charged more than 80%.

The lithium battery nominal voltage is 3.6 volts; this is the voltage at about a 50% charge, and the battery stays the longest near this voltage as it is being used. The charge voltage is 4.2 volts, and the lowest "allowed" voltage is 2.5 volts, although most electronic equipment cuts it off at 2.9 volts for safety. A lithium-ion cell below 1.5 volts should not be charged with the normal charger.

Lithium ion batteries range from 15 minutes to 4 hours to charge; the shorter the charge time, the fewer charge cycles the battery can handle. Although it is not always best for the battery, it is safe to say that any li-ion can be charged in 1 hour. This is done by applying a current equal to their amp-hour rating; a 2.2-amp-hour lithium-ion would be given no more than 2.2 amps for one hour, or until the battery hits 4.2 volts, whichever comes first. After the charging battery hits 4.2 volts, a "top-off" charge can be accomplished by continuing to provide current as the battery overcomes its internal resistance, as long as the voltage does not exceed 4.2.

Lithium ion batteries, like most others, have some internal resistance. When discharging stops, the battery's voltage may recover. Likewise, when charging stops, the voltage may drop, allowing for further "top-off" charging until the battery maintains 4.2 volts. Lithium-based batteries are unique in their ability to deliver power at very low temperatures, and may soon be a replacement for winter lead-acid batteries. No heat should be produced from a charging battery.

Voltages below 2.9 have the potential to harm a lithium battery. Many protection circuits and chargers will place the battery into a "trickle-charge" state, which charges the battery at 1/10th of the charge rate until the battery reaches 2.9 volts, and then charging resumes as normal.

When shorted, older lithium batteries have the potential to produce pure lithium, which is highly reactive. While Nickel-based batteries can usually take the place of common consumer batteries (like alkaline), lithium batteries are almost always accompanied by at least a minimum protection circuit that prevents overdischarge, overcharge and short-circuit.

Because of weight and cost considerations, several consumer industries, such as remote-controlled aircraft models, often do not use the protection circuit. This has led to huge amounts of property damage from fire, including lost homes and vehicles. Short-circuits are the easiest failure to understand. When shorted, the power of the battery is released at the highest rate that the battery can deliver; all of this energy turns to heat, and eventually to fire. The remainder of the fires are greatly misunderstood:

Series-charging of li-ion batteries is a major problem. In order to charge 3 lithium cells in series, the final voltage across all of the cells should be 12.6. However, this does not guarantee that the voltage for each cell is 4.2. Inconsistency in battery temperature, pressure and manufacture can cause a cell to fall behind while remaining cells will reach full charge sooner... as the charge continues, the fully-charged cells become overcharged. After a few charge cycles like this, one of the cells may be undercharged, while one is at a critical voltage (4.5V or higher); this is when the battery gets hot. Shrink-wrap around the battery can then prevent the electrodes from separating, and provide a storage for pressure until the battery bursts, sending burning electrolyte in all directions.

Laptops fix this problem by actually having 4 individual chargers on board. While the cells are discharged as a whole, each cell is charged independently, to ensure that no one cell goes higher than 4.2 volts.

Lithium ions also have a debated use-it-or-lose-it "memory effect". It is theorized that a battery that is left fully charged for long periods will lose its ability to deliver power quickly, even though the power is present in the battery. This will cause the battery-controlling circuitry to sense that the battery is low because the battery can't keep up with the electronics. Likewise, batteries that are exposed to a high-draw may not hold their full charge as long. A counter-argument to this theory is that, especially in laptops, the warmth and full-charge provided by the laptop simply accelerate the battery's natural deterioration. Laptop users that usually leave their laptop plugged in should discharge their battery to about 40% and leave it out of the laptop until it is needed.

Also, Lithium-ion technology is fading away, while more development is being done with Lithium-polymers. All of these technologies have their oddballs:

Lithium batteries typically allow for a full discharge in 4 minutes, however, there are some that can dump all of their power in as little as 60 seconds. (That means LOTS of power, really quick)

Lithium batteries typically take a minimum of 1 hour to charge. There are a few that take 15 minutes, but Toshiba has recently announced a battery capable of being fully charged in 60 seconds.

There are several types of lithium batteries that have lower peak-charge and nominal voltages; be sure you know your battery's operating voltages before trying to charge or discharge them.

Mcmudge 18:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the above falls into the class of information wrongly distributed around the Internet (refered to above). The article already has far too much of this to incorporate any more. As already noted, real world batteries seem to be unaware of much of the above and carry on for many years after they should have expired. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freezer issue

I have read in the article that Li-Ion batteries should not be put in the frezzer, which is most likely a result of having this information copied over from variuos websites. However, I find no practical reason why you shouldn't. Of course, the metallic pins of the battery should be isolated, as ice and condesation water could cause an current flow, that could indeed destroy the battery. I've done this, and put a cell phone battery into a freezer of about -15°C for more than three months (of course, as recommended, at 40% charge). Result: after letting it warm up slowly, it works as if it was new, no loss in capacity noticeable.

