Talk:Fuel cell/Archive 1

message: Electrons flow in the opposite direction to conventional current.  The arrows with e- should be reversed.  Could someone please correct this?
-- The direction of the flow is correct --
Electrons flow from the anode side(H2) to the cathode side(O2). The arrows would need to be reversed only if instead of indicating a flow of e-(electrons) it were labeled as i (current), which would flow from cathode to anode. What is incorrect in the image is the (+)label on the anode and the (-)label on the cathode. These two should be reversed.
--fiera 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The protons are not driven by diffusion. The concentration of protons is the same throughout the membrane, and equal to the concentration of negative ions. (Otherwise there would be an unbalanced charge in some parts of the membrane.) It is the electric potential that drives the protons. --PeR 07:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First image incorrect 

message: This article is currently more focused on fuel cell cars than on actual fuel cells. I would like to move a lot of the vehicle-related text to the hydrogen car or similar article, so that this one can focus more on the fuel cell itself.
For the record, I personally don't believe in fuel cell vehicles, but this is not the reason why I want to move the text. It is simply in the wrong place.
--PeR 08:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus, please. 

message: The article states (in a US-centric view maybe) that the first public H2 station was opened in Washington, DC, in november 2004. I was in Reykjavik in november 2003 and I visited the local H2 station. Maybe it boils down to the word "public". What is meant by that? If it is providing only for 6 state-owned vehicles, it's less public than Reykjavik's, which supplies a couple of hydrogen buses (which are regularly used by the public, bus route number 2 I think).
See this link. Orzetto 12:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  First hydrogen station 

message: If someone here is interested in the subject and speaks some german you can find in interesting article about a new form of fuel cell developed by the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany here: http://www.n-tv.de/5465399.html Cheers, --Jpkoester1 11:25, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm a hydrogen reasearcher, I can tell you that people keep inventing new types of fuel cells all the time. There are many ways to build a cell, and the link you posted tells of a "secret composition", that by the public may sound like "very advanced", but to mine sounds like "vaporware". Unless something about this is found in peer-reviewed journals, this is not to be taken too seriously. --Orzetto 21:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakthrough in fuel-cell technology (in german sadly) 

message: By definition a fuel cell can be operated in reverse. Reversible fuel cells should not be considered a separate type of fuel cell. I realize that the page for reversible fuel cells states:
"So while the reversibility is applicable in principle to any fuel cell device, a practical device may not be built with this intent. Hence the distinction between reversible fuel cells, and generic fuel cells."
However, this does not mean it is a different type of fuel cell. Operating a fuel cell in reverse is simply a matter of configuration/capability and has nothing to do with "types" of fuel cells, which should only distinguish between cells which utilize different fuels and/or different half-cell reactions.
My suggestion is that the page simply state:
All types of fuel cells can also be operated in reverse. However, most fuel cells are constructed for the purpose of generating electricity only and therefore may require alterations before a reversible process can be run. For more information, please see Reversible Fuel Cell.
Faraz Syed 02:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rerversible fuel cell - only a configuration 

message: As per Wikipedia:External links, I've removed a large number of links.  If there are any that really scream to be replaced, here's a good place to talk about it.brenneman(t)(c) 06:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. This article has attracted an unusual amount of linkspam. -Willmcw 22:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The list was building up again and I reduced the number of links. Only the best sites for the article should be kept. I say "the best for the article", because a site can be good, but not be useful for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. For example, a site with fuel cell components for sale, and no significant content about how fuel cells work and such, would not be helpful for most readers. Rather than removing the links immediately, it might be best to do it periodically, so that there is not a fight about the addition and removal of every link. Also, editors might be less likely to take the removal of a link they added personally. However, if an editor adds the same link to many web pages or if the site is a linkfarm, immediate removal might be better. -- Kjkolb 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of external links 

message: Added a section for links on research development for fuel cells, as I think this is really needed, especially since fuel cells are still under researched and being continually developed.
The link I have placed is a huge break though in hydrogen fuel cells, allowing for cars to store hydrogen (for use in a fuel cell) without a potentially dangerous compressed hydrogen tank. So that is why I thought it would be important to add in.
If anyone has any other links for future or previous dates which reveal a breakthrough in research development into fuel cells, then please add them.
*What's preferable is if the information is summarised and added into the article.  And please do sign you name with these, ~~~~, please.  brenneman(t)(c) 09:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please understand that the purpose of this project is to amass information, so links to outside sources do us little good. Breakthroughs are important, but as an encyclopedia we're more interested in technologies that have already been proven one way or another. We can be the last to report an innovation.  -Willmcw 16:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Development Links 

