Talk:Lithium-ion battery

message: "Handheld electronics mostly use lithium polymer batteries (with a polymer gel as electrolyte)"
There is nothing in the source cited to support this.  This whole article and the one on Lithium Polymer spread the myth that "lithium ion in a pouch is lithium polymer".  See the introduction of this article for discussion about the widespread myth that commercially used pouch cells are lithium polymer:
http://iaassconference2013.space-safety.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2014/06/JSSE-VOL.-1-NO.-1-JUNE-2014-PERFORMANCE-AND-SAFETY-OF-LITHIUM-ION-POLYMER-POUCH-CELLS.pdf
These polymer electrolyte cells were a specialized thing that never really caught on.  Gigs (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede polymer 

message: All electrode combinations have a usual voltage at 3.something V. 
How does it make sense to top up any battery as high as at 4.05 V when all of them have a nominal voltage UNDER that level? 
Can anyone find a source for this information? "Top charging is recommended to be initiated when voltage goes below 4.05 V/cell"
From the Article:
-----
Periodic topping charge about once per 500 hours. Top charging is recommended to be initiated when voltage goes below 4.05 V/cell.
-----
In a lithium-ion battery the lithium ions are transported to and from the positive or negative 
electrodes by oxidizing the transition metal, cobalt (Co), in Li1-xCoO2 from Co3+ to Co4+ during charge, 
and reducing from Co4+ to Co3+ during discharge. The cobalt electrode reaction is only reversible 
for x < 0.5 (x in mole units), limiting the depth of discharge allowable. 
-----
In the discharged cell x=0, that is the material is LiCoO2.
Not the depth of discharge is limited by (x<0.5) but the depth of charge.
Overcharge means x>0.5 .
The discharge limit would be an inequation like x>0 .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C9:8F1D:3C86:CEE0:8DEF:59EE:EC46 (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and marked the item as dubious. Constant314 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charge/Discharge 

message: It strikes me as a bit pointless to list the charge/discharge efficiency (coulombic efficiency) in the infobox. The CE is usually very close to 100% (otherwise the battery wouldn't be viable). Yes, under certain conditions like certain specific cutoff voltages, like some of those used in the quoted source, it can be lower, but the CE is generally used to evaluate individual cells or battery packs to spot potential problems, or when trying to improve performance in R&D - it's not used to compare one type of battery chemistry to another. Listing a CE range for all lithium-ion batteries seems like a not very useful figure. (Now that I think about it, it seems a bit pointless to list the CE for any battery, really, since as far as I know that value is always supposed to hew as close to 100% as possible.) Thoughts? --Tserton (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you confusing energy efficiency with something else?  Constant314 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly - I know charge/discharge efficiency as the discharge capacity divided by the immediately preceding charge capacity. That's how it's used in battery-related materials science papers. In that field it's often used synonymously with coulombic efficiency, although I know that word has a more narrow meaning in electrochemistry. I'm not familiar with the term energy efficiency - does that mean something different? --Tserton (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick read of the cited source.  It discussed both coulombic efficiency and energy efficiency.  I presume that the 80-90% indicated in the article is energy efficiency.  Maybe not.Constant314 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

text: After more reading, it seems that the coulombic efficiency of viable batteries can be significantly less than 100%, so the item should probably remain in the info box.  But there is still the question of what it means.  I opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox battery.  We should probably continue the discussion there since it applies to all batteries.  Constant314 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charge/discharge efficiency in infobox 

message: I can’t find any mention on Wikipedia of this massive price-fixing cartel story! That was widely covered in the news and courts. 
https://www.justice.gov › ... › News Panasonic and Its Subsidiary Sanyo Agree to Plead Guilty in Separate Price-Fixing ...
https://www.reuters.com › article EU fines Japanese rechargeable battery makers over cartel | Reuters
Disappeared? Add/restore? 50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price fixing cartel info  

message: I think the part in the intro about the Samsung batteries on planes should be moved to a different section because I feel like the Intro is too bulky and I find it an unnecessary detail to be in its current section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.66.2 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samsung batterys - Relocate 

message: From batteryuniversity.[]com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries Why the link is in global filter? Valery Zapolodov (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info about charging stages, "saturation"? 

message: In the third paragraph the initialisms NMC and LMR are used, but I don't see a preceding definition. 2A01:4C8:1429:8393:98E8:6ED9:7088:4930 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some initialisms need to be defined 

message: In the Cathode section there is a table of cathode chemistries.  It has a column titled "Date".  Date of what?  First proposal for use?  First prototype?  First commercial production?  Anticipated commercial production?  Anyway, none of the values have references.  I'm inclined to entirely remove the column, after waiting a bit for comments here.  Leotohill (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless date column in table of cathode chemistries 

message: *Support obviously history will get much longer in future Chidgk1 (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to split out history section 

message: specific power of "~250 – ~340 W/kg" is outdated and the peak value of newer cells can easly reach 2500w/kg continuous e.g. the US18650VTC5A  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:2702:8F00:908D:91E7:DA50:B174 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  specific power of "~250 – ~340 W/kg" is outdated 

message: I think just splitting out the biggest section (design?) would be enough Chidgk1 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that splitting only that section would then mean about 80% of the article was about safety. The article as a whole is too long and really should be converted to summary-style. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

text: ok removed split suggestions Chidgk1 (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: These sections are prolix and could make their point in a couple of paragraphs. Wikipedia is not a safety handbook. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Perhaps SI units could be used. Eg for specific energy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.134.121 (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  SI Units 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :LiOn and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31#LiOn until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "LiOn" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :LiON and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31#LiON until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "LiON" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I added a lot of new infor and a figure to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Lifespan,
but I do not have enough experience to place the figure properly within the section. Walter Tau (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  asking for help with formatting figure placing and other minor adjustiments 

message: This needs to be added: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/03/a-new-twist-on-rechargeable-battery-performance/ Lfstevens (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiconductor 

message: the source by which the page takes that value is false:
source:https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0674/3651/files/panasonic-ncr18650-ga-spec-sheet.pdf
at the cited cell dimensions (R=18.3mm H=65.1mm) and rated capacity (3.3Ah at 3.6V), we get a 11.88Wh cell for 68ml of volume, making this volumetric energy density 173Wh/L, just under a quarter of the given value.
This is without taking in the packing efficiency of about 91%, making it closer to 160Wh/L 2001:861:4640:1C80:868:D88:D10D:E7CD (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  693Wh/L claims: wrong by a factor of 4x 

message: The article speaks of the improvement in Li-ion batteries during the 1990s, in life, energy density, power density, etc.
But it seems to skip the subject entirely for 2000 and beyond.
What are the best sources for tracking comparative Li-ion performance over the years? The article would be improved if we would explicate the changes from 2000 thru 2023. Better yet would be to find those forecasting per year changes based on R&D plus recent industry trends on operationalizing new technology into new lines.  N2e (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Li-ion batt improvement over time