Condensation may well provide a discharge path, but ice is an insulator. This is why railway companies have to go to great lengths to remove or melt ice that forms on conductor rails during the winter periods.

Of course, charging and use at these temperatures should be strongly discouraged, but the "do not put into the freezer" point should be removed or rewritten. Seidler2547 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the condensed moisture inside battery? When cooling down from room temperature, the dew point goes down as well, so at the end you have water/ice inside the battery - on the contacts, on inside electronics and so on. May this be the reason why not to store batteries at so low temperatures? #jez 89.239.7.2 17:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invented by Thomas Edison?

I removed the following text by User:Avé:

Image:Ed_d22m.jpg
Thomas Alva Edison used (and preferred) Li-Ion batteries in his electric vehicles. While powered by Lithium Ion batteries, neither his electric trains that circumnavigated the Menlo Park lab/facility, nor the electric autos gained commercial success, it is worthy to note Henry Ford worked for Edison prior to starting Ford Motor Co.

The Detroit Electric car shown in that 1913 photograph predates commercial Li-ion batteries by almost 80 years. It was available with either lead-acidornickel-iron batteries, as shown in this advertisement. Nickel-iron batteries were invented by Edison in 1901 and manufactured at the Edison Storage Battery Company.

No he didn't. Edison stole the invention of the Nickel-Iron battery from Jungner who experimented with various combinations of Iron and Nickel before finally developing the Nickel-Cadmium battery in 1899. Jungner found that the Nickel-Iron version was considerably inferior to the Nickel-Cadmium and neither patented it nor developed it further. Both variants were largely unknown in the US until the 1940's allowing Edison to claim to have invented the Nickel-Iron. I B Wright 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any sources that suggest Edison invented the Lithium-ion battery. As part of my search, I reviewed all U.S. patents granted to Edison with titles containing variations of the words battery, electrode, or electrolyte. There are 94 such patents. And though I found no description of a device similar to a modern Li-ion battery, I did find references to lithium compounds Edison used in the construction of his nickel-iron batteries. Specifically, Edison discovered he could increase the capacity and longevity of nickel-iron batteries by supplementing the alkaline electrolyte with a small amount of lithium hydroxide. This discovery is presented in the following patent:

I also found five other patents in which Edison describes an alkaline electrolyte containing a small amount of lithium hydroxide:

I also found a patent describing the extraction of potassium and lithium from silicate ore. This suggests Edison used lithium in significant amounts, probably in the manufacture of storage batteries.

Curiously, five of these patents use the word preferorpreferably when describing the use of lithium hydroxide. This wording is mirrored in the Wikipedia text. Perhaps the nickel-iron batteries described in these patents were mistakenly believed to be Li-ion batteries?

I believe the addition of lithium hydroxide as described in patent 876,445 doesn't alter the basic chemistry of the nickel-iron cell. These batteries are nothing like modern Li-ion cells; they're more closely related to NiCds. —Ryanrs 14:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would make a nice section at the Nickel-iron battery article, I've copied it to Talk:Nickel-iron battery#lithium hydroxide electrolyte which could use the attention. --D0li0 11:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Edison examples are not really Li-Ion batteries but early versions of the Ni-Cd or Ni-Zn (even NiMH) batteries where protons do the charge transport.


What is the internal resistance of Lithium-ion batteries of higher capacity, say 40AH. Upto what surrounding temperature these batteries are adviced to operate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.16.58 (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Higher-Capacity Lithium-Ion Batteries

New research which I or someone can add when possible. - RoyBoy 800 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to edit this myself, but the energy numbers given in the article are way too high for real-world lithium-ion rechargable batteries hitting the streets. 100 Wh/kg typically when being discharged from 3,7 downto the cut-off-voltage would be more realistic, and only 60 - 70 Wh/kg if not discharged below 3,5V (for an extended life). These are the numbers found in some other language Wiki contents and these are also the numbers I could find in science literature. Sure, there is an enourmeous technology progress going on right now, but I think, Wikipedia should not just cite the idealised manufacturers data as this will led to wrong conclusions in regard to the technology. Ideally Wikipedia would differentiate between manufacturers data, science data, and practical data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.22.179 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polymers = flourinated?