message: "Fuel cells running on compressed hydrogen may have a power plant to wheel efficiency as low as 22%"
What is the purpose of stressing how low an efficiency a fuel cell may have? Aren't we more concerned with the current and theoretical maximum efficiencies of fuel cells? Anyone can make an engine with 1% efficiency, or lower.
:The total efficiency (from coal or methane to hydrogen to fuel cell to vehicle motion) is important and should be included, but the theoretical maximum efficiency and the current efficiencies should also be given without taking that into account. It would be odd for an article on internal combustion engines to give only the efficiency after the energy used for oil exploration, drilling, transporting, refining and distribution are taken into account, and not give the efficiency you get just gassing up the car and driving. The efficiency given for a combined heat and power fuel cell is also incredibly low. -- Kjkolb 12:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low Efficiency 

message: A number of experts in fuel cells, including Karl Kordesch, have noted that the main advantages and disadvantages of a fuel cell stem from its electrolyte, and that this is why fuel cells are classified by their electrolyte. It seems that the Wikipedia article underemphasizes the importance of the electrolyte by placing the "Types of Fuel Cells" section at the bottom, and not providing any discussion or comparison at all of the various types.
I'd like to add a section either just before or just after the "Science" section that lists the types of fuel cells and their relative strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps some operating characteristics (such as temperature range). This would still leave the separate pages for each type to go in to details regarding how each type of fuel cell works. Any suggestions or comments? -- Thopper 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Fuel Cells 

message: Coming here to see how a fuel cell works, I eventually spotted the diagrams hiding at the bottom of the article. I understand that not all fuel cells work the same, but one or two of these diagrams, with appropriate explanation, would make the "Science" section a lot more useful to the unknowledgeable reader, if you ask me. - IMSoP 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stranded" diagrams 

