Talk:History of the battery

Pictures

Modern battery picture needs to be better quality / clearer !

Daniell vs. Dancer

Daniell: "In 1836, he invented the Daniell cell, which consists of a copper pot filled with a copper sulfate solution, in which is immersed an unglazed earthenware container filled with sulfuric acid and a zinc electrode. The earthenware barrier is porous, which allows ions to pass through but keeps the solutions from mixing."

Dancer, later: "The porous pot version of the Daniell cell was invented by John Dancer, a Liverpool instrument maker, in 1838. It consists of a central zinc anode dipped into a porous earthenware pot containing a zinc sulfate solution. The porous pot is, in turn, immersed in a solution of copper sulfate contained in a copper can, which acts as the cell's cathode. The use of a porous barrier allows ions to pass through but keeps the solutions from mixing."

Sure looks like the Daniell section describes the later improvement, not the original invention. Maybe someone could dig up a good source for what exactly Daniell did, and keep the descriptions from mixing? 2A02:1205:C68A:9DA0:2427:169A:4D3D:B604 (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Was Franklin's contribution to battery development or to the dictionary?

The article says Franklin described a series of capacitors as a battery. But capacitors are not electrochemical cells, which is the subject of this article. Should the Franklin paragraph be deleted in favour of the person who first used the term for an electrochemical cell? Or should the Franklin reference be reduced to etymology rather than suggesting his experiment was relevant to electrochemical cells? Unfortunately, searching for the word battery in that era turns up mostly references to artillery. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Its WP:OR, cited to, and interpretations of, a primary source. It also seems to be WP:UNDUE, way too much Franklin in relationship to what he contributed. Sources on the matter [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Two of them don't mention Franklin. They all seem to emphasise "electrochemical". Here are some points drawn from them:

• An early term for the device was a "voltaic pile". No one called Leyden jars a voltaic pile.
• Luigi Galvani first collected all the necessary parts for building a battery but he mistook twitching of the dead frog legs as electricity that was created by the frog itself and not as an electrochemical process that was created by his electrodes.
• Before Volta's invention, electrical researchers like Benjamin Franklin worked with static charges. They learned much, but were limited by the fact that the electrical discharge was at very high potential and very low current; it also could be produced only in very short spurts. A source of flowing current allowed wider-ranging experiments that resulted in greater understanding of the links between electricity and other natural phenomena, including magnetism and light and heat.
• The earliest method of generating electricity was by inducing a static charge in some substance. In 1660, Otto von Guericke (1602-1686) constructed the first electrical machine consisting of a large sulphur globe that, when rubbed and turned, attracted feathers and small pieces of paper. Guericke was able to prove that the sparks generated were electrical in nature.

The article already says, "In 1800, Volta invented the first true battery, which came to be known as the voltaic pile." The corollary to that is that Franklin did not have a "true" battery.

More? I should've thought to check the Oxford English Dictionary. It distinguishes the term "battery" between electrical and galvanic: 1. Electr.

• an apparatus consisting of a number of Leyden jars so connected that they may be charged and discharged simultaneously.

   - 1748 Benjamin Franklin "An electrical battery, consisting of 11 panes of large sash-glass, armed with thin leaden plates."

2. Galvan.

• an apparatus consisting of a series of cells, each containing the essentials for producing voltaic electricity, connected together.

   - Sir Humphrey Davy 1801 in Phil. Trans. XCI, 400 "The third and most powerful class of galvanic batteries... is formed, when metallic substances, oxidable in acids…are connected as plates, with oxygenating fluids."
   - 1812 Chem. Philos. "Zinc, copper, and nitric acid form a powerful battery."

Notably, none of the quotations give any indication that they were the first use of the word. Franklin didn't put his capacitors together and declare "I call it a battery." Davy's usage sounds as if everyone was already familiar with the word.

Putting the two definitions into modern words, the first is a device for holding a static charge, while the second is a device which uses chemicals to create an electrical current. A static charge can build up in a cloud and discharge to the ground, but we don't refer to a cloud as a battery. Nor would we call a capacitor, a battery. This article, entitled electrochemical battery, is about devices which use chemical reactions to produce an electrical current. In other words, it is specific to the second definition.

Finally, the OED has several other definitions such as a battery of tests, a battery of hens, or a battery of equipment (such as guns). These phrases use the word generically, as "a group of two or more similar objects functioning together". That is all Franklin did, so his use of the word is unexceptional.

The answer to the question I posed when I began this discussion is "none of the above". On this basis I will give Franklin a week's grace for comment, then discharge him—I can't resist the pun—and remove the paragraph about his experiment with static electricity.

Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Who's the first to construct the lithium battery?

In the article, it is said that:

Experimentation with lithium batteries began in 1912 under G.N. Lewis, but commercial lithium batteries did not come to market until the 1970s.

However, there seem to be no direct reference that G.N. Lewis began the experimentation with lithium batteries in 1912. Also, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2019/popular-information/ said that

In the early 1970s, Stanley Whittingham used lithium’s enormous drive to release its outer electron when he developed the first functional lithium battery. 

--Plurm (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

? - It has two references at the end of the sentence and google brings up further confirmation. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Primary" does not mean "one-time use."

The article asserts that primary batteries are fully charged at the moment when they are assembled, and it also asserts that primary batteries can not be recharged. The first assertion simply is the definition of "primary," but the second assertion is false.

All batteries can be recharged in principle, but the chemical changes that take place during charging and discharging degrade the physical structure of a battery. How much degradation depends on the type. If a battery can still be useful after a few hundred cycles, we call it "rechargeable." If not, we call it "disposable."

For some disposable battery types, the physical degradation is profound. In the so-called "gravity cells" that powered early electric telegraph systems, the electrodes would completely disintegrate during the first use. But, other "disposable" types actually can survive a few cycles. You can sometimes buy factory made chargers designed for "carbon-zinc" and "alkaline" disposable batteries. You can use them to recharge your batteries once, twice, maybe a few more times, and save yourself a few pennies before you eventually go one cycle too far, and the batteries leak caustic juice inside your precious electronic device.

151.201.129.79 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)