Does anyone have an opinion on Nakajima, T. and Groult, H., eds. (2005) "Fluorinated Materials for Energy Conversion" Elsevier ISBN 0080444725? 66.201.48.26 08:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixing energy numbers

The numbers in the table need to be fixed so that they are correct and consistant with the article. Also, I was wondering why we're measuring energy in watt hours..? Fresheneesz 08:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battery capacities are always measured in Wh not J by those that use and test them - because this is a convenient unit, especially as the charge is measured in Ah rather than C. Simply multiplying the charge, in Ah, during charge or discharge by the average voltage, in V, gives the energy in Wh. To convert to SI units is also quite simple 1 Wh = 3.6 kJ. Ahw001 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, watt-hours are entirely appropriate units for energy in case of batteries or other portable energy sources. I think it's a much bigger problem that those numbers in the article have been sourced from absolutely nowhere. As far as anyone is concerned, those are purely random, though reasonable-looking, numbers.

prolonging real-world battery life

For an average joe who wants to prolong the life of their laptop (or mobile phone etc); the article says keeping it at 40% is best; but u obviously can't keep a battery at 40% all the time; otherwise there is no point in having it. So what is needed is a range of optimum use? i have heard 80%-40% .. 80%-20%. eg. (excluding long periods of time when it wont be in use) is it better to keep a battery at 40% and then drain it to 20% when u actualy need to use it, or keep it at 60% and drain it to 40% when u need it. How would u keep a battery from charging fully, without removing it? (this part seems like manufacturers specifically try to get ur battery to ruin itself) and also, from what i can gather there is no way to increase the battery life of a li-ion battery, once it has degraded.. right? ~BB, aug19.

According to Toyota, they designed their hybrids to keep the NiMH batteries between 40-70% to prolong life & avoid replacement. It seems reasonable to think Lithium has a similar property. - Theaveng 15:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lower state of charge (SOC) in HEV operation is more related to the regen braking function. The lower the SOC, the higher the power the battery can accept during braking. Sure, it does prolong life, because if regenerative power were forced into a battery at high SOC it would cause damage. Lithium ion batteries do age more rapidly at higher voltages (= higher SOC levels) because they are thermodynamically less stable. Storing them at less than about 60% would probably not yield significant benefits. Furthermore, if stored at very low SOC there is a danger of overdischarge because of continued parasitic discharge from the on-board electronics. - BatteryGuy 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity

I came to the page seeking information about the relative toxicity of this battery chemistry as waste. Nothing found. An addition covering this topic would be welcome.

Seconded. Battery chemistry looks tricky to the non-specialist. "Lead-acid", I can guess the risks; "lithium ion", not so much. Even looking up lithium isn't necessarily going to settle the question: for example, carbon looks friendly enough on paper, but less so when it's in carbon monoxide gas. —Eric S. Smith 15:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikied to wikibooks

This article has been transwikied to b:Transwiki:Lithium ion battery, where it will be modified for use as a how-to chapter. The how to section(s) may now be deleted. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

720 W / kg claim

Everspring [2] claims to sell their 'Lithium ion Power Battery' for $50 / kg at 720 Wh / kg. I could not find real world use of these after a few hours searching the net so I am now even more suspicous of the claims.

It's probably for use in off-grid systems, such as farms with windmills, etc. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Claim in Electric Vehicle Article

There it says: Lithium batteries have been made safe, can be recharged in minutes instead of hours, and now last longer than the typical vehicle.

Seems to contradict what this article says.

www.teslamotors.com says they are using 4600 lithium ion cells with a fuse at each positive and each negative terminal = 9200 fuses. These are slighty larger than AA size cells. Let's consider an improved (possibly) design: 80 somewhat larger lithiun-ion cells in series. This produces almost 300 volts, which allows a simple, cheap, and tiny charger to plug in the 240 volt ac line. Fusing both terminals of each cell separately seems prudent in event of a bad wreck. Each cell has it's own 2 amp charger, voltage limited at about 4.2 volts. A common 6 volt at 6 amps incandecent light bulb can provide the 2 amps approximately constant current from a 4 volt rms transformer secondary and diodes. A computer stops the charging of each cell several times per hour and leaves that charger off if the terminal voltage exceeds 4.2 volts. This provides about 600 watts of charging for the 200,000 watt battery. This system can run 24/7 if the transformer primary is pluged into a live 120 volt ac outlet. It should run whenever the gasoline motor is running to reduce the probability of any cell falling below 2.8 volts. The 80 bulbs are a very dim idiot light for each of the 80 cells. If the main charger is plugged into 240 volts, twenty or thirty additional amps are supplied to the 200,000 watt battery. When several of the 2 amp chargers have shut down, the 240 volt charger will also be shut down (until all the cells are being charged at about 2 amps) to avoid over charging the 200,000 watt battery. If faster charging is desired, an auto-transformer can boost the 240 volt ac input to 250 volts or a bit more. The 200,000 watt battery weighes 111 kilograms using the bare bones energy density of 1800 watts per kilogram. Using the low number from the text 667 kilograms at 300 watts per kilogram, for 20 seconds. An air cooled battery (or refrigerant cooled battery) can likely weigh 300 kilograms, even with saftey devices and containment in event of a cell explosion. We will need more than 20 seconds if the vehicle is pulling a trailer weighing several tons up a long steep hill. The Tesla roadster battery is 280 amp hours, so it takes(not a hybird)ten hours to charge at an average of 28 amps. Generally we start charging at 50% charge or more, and even big hybirds can use less amp hours. Few homes or small businesses are presently wired to charge much faster than 28 amps average, even though a vehicle size lithium ion battery can likely tolerate a 300 amp charging rate at least briefly. Neil