message: As far as low efficiency as a standalone electrolyzer goes, we need to understand a bit about fuel cells. In particular, all fuel cells use a membrane to only allow only ionic species to flow into the reaction zone. That is, the reactants are forced to undergo an ionization process at the surface of the membrane, by either giving off or accepting electrons, before they are granted free passage into the reaction zone. Once ionized, the concentration gradient pulls the ionic species across the membrane, to the reaction zone, where the ionic species are consumed, thus keeping the concentration near 0 on the reaction side, and the gradient across the membrane active. Without the separation membrane the reactants could simply jump and react each other, without giving us the electrical way to tap the energy. With direct reaction we would only get heat, which, according to the principles of the Carnot Cycle, is an even more inefficient way to tap energy - most internal combustion engines are limited to 10-40% efficiency, while fuel cells can beat that easily, providing 40-70%, still falling short of batteries that can return over 65-90% of the available chemical energy as useful work.
The giving off or accepting electrons is the process that harvests the bulk of the available chemical energy. Still, like in any conversion process, not 100% energy becomes available, a lot is wasted. For example, some energy is consumed/wasted because there is electrical resistance by the membrane against the current flow carried by the ions - the ions bounce against the membrane atoms, and generate waste heat in the process, just like electricity passing through an incandescent bulb filament heats it up, consuming energy. The longer the path travelled by the current flow, the more energy is wasted. For this reason a good fuel cell membrane is as thin as possible, and as highly conductive ionically as possible. Also, a good fuel cell has as large a surface area as possible, because a large surface area lowers the overall membrane electrical resistance as well. There is always a balance in how big and thin you can physically stretch a membrane, without risking pinholes or large holes in the membrane, that would completely ruin your cell's efficiency, so the ionic conductivity of the membrane material remains a key player, limited by the available materials science technology at the time.
Low temperature fuel cells make very expensive electrolyzers, because of the special nature of the membrane surface, which needs a platinum coating. The reason for this platinum catalyst is to provide a low activation energy for the H2 → 2H reaction, the breaking of the hydrogen molecules into atomic species. This reaction is an energy intensive process, but still, like all chemical reactions, in an equilibrium, and any equilibrium can be driven by concentration gradients in either direction. Such catalyst is not necessary for the backwards process, for electrolyzing water, because 2 nascent and reactive hydrogen atoms or oxgyen atoms freely recombine as pairs into a stable, lower energy molecules, which bubble up to the surface. That is, you can effectively electrolyze water with two metal rods, even copper or steel, and produce molecular oxygen and hydrogen gas from the nascent atoms that form at two electrodes, however, you could not use such two-metal rod electrolyzers backwards as a fuel cell, because, even if you bubble hydrogen or oxygen to their surface, they wouldn't be able to generate the needed atomic/ionic species, without either high temperature (600 to 1000 °C), or a low temperature catalytic activity that platinum has. The known catalysts, the metals that are highly active at gaseous molecule splitting at room temperature, are either very expensive precious metals — platinum, palladium — or sophisticated blends of lower cost, but still expensive metals, such as those used in NiMH (nickel-metal-hydride) cells. NiMH batteries blur this boundary between batteries and fuel cells somewhat, at least the hydrogen side of things — the atmospheric oxygen activation may still be an issue - hemoglobin anyone? True, that while  almost any metal can be used to electrolyze water, there is the factor of electrode overpotential that limits the efficiency of electrolysis, and these low activation energy catalytic metals make the very best electrodes. Still, there is no need for a membrane for electrolysis, but only for the forward, fuel cell mode of operation. Ideally, the metal side of the membrane would be flooded with the highly conductive water electrolyte for electrolysis, the electrolyte being in direct contact with the metal without a separation membrane, but dry it off and keep the electrolyte on the other, nonplatinated side, during operation as a fuel cell, to force all ions to travel through the membrane.
High temperature fuel cells such as solid oxide membrane (e.g. zirconia) fuel cells have no catalyst-expense limitation, but they are similarly costly because of the very nature of high temperature operation, slow startups (up to 8 hours), bulky size and the need of thermal insulation. 
High temperature electrolysis is currently an area of active research because it can directly utilise cheap heat energy, partially replacing the expensive electric energy needed to split water. This is based on the thermodynamic entropic drive in the reaction 2H2O → 2H2+O2, 2 moles reacting to for 3 moles of product, therefore increasing entropy, so forward reaction favored at higher temperatures, becoming spontaneous at the impractically high temperature 2500 °C. At temperatures below this point some electricity is required, but the closer the reaction is done to 2500 °C, the less extra 'nudge' needs to be supplied by electric energy. The highest practical temperatures are near 1000 °C, using a solid oxide fuel cell exactly in reverse mode. Even in view of the above cited thermodynamic advantages, this method has its own disadvantages, namely having to separate the reactant steam from the product hydrogen, by energy wasting cooling to liquid water, then having to reheat it back to the reaction temperature to complete the recycling step.
Mostly likely the most efficient large scale industrial water electrolysis method is, as described in the patent literature, via lower temperature steam injected into molten alkali metal hydroxide, near 200–400 °C, this molten electrolyte being hygroscopic enough so that not much steam evaporates with the product gases so no expensive separation step is needed. Molten alkali hydroxides have very high ionic conductivities, allowing very low resistive losses, and extremely high current densities.
nice text, is going to be integrated in Fuel Cell. Mion 10:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency of a standalone electrolyzer

message: ... here: http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Image_Library/engtrans.html about fuel cell.
:These images from Argonne's research image library are available for your use with an Argonne acknowledgement.
-- Harp 07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some images for free...

message: I removed the following from the article: 
"Critics of fuel cells have also pointed out that their proposed use in aircraft (in order to cut the use of kerosene, which contributes massively to global carbon emissions) would have little or no impact on mitigation of climate change, since water vapour, itself a greenhouse gas, would be emitted."
First, there needs to be a source for this statement. Second, it is incorrect. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but its concentration in the atmosphere is not changed much directly by human activities. Water vapor is important in that increased carbon dioxide levels, causing global warming, may increase evaporation and therefore the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect even further. The warmer temperatures may cause more water to be evaporated, which would increase the greenhouse effect further, causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Also, the burning of kerosene produces water vapor and carbon dioxide, instead of just water vapor, so even if water vapor was a problem, at least carbon dioxide would not be released as well (it is released during some types of hydrogen production, however). -- Kjkolb 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in aircraft 

message: "Fuel cells differ from batteries in that they consume reactants, which must be replenished, while batteries store electrical energy chemically in a closed system."
This distinction seems a little weak.  Both batteries and fuel cells consume reactants.  Most modern batteries cannot be replenished, but archaic ones like gravity cells could (replacing the anode and the electrolyte was routine).
Can someone clarify the distinction?Kurzon 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel cells vs batteries 

