Talk:Electric double-layer capacitor

message: Does anybody know what is the difference between supercapacitors and ultracapacitors? --Shaddack 20:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ratherbeskiing, please have a look at the paragraph "#Change in understanding: From Electric double-layer capacitor to Supercapacitor below the discussion page. --Elcap (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultracapacitors

message: Does anyone have any data to back up the claim that Cooper Electronics makes super capacitors with an energy desity of 325 kJ/kg? It dosen't say on thier webpage or any where else on the web as far as I can tell. Compared to other supercapacitor manufacturers it seems outragously high. cc 24.137.78.34 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it on their site, but this article may be the source for our data:  -Will Beback 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll delete the disputed info from the article and suggest to not include it again, until it get published by a reliable secondary source, e.g. an IEEE journal. --Pjacobi 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, no, not "kJ/kg (of electrolyte)"!  ACI said that it is the electrolyte and other materials in the capacitor that add so much mass.  The correction would be "kJ/kg (of electrode material)".  JDHeinzmann (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy density

message: So the article could be corrected by using the higher figure, and quoting it as "kJ/kg (of electrolyte)". I suppose it depends on whether a reader is interested in the capacitance of carbon aerogel per se, or of the current state of the art with respect to practical applications. Pmurray bigpond.com 02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, not "kJ/kg (of electrolyte)"!  ACI said that it is the electrolyte and other materials in the capacitor that add so much mass.  The correction would be "kJ/kg (of electrode material)".  JDHeinzmann (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Pmurray bigpond.com|Pmurray bigpond.com]] 02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 

message: On another note, what is this about using ceramics for their superconducting properties? what temperatures do people plan on using these devices at? If anyone wants to back this up, please throw in a reference other than the one at the bottom which the first part of this page appears to be an 'adaptation' of. Perhaps this line should read "Research is being conducted into the viability of superconducting ceramics as a replacement for CNTs in certain low temp. applications", however ceramics such as NiO are being investigated as well.
* I am confident that the reference to use of superconducting properties is mistaken, and have removed it.  Harold f 20:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superconduction?

message: I am considering adding a Uses section.  The article mentions the potential use in electric vehicles, robots, and memory backup for computers.  Another use is in rechargeable electronic toys such as RC cars.  The uses seem to be scattered throughout the page.  Should we consolidate them? --24.16.148.75 23:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses 

message: For now the article lacks a breakdown of the most important manufactures. Instead it did have an entire chapter on the dubious claims of EEStor. I've removed that. --Pjacobi 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I added an External Link to an EEStor profile on Business 2.0 / CNN.com.  --AStanhope 16:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I added a sub-section on EEStor not having read this discussion. I agree that this is an unproven development, but this is a topic that can be expected to generate a lot of interest in current development work. --C J Cowie 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to revert your work, but the essential prerequisite for mentioning in Wikipedia is verifiability by means of reliable third party sources. Neither press release nor patent applications will do. We don't need to speculate or rush, Wikipedia is not a news portal. Once the dust has settled, one way or another, we know whether and what to write. --Pjacobi 21:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the MIT LEES capacitor considered verified then? The references seem to describe ongoing development work. --C J Cowie 21:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO, The MIT work does get a bit hyped.  It's one thing to use nano-technology to improve battery efficiency, which requires just a few thin layers of the good stuff.  It's another to make a capacitor where the bulk of the material is built from carbon nano-tubes.  I put the LEES concept in the wishful thinking category.  However, the MIT progress is posted, while EEStor is mute.  Anything we say here about EEStor is simply speculation.  What we say about the MIT work is verifiable. Smilindog2000 13:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufactures -- EEStor Removed 

message: An important characteristic of capacitors is its Capacity per unit of Volume or mass (not sure). This is an essential characteristic for this article. Andries 19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glaring omission