The reason for the individual cells is purely that the 'A' sized cells are so common, and they all have PTC 'fuses' in them to try to stop thermal runaway. They didn't add the fuses themselves. Pull apart 90% of laptop batteries, drill batteries or any other large battery and you will find arrays of smaller cells.Djvivnji 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I had heard that the Toshiba corporation has developed a fast charging battery and circuit system that allows fast charging in minutes and that it may be of some use to the auto sector. It seems promising, provided that the oil companies do not try to take over this technology as well. I think they hold a fair few patents for battery technology for automotive propulsion and will not release them on license - Texaco for example holds the patent (through a subsidiary it bought many years ago) for a battery temperature regulator. 80.195.207.65 13:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium in Lihium Ion cells

Does anyone know how much lithium (in [g]) a 200 wh/kg cell of 1 kg contains ?

0% Li-ion becomes 100%

I gave a 0% Li-ion "dead" battery to a repair shop for about 2 weeks, it can "repair" it to 100% "live" battery. I wonder how they can "renew" it or "repair" it. Can anyone tell me? "Put" it in a freezer? "Charge" it with a "special" charger? "Open" it and "repair" the inside content? 0% to 100% is a real story. What is the real explanation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.79.188.100 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Some compaanies will repair the battery by replacing the "dead" cells with new ones. The battery packs, depending upon the type, may end up with cells that have more capacity than the originals, and hence last longer. The process is the same regardless of whether it is a NiMH, Li-ion or whatever battery, as it is easier, and safer, to replace all the cells at once.

quote: lithium-ion batteries should be charged early and often

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-ion#Guidelines_for_prolonging_Li-ion_battery_life

Guidelines for prolonging Li-ion battery life


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-ion#Storage_temperature_and_charge

|::| According to the table in this paragraph[3]: lower charge means longer battery life. And so If I fully recharge my mobile phone's battery, every one or two days, then I will shorten it's life. Therefore it would be better to only recharge the battery when the phone asks me to. This will take use of the entire safe capacity of the Li-ion battery, but also allows it to be in a low-charged state for some days, expanding it's life-time. (pure logic)

|::| George Valkov 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should let them run down. The internal circuits stop them before they get too low, and you are more limited by the limited number of charges than anything else in reality. Djvivnji 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battery types

There would be a template to all the rechargable battery types (as happens in other topics).


Deep Cycling

"Unlike Ni-Cd batteries, lithium-ion batteries should be charged early and often. However, if they are not used for a longer time, they should be brought to a charge level of around 40%. Lithium-ion batteries should never be "deep-cycled" like Ni-Cd batteries.[7]"

I don't understand what deep-cycled means... Maybe a clarification would help =) --Grant M 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's when you drain the battery (by definition, over 80%, but they usually mean it can be discharged 100%) before recharging. If you deep cycle Li-Ion batteries, the internal circuitry that protects the battery won't have enough power and you'll never be able to charge it again. The internal circuitry does its best to reserve some power for it to function, so normal use won't deep charge it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of references

I have begun going through the references cited in this article and formatting them for consistency. However, the reliability of the ones we are citing is outright scary. For starters, we have a citation to a movie review of "Who killed the electric car." Not a review in a magazine or newspaper, just a review on the home page of some guy named Paul (no last name given). Next we have several citations written by Isidor Buchmann. Some of them are on BatteryUniversity.com, and one is on his personal page. Buchmann is CEO of Cadex Electronics Inc., a company which sells battery testers and chargers so he, and his company, have vested interests. The only truly reliable sources I have seen so far are the patent references, and possible the lithium-ion handbook, although this too is published by a battery manufacturer. I don't think we should just delete the sources that are listed as its better for our readers to at least see where we got our information, but I think it does give un-due credibility to the article and perhaps it should contain some sort of warning. I don't know if we have a template about the reliability of sources listed but we could just make a box at the top of the page like some of the templates do. The section above "Much material is questionable" also discusses this matter somewhat. -AndrewBuck 17:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese expert

According to [4], a Japanese expert has recommended lithium ion polymer batteries be used instead of lithium ion. The reference isn't the best though, they don't even seem to realise lithium ion polymer batteries already exist Nil Einne 10:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"real world testing"

I've removed the section entitled "real world testing", about car batteries. The section was misnamed (Li-ion batteries have had years of real world testing) and did not seem to fit the NPOV. LachlanA 02:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"50 million ohms" ???