message: Electro-galvanic fuel cells have been used for decades for measuring oxygen concentration in a breathing mixture. Would a short description or a reference to the article / use be appropriate? Especially as to how the concentration of oxygen gives a difference in voltage, which is converted to a displayed oxygen concentration. --Seejyb 20:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have their own article Electro-galvanic fuel cell--DV8 2XL 20:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electro-galvanic fuel cell 

message: Who removed the image from commons ? its a GFDL licensed image from the French wiki.
Fuelcell.en.jpg
Reg .Mion 05:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed image 

message: 1989 A so-called water fuel cell is an unrelated claim of a perpetual motion device, which in fact was not claimed to function the way a fuel cell does.
If the water fuel cell has its own article it could be referenced on, it makes people more critical about real inventions and hoaxes, //Enron/Tesla Motors.Mion 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's job is not to make people critical of hoaxes. This belongs in the disambig page, which is why it was removed. Chris Cunningham 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't a real fuel cell, the disambig tag at the top of the page links to the article in question, and you haven't given a justification which fits with the goals of the project. It's pretty disingenuous of you to ask "which article" without actually doing a search for "water fuel cell". Chris Cunningham 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is about fuel cells which fit the description given in the intro, i.e. which take hydrogen and oxygen as fuels. The water fuel cell works the other way around, so it isn't a "fuel cell" as per this article. It is mentioned, in the disambiguation tag. It isn't part of the history of fuel cells as per this article. Chris Cunningham 07:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A speculative stub does not an argument make. Chris Cunningham 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  water fuel cell 

message: http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,69713,00.html Mion 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DCFC 

message: If the water is not evaporated quickly enough, it reduces efficiency, and if it is evaporated too fast, it can crack the fuel cell.  So, if used in, say, an automobile, does it have to keep operating all the time even when the car is parked, or can it be shut down, unlike the ones used in the Apollo space missions?  (Jim Lovell on Apollo 13 knew that if they shut down the fuel cells as Mission Control told them to, they could not be restarted.) GBC 17:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they can be started, but it will take some time before they operate at full efficiency (depending on type: SOFC take a full 8 hours!). More than cracking, the dry-out causes an increase in internal resistance (it just does not work), but such PEMFC systems usually come with an humidifier. As for the Apollo, they used quite primitive alkaline FC technology... I do not know the details, but they were probably short-lifespan gizmos (after all they had to last for a few days only) assembled thinking more about saving weight than flexibility in usage. Come think of it, there is at least one type that must be operated continuously, the PAFC (phosphoric acid): below 41˚C the acid solidifies, and good luck warming it up again... but PAFC are almost ignored nowadays.
Once the membrane is hydrated within the break-in period of a new fuel cell, full performane can be achieved within minutes. Continuous operation is not necesary. Water is not evaporated from a fuel cell; the gas diffusion layer moves the water into the flow field of the current collectors.--Fieraloca 08:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning off vs. continuous operation 

message: Hi Mion or Anyone can help-- Please. . .
As ESL (English as second laguage) person I need help in writing an article on what I beleive it could be a break through in Fuel Cell research.
: I have found in the setting of embrittled aluminum as anode, stainless steel as cathode and water as electrolyte one can build Hydrogen-Air fuel cells; I have it test run for hundreds of hours, no membrane or catalyst required; This will be:
:: The least expensive to build.
:: CO and CO2 Immune.
If you can help me in anyway please foreward me a note at ephitran at gmail.com
Many Thanks.
Phi
:: My advice is that you get in touch with the electrochemistry department at your local university. Write them (in your own language) a short abstract about your experimental setup and analysis, and I'm sure they will either help you or tell you why your invention doesn't work (My guess is the power density is too low). You will need to have a peer-reviewed publication elsewhere before you can post an article on Wikipedia, since original research is not allowed here. Good luck. --PeR 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help in writing an article about Pure Hydrogen-Air Fuel Cell 

message: The paragraph about combined heat and power (CHP) appears to contain contradictory information.  It states that fuel-to-electricity conversion is "typically 15-20%".  Toward the bottom of the same paragraph, however, it states that PAFCs, which dominate the CHP market provide electric conversion efficiencies typically around 45-50%.
I don't know which range of numbers is more accurate, but it would seem that at least one of them is wrong. --jfinlayson 10:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHP efficiency 