message: I edited the page under disadvantages to read "power" instead of "energy" since the units listed were Wh instead of joules.  Someone should fix the chart too.  Energy is not measured in Wh and all you are doing is confusing the masses.
William Dryden
:Watt hours are energy units, not power. One joule is equal to one watt-second. One watt-hour is equal to 3600 joules. One kilowatt-hour is equal to 3,600,000 joules. Kilowatt-hours are often used for utility billing purposes. --C J Cowie 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry William, but you are wrong Energy is measured in Watt-hours.  Or, you can measure it in Watt-seconds (Joules).  OTOH, power is measured in Watts.  Therefore, this:
"High specific power. According to ITS (Institute of Transportation Studies, Davis, California) test results, the specific power of electric double-layer capacitors can exceed 6 kW/kg at 95% efficiency[14]"
Might require some further explanation as to what it means.  
Tyrerj (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  power / energy units 

message: This article reads as if it's self promotion; now, I have no idea whether Dr Bell edited it, but it needs to be edited to focus less on the person and more on the capacitors Witbrock 15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Bell 

message: It's noticable that the described applications of these capacitors all involve fairly short-term energy storage.  Is this because the self-discharge rate is high (compared with chemical batteries)?  It would be helpful if the article included a discussion of the self-discharge rate. EdDavies 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the features/advantages section and the adjoining graph comparing energy density vs. power density, it's clear that current super caps are better suited to high power vs. high energy role. Based on the article, super caps have about 1/10 the energy density of chemical batteries, but 10 times the power density. What this means is that they are good at short bursts, but the total energy is not so great. Another way to look at it: chemical batteries have a higher internal resistance, but they they can store more energy for a given size. Some rechargable chemical batteries don't have particularly good leakage characteristics either. Madhu 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-discharge/Leakage 

message: This article sadly detoriated to a  dumping ground of drive-by-promotion of companies and inidividuals. I've reverted the most recent offender, but also the version I've reverted to needs massive cleanup. --Pjacobi 12:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{Cleanup}}</nowiki> 

message: What are the effective equivalent capacitances of various common small rechargeable batteries?  What F-V combinations are common for current supercapacitors?  What is typical current cost per F-V?-69.87.200.101 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a very reasonable approach to equate batteries and capacitors; the energy storage mechanisms are vastly different, and while the terminal voltage of a capacitor is directly related to the energy stored in it, the terminal voltage of practical batteries is very roughly constant, and doesn't decline significantly till it's nearly discharged.  Draw down a capacitor to half it's initial voltage and you've withdrawn 3/4 of its stored energy; discharging a lead-acid battery to half it's intial voltage will send you shopping for a new battery. --Wtshymanski 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, for purposes of this article, we must thoroughly understand how to compare batteries and capacitors, what the similarities and differences are, practical and theoretical, since the whole point is to use them in similar ways (modular portable energy storage and release).-69.87.199.150 12:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rechargeable batteries as capacitors 

message: Sadly, "kilofarad range capacitors" are not yet "widely available".  Just trying to find anything over about 1F gets quite expensive, and the voltages available are very limited.  If you think "kilofarad range capacitors" are indeed widely available, please list right here the best ten sources where we can actually buy them, along with an example size, value and price for each source!-69.87.199.150 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kilofarad range capacitors 

message: I have no idea if NessCap is "notable", or their cross-lawsuits with Maxwell over patents and producets, apparently after a failed merger. However, it does seem like the article should explain to us terms like prismatic and non-prismatic, so that we can understand the subject.  Also, the terms Electric Double Layer Capacitor and Pseudocapacitor.-69.87.199.150 12:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms 

message: The section on the Forumula 1 stuff is vaguely relevant, no need to include all the rules of an auto race in this article. --Hooperbloob 19:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formula 1 stuff

message: To those who disagree with my removal of the external links section: please first read WP:EL. The links were mostly pointing to press releases ("wow, there is a car that has a supercap built into it!") and "informational" websites that were using Wikipedia as an advertisement vehicle. Many of the press releases were actually incorporated into the article as references. The other ones fail the criteria "links normally to be avoided" on WP:EL, more specifically:
*4. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
*14. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
Han-Kwang (t)  09:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there were some very good external links.. I do agree that there were some not so good.  I come here to link out to blogs and other sites. I think it is important to at least have some.  I can't imagine removing all the external links sections from Wikipedia. Is that is is going to happen? Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.253.178.230 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #5: Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. #11: Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET. #12: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. - ∅ (∅), 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I added some information about Reticle Carbon. Their claims seem rather dubious, comparable with EEStor. They are searching for investors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkruijsw (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reticle carbon