I haven't gone through the pain of checking when that statement was added (that internal resistance will eventually rise to 50 MOhms), but it appears ridiculously high and was not backed up by some proper source, especially since it was given as an indicative value. Plus, in practice, even two or single-digit figures for internal resistance would be a hindrance to any practical battery, let alone 50 MegaOhms. EpiVictor 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It originally said the resistance was 50 million Celsius so I expect it's not valid Kirtai 08:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely it mean 50 milliohms instead of 50 megohms. Milli abbreviation is small m, mega is capital M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.231.103 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive safety devices???

"Li-ion batteries contain safety devices that protect the cells inside from abuse, and, if damaged, can cause the battery to ignite or explode."

A safety device that causes a fire or explosion? Perhaps this is meant to say something else...? --Chriswaterguy talk 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy"

Is controversy the most appropriate word(s) for the headline of that section? I think something like "Defective batteries" or something would be better. andkore 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Point

Are all rechargeable Lithium cells "Lithium Ion"? Some sources seem to define lithium ion as a subset of rechargeable lithium cells, whereas others indicate they are the same thing. I think a definitive statement on this would clear up some ambiguity. Do you think it would be useful to create a comprehensive table of currently availble chemistries, similar to (but maybe not quite as verbose as) the Lithium_battery page? I realise that information from manufacturers can be scarce but even just a listing of the chemistries would be useful. (Namxat 10:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

recharge cycle

what is considered a recharge cycle for lithum batterys? every time you plug it in then that is a charge cycle gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.246.100 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 'charge/discharge cycle in this context is a discharge from 100% to 0% charge and then a recharge back to 100% charge. Typically stated as 300-500 cycles. Discharging to 50% charge and then recharging is only half a cycle, thus you can expect 600-1000 half cycles (and so on). 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add power/size in Battery specifications?

I realise this can be calculated from the other three, but it would be nice to have this statistic at a glance. What do others think? --Skytopia (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to page selling thinkpad batteries?!?!

The first link in "External Links" is IBM thinkpad t40 battery which is a link to "http://www.power-batteries.net/notebook/ibm/thinkpad-t40-series.html".

I didn't look too deeply, but I'm pretty sure they're more interested in selling people a replacement battery than they are in presenting facts about Lithium Ion Batteries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elusiveneutrino (talkcontribs) 09:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical size of battery

The battery in the picture at the beginning of the article-- how big is it? Is it as big as a pack of cigarettes? A sea trunk? An automobile? As with any other picture of an unfamiliar object, there should be a familiar object in the picture so we have something by which to judge the size of the unfamiliar object. Jm546 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additions in the history section Aug 24

the last addition for the history is 1996 which is a little out of date. The last entry also has the year 1996 as the publication year concerning the introduction of Iron Phosphate in L-ion batteries, this is correct. But I added the word "late" before 1996 because two of the technology articles I read had the release marked erroneously as 1997.

Other than that I just added some info from the Online version of the Printed March 6th, 2008 issue of Economist.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article authors confuse single electrode capacity improvements with improvements in overall battery energy density

Be mindful of the fact that claims of improved energy density around new electrode breakthroughs are typically misquoting the original source. Several times in the article, for example around the MIT virus-based nanowires, original authors' claims that suggest improvement in electrode capacity are mis-represented as potential improvements in overall battery energy density. A 3x improvement in electrode capacity does not equate to a 3x improvement in battery energy density. A suitable complementary electrode is first needed to accommodate a similar capacity, and other inactive materials in the cell must be considered in determining overall energy density. Mrweatherbee (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charge/discharge efficiency

An anonymous IP user has edited the Charge/discharge efficiency info box to say 80-90%, with the justification being a single source study on power tool Li-ion batteries. I have always thought it was normal to state the coloumbic efficiency for this figure. Power tools put a very heavy load on the batteries and I doubt that this usage is representative of the more common usage that the average person is likely to encounter in things like cells phones and PDAs. If there is no further evidence to support this single source then I will revert it back to the more usual accepted figure of coloumbic efficiency 99.9% HumphreyW (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power/weight (specific power)