message: "Water management (in PEMFCs). In this type of fuel cell, the membrane must be hydrated, requiring water to be evaporated at precisely the same rate that it is produced. If water is evaporated too quickly, the membrane dries, resistance across it increases, and eventually it will crack, creating a gas "short circuit" where hydrogen and oxygen combine directly, generating heat that will damage the fuel cell. If the water is evaporated too slowly, the electrodes will flood, preventing the reactants from reaching the catalyst and stopping the reaction. Methods to dispose of the excess water are being developed by fuel cell companies."
Fuel cells virtually never run at an ideal condition, where "the same amount of water generated is PRECISELY evaporated". The gas diffusion layers (GDL) take care of the water management. If you have ever ran a fuel cell, you would know that the excess water is continuously discharged through the cathode side. --Fieraloca 08:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed correction to Fuel cell issues 

message: One cited article  in the history section claims that the fuel cell was not invented by Groove in 1839, but by Schoenbein, and that Groove did not build a fuel cell until 1842.
Most fuel cell related articles, in the "background" or "history" section will cite Groove as the inventor and the year as 1839. (See, for example,   or )
Does anyone know the truth behind this? I think the article needs to be clarified.
--PeR 12:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Birth of the Fuel Cell - But Who is the Father? 

message: There is mention of cars and other vehicles that use fuel cells but not other vehicles. Perhaps there should also me mention of the first space craft. This submarine also uses Fuel Cells. I do not know if there were any before it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
Yewenyi 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicles 

message: Consider the following section:
The efficiency of a fuel is very dependent on the current through the fuel cell: as a general rule, the more current drawn, the lower the efficiency. A cell running at 0.6V has an efficiency of about 50%, meaning that 50% of the available energy content of the hydrogen is converted into electrical energy; the remaining 50% will be converted into heat. For a hydrogen cell the second law efficiency is equal to cell voltage divided by 1.23, when operating at standard conditions. This voltage varies with fuel used, and quality and temperature of the cell. The difference between enthalpy and Gibbs free energy (that cannot be recovered) will also appear as heat.
This is confusing. Firstly, it says the efficiency is current dependent. Next, it gives an estimate of efficiency for a particular voltage. This needs to be clarified.
Ordinary Person 06:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current or Voltage 

message: It is a simpler design and is more efficient. It is expected to first be incorporated in smaller engines like those found in lawn mowers. That should make in impact, since they are not regulated. Brian Pearson 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New fuel cell developed 

message: Take a look at . DFH 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micro fuel cell demonstrated by Japan Steel Works at FC Expo 2007 

message: New offshoreship with FC tech coming soon 
--OddMartin 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future technology? 

message: User talk:80.123.226.133 asked about Fe + 2FeCl3 = 3FeCl2 + energy.  I found one Google hit.  Could someome discuss it with him/her? Simesa 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Anyone seen this?  Efficiency of 49%. October, 2006:  Simesa 00:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GE provided 6kW SOFC to DoE 

message: "In the archetypal example of a hydrogen/oxygen proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC), which used to be called solid polymer electrolyte fuel (SPEFC) around 1970 and now is polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEFC or PEMFC, same as the short writing of proton exchange membrane) while the proton exchange mechanism was doubted," I don't get this. What happened while the mechanism was doubted. Is this thing still happening or did the doubt stop? --Gbleem 12:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mechanism doubted 

message: so if we go H2 + O2 ---> 2H2O, aren't we trapping O2 (breathable oxygen) in H2O molecules? won't we eventually run out of O2? Sahuagin 01:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pending an expert dropping by to give us a proper answer, here's a quick and unnuanced overview: The idea is to give a clean-at-the-point-of-use and transportable form of energy. The energy could have been produced via electrolysis from a renewable or nuclear source, in which case the equivalent amount of oxygen is released in the process. (As wind, water and photovoltaic power are not constant, making hydrogen fuel as a form of energy storage is seen as a key application of the technology.) If fuels are to be used as the source, they would have been burnt anyhow! The oxygen cycle renews this oxygen via plants, a process which of course is closely linked to the carbon cycle.--Old Moonraker 06:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ah thank you. i was unaware that H2O was broken down in photosynthesis as well as CO2. much thanks. Sahuagin 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  H2O 