message: I think it is better to make a section for 'future technology'. There we can put info about EEstor, Nano-tubes and Reticle Carbon. It is interesting for the reader that there might be big improvements for the future, but keep existing and future things separate.
Lkruijsw (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Future technology

message: I moved the page to Electric double-layer capacitor, as this is an official term which is also adopted in international standards (IEC) now being drafted on the subject.   LHOON (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name change makes sense.  There might be new supercapacitor designs that don't use a double layer, for instance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.58.162 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Electric double-layer capacitor

message: To a layperson like myself, this article reads as though electric double-layer capacitors are an excellent alternative to conventional chemical cells or batteries.  There is no section that discusses the current technology challenges facing the real-world use of EDLC's.  Could someone who knows more about this technology add a section (or modify the appropriate existing section) that puts forth why this technology has not yet permeated electric/hybrid passenger vehicle designs, etc?  Thanks.  Srajan01 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages? 

message: What about hazard of short-circuiting the supercapacitor It will become discharged very cuickly and relased energy can be harmful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.67.68 (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazards? 

message: The following sentence appears in the Concept section and is comparing the energy density of different technologies (italics mine):
:For comparison, a conventional lead-acid battery is typically 30 to 40 W·h/kg, modern lithium-ion batteries are about 120 W·h/kg, and in automobile applications gasoline has a net calorific value (NCV) of around 12,000 W·h/kg operating at a 20% tank-to-wheel efficiency.
I think the value of 12,000 is the gross calorific value (GCV) and not the net calorific value. I think the NCV would be 12,000 * 0.20 which comes out to 2,400. If you search the internet for the energy density of gasoline you get 12,000 W·h/kg and it seems that this is always given without taking into account that it only opperates at 20% efficiency in an automobile. In short, I want to change the value from 12,000 to 2,400 and, seeing as how it would make a huge difference when making comparisons, I wanted to get some consensus first. —Megiddo1013 05:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gasoline Energy Density and Efficiency 

message: Are there any calculations of the theoretical maximum energy density that might be obtained if we had magical nanotechnology, like in Diamond Age?  If you could easily make atom-thin layers of different materials and stack them, what kind of maximum capacitances could be reached?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.58.162 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical maximum? 