Does anyone have a reference for this? I picked one Li-ion at random and pulled the data sheet:

http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_LiIon_CGA103450A.pdf

I ran the numbers on it, for 2C, and got ~330 W/kg; which is a lot lower than the specified number.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discharging below 3V

It says on two occasions in the text that discharging below a "certain voltage" (2.9 or 3V) is "harmful" and "may render the battery unusable". I think it should be added that this is only due to the internal protection circuitry. The cell itself isn't seriously harmed by deep discharging even down to 0V as far as I understand from http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-16.htm and I've also designed and used Li-ion chargers (for in-house use only) which we use for button cell li-ion (which for some reason don't have much protection in themselves). They don't seem to be degraded much when used down to 0V (although I haven't tried this in great detail, but I've seen enough to make a rough conclusion). We use "pre-charging" (i e 1/10 of full charge current) if voltage is below 2,9V. (It might be good to avoid the term "trickle charging" here since this term is since long used for Nickel chemistries etc and then means a continuous small charging current after full charging is completed, to keep charging level at 100%; this is NOT allowed for Li-ion.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.73.73.1 (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations or any information from Battery University is unacceptable. In spite of the impressive name and web site, there is in fact no such organisation. The web site is run by an individual who just trawls information regardless of provenance (or accuracy) from the rest of the Internet into one website. Indeed false (but esentially harmless) information has appeared on Battery University within a week or two of having been deliberately planted elsewhere. Unfortunately there was an unforseen result of this, a few portable device manufacturers (including such reputable suppliers like Hewlett Packard) included features in their products to deal with the mythical characteristic.
Having said all that, there are real reasons not to discharge a Li-ion battery below 2.8 volts per cell (2.4 volts for some chemistry variants). Once the voltage falls below the minimum level, the chemistry tends to plate out copper onto the internal structure of the cell. Obviously, if it is recharged fairly quickly, the available current is able to remove the thin layer (though the copper particles can still be a hazard). However, if the recharge doesn't occur for a longer time, the plated out copper acts as a short circuit on the cell and can result in the cell over heating and possible rupture. It is for this reason that a properly designed Li-ion charger will not permit a cell discharged below the minimum voltage to be charged. Attempting to overcome this by manually partially recharging the battery is dangerous unless carried out to a strict procedure (which involves carrying it out in a location where a rupturing battery cannot set fire to anything else).
Li-ion batteries cannot be trickle charged as such, but they can be left floating across a fixed current limited 4.2 volt source. Once the cell voltage rises to 4.2 volts itself, the charge current will in theory fall to zero. In practice, the current falls to a level that exactly balances the battery's self discharge current. In fact, to fully charge such a battery it should be left 'on charge' for around an hour after the indication that the charge cycle has finished. Nearly every charger reports that the charge has finished when the constant current cycle has ended, but this typically occurs at 80% charge and not 100% as indicated. The constant voltage phase adds the remaining charge.
If you are attempting to design your own charger, it should be noted that the 4.2 volt output must be maintained very accurately. A 0.5% reduction in voltage will result in the battery being undercharged by about 10% of its capacity. A 0.5% overvoltage will result in the battery attempting to overcharge by around 25%. This latter effect will not in fact occur and the result is a highly probably rupture of the battery, and the fire that results. Batteries don't 'explode' as such, but they do rupture and the electrolyte, which is highly flammable, is ignited by the spontaneous combustion of other battery components (most notably metallic lithium released from the chemistry). Since the electrolyte is rapidly ejected by the built up internal pressure, the battery is quite capable of setting fire to material several feet away from it. The burning battery is almost impossible to extinguish because it provides its own oxygen. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you would document (here, not in the article), what the false information was. Obviously if you have access to reliable sources that document the correct information that would be even better.--Srleffler (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, most of that site is questionable. If much of what was contained on that site were true, no Li-ion battery could possibly last longer than 5 years. In fact, real world batteries can last 15 years or more. The one thing on that site that I can positively say is false is the claim that batteries degrade if discharged below 30% charge. I can say this because myself and 2 colleagues made this defect up and deliberately planted it for the guy who actually runs BatteryUniversity to find and incorporate into the site (and he did it within 2 weeks). It was about the most harmles thing we could think of, but several manufacturers did incorporate features in their products to warn of impending discharge below 30% charge (and to be fair, probably did it with the best of intentions).
Someone has opened a new discussion thread below on BatteryUniversity, and I would suggest that further discussion is continued there (== Reliability of Battery University as a source? ==). 20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture in infobox

I'm not sure what the picture of the Varta Lithium-ion battery in the infobox is supposed to illustrate? As it's in a museum, is it a picture of an early prototype or is this type of battery still in use today, and if so, what is it used for? Is it an automotive battery? Richerman (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding batteries?