message: UTC's Power subsidiary was the first company to manufacture and commercialize a large, stationary fuel cell system for use as a co-generation power plant in hospitals, universities and large office buildings. UTC Power continues to market this fuel cell as the PureCell 200, a 200 kW system.[8] UTC Power continues to be the sole supplier of fuel cells to NASA for use in space vehicles, having supplied the Apollo missions and currently the Space Shuttle program, and is developing fuel cells for automobiles, buses, and cell phone towers; the company has demonstrated the first fuel cell capable of starting under freezing conditions with its proton exchange membrane automotive fuel cell.
In 2006 Staxon introduced an inexpensive OEM fuel cell module for system integration. In 2006 Angstrom Power, a British Columbia based company, began commercial sales of portable devices using proprietary hydrogen fuel cell technology, trademarked as "micro hydrogen."[9][10]
This needs to be moved or removed from the article. It has nothing to do with history that Staxon in 2006 put out a cheap FC...
The UTC part is even worse, it is manipulative, UTC might be the first to put out that specific type of backup power, but Japan have been using stationary power plants for many years. And most hitech firms have some sort of fuel cell production / development going on these days, with my limited knowledge, i do not recall having heard of one car firm using UTC cells in demonstration projects. No doubt UTC plays a major role in developing backup power systems, and due to the instability on the US power grid, there is a major demand for super reliable systems, that can also keep power flowing for many hours, maybe even days, but that should go in a separate article. Unless someone provides counter argument, i will move the staxon part to news, and remove the UTC thing. (Larkuur 14:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History part? 

message: Hiya, I'm a really bold dumbass who feels qualified to rewrite and even create whole new paragraphs when all I know about the subject I learned from reading Wikipedia. In other words, I know very little about fuel cells, so would someone check my rewrite of the first two or three 'graphs of "Fuel cell design" to make sure I didn't get it completely wrong?
One thing, as noted by User:Gbleem above, is that reference to the "early 1970s" and the proton exchange mechanism not being understood. I moved this, and reworded it to make what sense I could out of it, but there's actually no cite for this claim, and I was tempted to remove it. I decided not to, on the theory that whoever added it probably knows more than me. If it doesn't make sense, tho, someone who knows that should remove it. In any case, I think my layman's introduction paragraph is an accurate overview of the mechanism. Am I right? Eaglizard 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited "Fuel cell design"; please check it 

message: Fuel Cell Markets is one of the leading online resources for Fuel Cells and contains a depth of information on business opportunities, recruitment, products and information about fuel cell resources.
Fuel Cell Markets facilitate the introduction and development of strategic partnerships and joint ventures towards building the global fuel cell supply chain and assisting with the creation of the hydrogen and fuel cell economy.
Piyush.fcm.kumar (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel Cell Markets 

message: I've added an interesting link to Water fuel cell in the see also section. --CyclePat (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: a link to a dp? and a hint to a non verified technology ? Mion (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Water fuel cell]] 

message: In introduction there is a sentence "Some HHo fuel cells convert water to Hydrogen and oxygen that is in an excited state and hold its electrical potential until it recombines on burning releasing the energy and reconverting to water." 
It sounds like perpetuum mobile of first kind. It probably should be removed from introduction or rewritten in much clear way. Plus no any reference in the whole article what that “HHo” means. Do I horribly miss something here?
---
MxM (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it is, hho spam, thanks for noticing, it's removed. Mion (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HHo? 

message: :::I added some of the terms like PROX and WGS on Glossary of fuel cell terms, if you think its usefull, please add more from the EERE public domain fuel cell glossary . Thanks Mion (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Glossary of fuel cell terms 

message: 1.Design issue section:
Cost issue:
No definition of the term "cost" exists here
- production cost?
- shelf price?
Also this part in the article lacks the fact that a manufactured product's cost generally depends on production numbers.
In other words mass-production lowers the final product's cost. Hence this regards the final shelf-price for the end consumer, the material cost of the manufacturer as well as cost of manufacture.
This part of the article creates the idea that a fuel cell is too expensive, too cost-intensive, to be mass manufactured.
Do you think this is a neutral viewpoint?
2.Design History
Wilson, Mahlon S., Ph.D.,is not even being named here?
pfff
check out this:
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/mpa/mpa11/bio-wilson.htm
and this:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6808838.html
and make you own assumption...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.223.145 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity - if interested in... 

message: In the Design Issues section, one point mentions the cost in US Dollars, while another mentions Euros. Since dollars are used in other sections, the Euros cost should be restated in dollars.
Smwechsler (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design Issues - inconsistent use of monetary systems