message: 1) Why does psuedocapacitor redirect to Electric double layer capacitor? Psuedocapacitance relies on faradaic charge storage, a completely different phenomenon than EDL capacitors?
3) There is mention of an electric double layer capacitor by "ACT". Does anyone know what 'ACT' stands for? Where was the information about this gathereed from?
2) Why does supercapacitor redirect to EDL capacitor and make no mention of psuedocapacitance? Supercapacitors usually include a mix of EDL and psuedocapacitance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.126.207 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: A lot of material was deleted without explanation on 6 May 2010 by 59.165.108.83, who made a large number of changes to this article and has made no other contribution to Wikipedia. While a lot of the deletions mentioned companies, they didn't seem to be adverts with no interesting content. A comparison is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_double-layer_capacitor&diff=371381138&oldid=359506538
If anyone wants to learn about this topic, they'd be better served by the 1 May 2010 revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_double-layer_capacitor&oldid=359506538) than the present version (2 July 2010)
Things whose deletion need consideration:
* capacitor-powered screwdriver and flashlights (have reinstated)
* ref for activated charcoal
* Other teams are experimenting with custom materials made of activated polypyrrole, and nanotube-impregnated papers.
* The energy density of existing commercial EDLCs ranges from around 0.5 to 30 W·h/kg, with the standardized cells available from Maxwell Technologies rated at 6 W·h/kg and ACT in production of 30 W·h/kg, with ref. Other text on increasing energy density
* Standard Oil's early cell design used two layers of activated charcoal separated by a thin porous insulator, and this basic mechanical design remains the basis of most electric double-layer capacitors to this day. More text and references
* "The first trials of supercapacitors in industrial applications were carried out for supporting the energy supply to robots." This text wasn't deleted, but ref was
* In 2005 aerospace systems and controls company Diehl Luftfahrt Elektronik GmbH chose ultracapacitors Boostcap (of Maxwell Technologies) to power emergency actuation systems for doors and evacuation slides in airliners, including the new Airbus 380 jumbo jet. Also in 2005, the ultracapacitor market was between US $272 million and $400 million, depending on the source.
* all solid state micrometer-scale electric double-layer capacitors based on advanced superionic conductors have been for future low-voltage electronics such as deep-sub-voltage nanoelectronics and related technologies (the 22 nm technological node of CMOS and beyond).
* Disadvantage: The amount of energy stored per unit weight is considerably lower than that of an electrochemical battery (3-5 W·h/kg for an ultracapacitor  compared to 30-40 W·h/kg for a lead acid battery), and about 1/10,000th the volumetric energy density of gasoline.
*Disadvantage: As with any capacitor, the voltage varies with the energy stored. Effective storage and recovery of energy requires complex electronic control and switching equipment, with consequent losses of energy
* Due to the capacitor's high number of charge-discharge cycles (millions or more compared to 200 to 1000 for most commercially available rechargeable batteries) it will last for the entire lifetime of most devices, which makes the device environmentally friendly. Rechargeable batteries wear out typically over a few years, and their highly reactive chemical electrolytes present a disposal and safety hazard. Battery lifetime can be optimised by only charging under favorable conditions, at an ideal rate and, for some chemistries, as infrequently as possible. EDLCs can help in conjunction with batteries by acting as a charge conditioner, storing energy from other sources for load balancing purposes and then using any excess energy to charge the batteries at a suitable time. 
*...
* And a great deal more, often associated with companies, but of interest.
I think the 6 May 2010 edits of 59.165.108.83 should be reverted as far as possible. It would have been easier if somebody had acted on them at the time (I, for one, didn't notice them), particularly as many were flagged "(Tag: references removed)".
Any comments?
Pol098 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seems to object, so have now reinstated the lot, without detailed checking. To see real changes to the article ignoring the mass deletion, compare the 1 May 2010 version with the current one.Pol098 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of unexplained deletions 

message: gold caps redirects here, but it isn't mentioned at all in the article, surely if it is a common name for this kind of capacitor it should be mentioned somewhere --<SPAN STYLE="background-color: black; color: Red">Ultra<SPAN STYLE="color: #0079e0">Magnus</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="color:red;background-color:black;">speak</SPAN> 12:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: no apparent connection so have blanked the redirect. - Rod57 (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  gold caps 

message: Why do we need a separator in EDLC? What is the function of the separator? Is it for stopping flow of ion and electron - if that's the case, it seem a bit redundant because the system actually does not conduct electricity even without the separator (electron cannot pass through the electrolyte ; ion cannot pass through electrode) 118.70.135.1 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  separator? 

message: Can we have more details on typical self discharge rates eg in % per day ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  self discharge 

message: Citation #15, http://theory.caltech.edu/~politzer/supplements/supercapacitors.pdf is a PDF of the same article. Whops! 63.82.5.67 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-referential citation 

message: I removed a sentence from the introduction which said that the power density is much higher than that of batteries, because the next paragraph just says the opposite.  However, the first section after the introduction keeps saying the the power density is higher than that of batteries.  Something is wrong here... --Pot (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIgher density thatn batteries? 

message: " By 2006 the cost of supercapacitors was 1 cent per farad and $2.85 per kilojoule and dropping.[32] A 3 kF capacitor that was US$5,000 ten years before was $50 in 2011.[33]"
OK, so in 2006 a supercapacitor was 1 cent per farad...  and dropping... to more than 1.6 cents per farad in 2011.  Do these devices have anti-gravity properties as well ?Eregli bob (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent claims 

message: The lead section reads a lot like an advertisement. It's rather off-putting and doesn't seem befitting of Wikipedia. A rewriting would seem to be appropriate. A.entropy (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Someone please add in that new info about graphene ultracapacitors. It seems promising. That is, if it's appropriate - I'm not really a wiki editor or writer.
71.62.15.51 (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphene 

message: The planar design of micro-supercapacitors is completely missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.208.75 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micro-Supercapacitors 

message: This article needs a short introduction. The opening section is far too long for this. 94.193.126.208 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Electric double-layer capacitors (EDLCs), invented 1957, have seen a dramatic change in understanding of their capacitive charge storage from a pure physical function between Helmholtz double-layers to an additional pseudocapacitive chemical charge storage with redox reactions, electrosorption and intercalation processes. Because nowadays (2013) an electrochemical capacitor is not only an EDLC anymore the question comes up how to name this very special capacitors.
Generally in science publications all the different developments of the last years are united under the term “electrochemical capacitors”. But if a development gets a discrete component from a manufacturer, the names are manifold. Supercap, Ultracap, Goldcap, Greencap, a lot of manufacturer related names exist. 
A look through the science literature of electrochemical capacitors shows, that roughly 70 to 80 % of the authors uses the term “Supercapacitor”.
(see: A Bibliometric Analysis of the International Literature in Supercapacitors, Francesco Lufrano* and Pietro Staiti,  Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 4 (2009) 173 – 186 PDF)
A google research gives 730,000 results for Supercapacitor, for Ultracapacitor only 363,000 
but for Double-layer capacitor Google gives 1,540,000 results. (Date: 2013-05-07)
That means, that as of 2013 the term double-layer capacitor is used in public linguistic usage, the term supercapacitor in science publications. Because in the broad public knowledge the new development of pseudocapacitance is not known, otherwise the science results are clear and available, that every EDLC not only has a double-layer capacitance but also a pseudocapacitance and nearly all new developments are trying to enhance the properties of the capacitors by increasing the pseudocapacitance the term double-layer capacitor is not correct anymore.  
 
This is the reason a complete new written article now use the term supercapacitor. The reasons why in the science the term supercapacitor is prevailed instead of the term ultracapacitor are surely first the respect for B. E. Conway, who coined the term supercapacitor, and the second reason may be that the often used term “ultracapacitor” is used by Maxwell, the market leader, like a trade name for their capacitors, and that smells a little bit like advertising.
Please help to better the new detailed and bulky article supercapacitor, written by a German, by editing grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. --Elcap (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in understanding: From '''Electric double-layer capacitor''' to '''Supercapacitor''' 

message: This page has been tagged for merging with [Supercapacitor], because most of the information on this page is duplicated there. If a merge is desirable, any information here which would benefit that page should be moved. If no merge is to be done, then redundant information on [Supercapacitor] should be deleted and this article improved to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Todd Vierling (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Todd, as main author of the Supercapacitor article I agree in merging the present EDLC article into the Supercap article. The reason why I did it not at that time I wrote Supercaps was to help readers to understand the new cognition by using EDLC and leading readers with this article to Supercaps. --Elcap (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Electric double-layer capacitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222044332/http://services.eng.uts.edu.au:80/cempe/subjects_JGZ/eet/Capstone%20thesis_AN.pdf to http://services.eng.uts.edu.au/cempe/subjects_JGZ/eet/Capstone%20thesis_AN.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Electric double-layer capacitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813020215/http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-c03-elchem-cap.htm to http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-c03-elchem-cap.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://services.eng.uts.edu.au/cempe/subjects_JGZ/eet/Capstone%20thesis_AN.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813020215/http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-c03-elchem-cap.htm to http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-c03-elchem-cap.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electric double-layer capacitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://144.206.159.178/FT/145/34337/587733.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113004449/http://fplreflib.findlay.co.uk/articles/6610/if-the-cap-fits.pdf to http://fplreflib.findlay.co.uk/articles/6610/if-the-cap-fits.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)