I have removed the reference talking about exploding batteries during charging. If there is a reliable reference detailing actual results with batteries that have exploded please feel free to reinstate the text. I get the impression that the current fear about exploding Li-ion batteries is simply just that - a fear that is backed by no evidence. Many sites post vague claims or single sentences saying "be cautious of exploding batteries" but none that I have found have solid evidence for the claim. Most of the actual evidence of stressed batteries is only catching fire of over heating, but no explosions. HumphreyW (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref(0) Failure to follow current and voltage limitations can result in explosion. "If, however, a Li-Ion battery is placed on a charger which is set for a higher terminal voltage than 4.25V per cell, or a higher than rated current, there is a real possibility of fire or explosion. Further, if the battery is connected to a load above its current capability, it will overheat, even if the cells are not taken below the minimum voltage of 2.25 volts/cell." [1]
Ref(1) In the even of an lithium battery explosion it will quickly generate dense white smoke which can cause severe irritation to the respiratory tract, eyes and skin. All precautions must be taken to limit exposure to these fumes.[2]
Ref(2) Failure to follow current and voltage limitations can result in explosion.[3]
Electron9 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterated from above just to clarrify the point:
Batteries don't 'explode' as such, but they do rupture and the electrolyte, which is highly flammable, is ignited by the spontaneous combustion of other battery components (most notably metallic lithium released from the chemistry). Since the electrolyte is rapidly ejected by the built up internal pressure, the battery is quite capable of setting fire to material several feet away from it. The burning battery is almost impossible to extinguish because it provides its own oxygen. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The section on advantages contradicts itself. It says both『Li-ion batteries are lighter than other equivalent secondary batteries—often much lighter,』and "However, the bulk of the electrodes...and in addition "dead weight" from the electrolyte, current collectors, casing, electronics and conductivity additives reduce the charge per unit mass to little more than that of other rechargeable batteries." These statements cannot both be true as written.--Srleffler (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

For anyone else confused by the talkpage link in the {{disputed}} tag (in the "Guidelines for prolonging Li-ion battery life" section) that leads to nowhere, but are too lazy to dig through the page history... the comments by the IP who added the tag are here (and the same IP has a few other posts scattered above through this talk page). I'm mainly just posting this here so that that link has a target. Phlip (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the disputed material from the section. Here is a copy of the section before my edit, for reference:

Guidelines for prolonging Li-ion battery life

Storage temperature and charge

Storing a Li-ion battery at the correct temperature and charge makes all the difference in maintaining its storage capacity. The following table shows the amount of permanent capacity loss that will occur after storage at a given charge level and temperature.

Permanent Capacity Loss versus Storage Conditions
Storage Temperature 40% Charge 100% Charge
0 °C (32 °F) 2% loss after 1 year 6% loss after 1 year
25 °C (77 °F) 4% loss after 1 year 20% loss after 1 year
40 °C (104 °F) 15% loss after 1 year 35% loss after 1 year
60 °C (140 °F) 25% loss after 1 year 40% loss after 3 months
Source: BatteryUniversity.com[4]

It is significantly beneficial to avoid storing a lithium-ion battery at full charge. A Li-ion battery stored at 40% charge will last many times longer than one stored at 100% charge, particularly at higher temperatures.[4]

If a Li-ion battery is stored with too low a charge, there is a risk of allowing the charge to drop below the battery's low-voltage threshold, resulting in an unrecoverable dead battery. Once the charge has dropped to this level, recharging it can be dangerous. Some batteries therefore feature an internal safety circuit which will prevent charging in this state, and the battery will be for all practical purposes dead. [citation needed]

In circumstances where a second Li-ion battery is available for a given device, it is recommended that the unused battery be discharged to 40% and placed in the refrigerator to prolong its shelf life. While the battery can be used or charged immediately, some Li-ion batteries will provide more energy when brought to room temperature.

--Srleffler (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the material. The IP that posted the disputes has not shown good faith at all. I think the IP has some person grudge against the website in question. As far as I am aware the disputed material is industry accepted advice. Actually I am tempted to simply remove the unproved disputes. Anyone object to removal of the IP contribution? HumphreyW (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but there is no option here. The site is not a reliable source, and if such material is disputed it must be removed, and may not be replaced unless a reliable source is found. If this is industry-accepted advice, it should be possible to find a proper source for it. I will be selective in removing material, however. Some things I will mark "cite needed" for now.--Srleffler (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the IP's tone does suggest personal dislike of "Battery University". This does not, however, automatically make the IP wrong. It's not our role to evaluate this dispute. We handle content disputes by reference to sources, not by evaluating the motives of the editors involved. If the IP is still reading, I hope he/she will contribute to the article. Perhaps he/she has access to reliable sources that can be of use.--Srleffler (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't Battery University a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.231.124 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no such organisation. That site is run by an individual (and is widely believed to be the author of the book refenced on the main page - possibly to increase sales of that book.) 20.133.0.13 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelf Life

I've moved these two comments from within the article text here for more open discussion.

