Talk:Lithium iron phosphate

message: In the opening paragraph the article states, "Lastly, LFP batteries tend to have superior power density in comparison to traditional [LiCoO2] li-ion," yet in second to last section the article states, "The energy density of LFP batteries is significantly lower than LiCoO2 (although well higher than its main competitor for safety and lifespan, the nickel-metal hydride battery)". Which is it?  Which has a higher energy density, LFP or LiCoO2?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.147.88 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also noted by IP inserted comment stating energy density of 60% - I replaced comment with "dubious" tag - Leonard G. (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy Density Confusion

message: This article was expanded from 3.3K to 34K in one shot in November, 2008 ... including a block of references. A little Googling (and scrutiny of the style and punctuation of the text) suggests that the 30K chunk may have been machine-translated from another language. If so, I don't see a citation.Since much of that material remains unsourced, I'm adding a -more footnotes- template. Much of it is far from standard-English, too, and looks like marketing background. Twang (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the chunk is still here (march 2014). I tagged the worst section as "Spam", hoping to attract the attention of motivated editors. But the whole thing look like a copy/past of a business magazine, combining condescending naming of big companies with original research/opinions about the state of "the market". I tried a google search as well: no idea of the source but this ugly stuff is now all around Internet thanks to 6 years of copy/paste from wikipedia !? 62.92.40.200 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Big chunk unsourced?

message: This paragraph seems highly dubious when referring specifically to an article on Lithium Iron Phosphate. 
How on earth can the correct chemical formula for Lithium Iron Phosphate be LiMPO4 (instead of LiFePO4) where "The M of the chemical formula refers to any metal, including Fe, Co, Mn, Ti, etc. The first commercial LiMPO4 was C/LiFePO4 and therefore, people refer to the whole group of LiMPO4 as lithium iron phosphate". 
That seems absurd - whereas the group may well be designated as LiMPO4, and may well be erroneously described in some circles as LiFePO4, surely that doesn't mean one shouldn't use LiFePO4 to describe the real Lithium Iron Phosphate. That's like saying because wolves are sometimes called dogs by some people, we should stop calling dogs "dogs" and call them canines instead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.239.82 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature of LiFePO4 

message: The description of the crystalline lattice is very involved. A diagram would be very helpful.
Jimadilo (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of crystalline lattice 

message: If we go by what the japanese version of this article says in 1995 Ntt filed a secret patent about their version of the cathode. If only by 1996 Padhi reported it's results we can say NTT discovered it firt. Okada Shigeto was a researcher at UT but he was the one that created the AyMPO4 material. Mirad1000 (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ntt invented it