[The Shelf Life] section does not seem to apply to real world batteries. It cites batteryuniversity for some of its content. There is in fact no such organisation - that site is run by an enthusiastic amateur who trawls any rubbish from the net. There are items on that site that were deliberately planted for him to find. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References about problems with the reliability of batteryuniversity would help. Also, if Battery University is a self-published source from Isidor Buchmann then it should be reviewed carefully according to the reliable sources policy. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shelf life has been confused with charge/recharging-dependent cycle life; cycle life is another matter entirely. Actually, most lithium-ion cells have excellent shelf lives (10% loss of charge in 8 years, and military cells still delivering full capacity after 20 years of collecting dust. Go shake a brick at that, NiMH! Have moved information accordingly. (Unknown)
References would be good to verify this shelf life information. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Battery University as a source?

The reliability and possible self-publication of BatteryUniversity.com have both brought its use as a source into question and [unreliable source?] tags appear on citations pointing there. Please add evidence one way or another. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source Battery University is used as source material for much of the material in this article. There is in fact no such organisation (and why would a whole university be founded purely on Battery technology alone?). It is known that the site is run by an individual (I have a few names - but the front runner is the author of a book conveniently referenced from the main page) who just trawls any information from the internet and assembles it into an apparently authoritative guide on rechargeable battery technology (and despite the apparently all encompassing organisation name, completely ignores primary battery technologies). The position is made worse because BatteryUniversity seems to be the only place where such a vast compendium of 'knowledge' on the subject exists. The reality is that the battery manufacturers are somewhat reticent to publish too much information on their products leaving the way clear for charlatans to fill the knowlege gap and gain some unwarranted kudos
It is known that several claims in that site were deliberately planted on the internet for the site owner to find and incorporate and indeed myself and some colleagues created one of the battery characteristics (we chose something relatively harmless). Unfortunately more than one manufacturer incorporated features in their products to overcome the "defect" that we created giving the BatteryUniversity site credence than it doesn't deserve. Some otherwise very reputable companies did this, probably with good intentions as a way of maximising the reliability of their product.
We use many types of rechargeable batteries in aerospace projects, and have to get the usage of any battery absolutely right. We are aware that much of the material on BatteryUniversity is just plain wrong and much of it doesn't even match up to real world batteries. If BatteryUniversity was right, the combination of features that 'they' have for Li-Ion batteries would mean that no Li-ion battery could possibly have a life exceeding 5 years regardless of how it is used. That any battery properly looked after can last 15 years or more, demonstrates conclusively that many of their characteristics just don't exist.
I note that several contributors have questioned citations from BatteryUniversity. If I had my way, any material derived from that source would be removed from the article (unless an an alternative credible citation exists of course). However, that is not my priviledge and I concede that it requires a consensus among those that are as knowledgeable in the subject as myself.
Discuss. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Lithium-ion batteryLithium-ion electrochemical cell — The electrochemical battery is simply a pair of electrochemical cells. this article deals around how this type of cell works.

  1. ^ "Lithium-ion and lithium polymer battery recharging - Patent 6242893". 090521 freepatentsonline.com
  • ^ "Safety and handling guidelines for electrochem lithium batteries" (PDF). 090521 marine.rutgers.edu
  • ^ "Design Review For: Advanced Electric Vehicle Battery Charger, ECE 445 Senior Design Project". 090521 courses.ece.illinois.edu
  • ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference prolong life was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • ^ L.M. Cristo, T. B. Atwater. Characteristics and Behavior of 1M LiPF6 1EC:1DMC Electrolyte at Low Temperatures. Fort Monmouth, NJ: U.S. Army Research.
  • ^ How to prolong lithium-based batteries

  • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lithium-ion_battery&oldid=318891072"

    Categories: 
    Unassessed energy articles
    Unknown-importance energy articles
    B-Class Chemistry articles
    Low-importance Chemistry articles
    WikiProject Chemistry articles
    B-Class physics articles
    Mid-importance physics articles
    B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
    Unassessed Technology articles
    WikiProject Technology articles
    Unassessed electronic articles
    Unknown-importance electronic articles
    WikiProject Electronics articles
    Unassessed Computing articles
    Unknown-importance Computing articles
    All Computing articles
    Unassessed Automobile articles
    Unknown-importance Automobile articles
    Requested moves
    Hidden categories: 
    Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell
    Talk pages with reference errors
     



    This page was last edited on 9 October 2009, at 16:17 (UTC).

    This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki