Talk:History of the battery/Archive 1

Archive 1

missing information: size, weight und cost

I am interested to get some information about the size and weight of batteries in the 1850th and 1860th. What was the cost for a certain quantity of electrical energy ? I appreciate if anybody could add data.--84.152.203.197 13:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC) anusha mehra can help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.231.40 (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious invention

Google Translate produces meaningless gabble when trying to translate Japanese. Could someone please verify the sources claiming a Japanese inventor of the dry cell? Strange that only Japanese-language sources claim this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same watchmaker now, or a second one? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Consensus appears to be that disambiguation is unnecessary at this time. --rgpk (comment) 15:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

History of the battery → History of the electric battery — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) battery is ambiguous. Further this has nothing to do with the history of the artillery battery, which is something one would expect at the current name. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. Battery is ambiguous as an article title because several articles could conceivably have that title, but History of the battery is not ambiguous; there is currently no other article on WP that needs that title. Should History of the artillery battery ever be created, this article could be moved at that time. Until then History of the battery would just redirect back here anyway. Station1 (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Article titles should be unambiguous within Wikipedia but in general as well to the extent possible. It makes sense to me to add one word so people immediately know what the article is about. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Opppose rename. When "artillery battery" gets a history section split off, consider it again then. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Really Battery (electrical) should be moved to Battery as the primary topic at which time I would support moving this article back. Marcus Qwertyus 15:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Leclanche cell illustration

A leclanche cell (according to the text) uses manganese dioxide. Not zinc. I think the text on the picture (and the name of the image) are wrong. But I'm SO not going to argue with you, because I know your work from elsewhere. Can you please *either* fix the description of the leclanche cell or alter the image text?

(found on my user page 2012 01 31, left by User:Riventree)

A Leclanché cell uses zinc and manganese dioxide. The carbon rod is a current collector, not an active part of the chemistry; a worn-out "zinc-carbon" dry cell will have the zinc oxidized to powder, and the manganese dioxide turned to manganese oxide, but the carbon rod is as shiny and good as ever. The illustration is correct, thoguh it doesn't identify the electrolyte and it doesn't label the MnO2 in the cell. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Makes much more sense, then. :) Riventree (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Baghdad "battery"

According to their own article, these items from antiquity have been discredited as serious candidates for electrical batteries anymore. The mention here makes the battery theory sound like a legitimate archeological position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.44.116 (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Introduction of the flashlight

I updated the external link to the ACS National Historic Chemical Landmarks program. I am the program coordinator of the ACS-NHCL program. In doing so, I also removed the mention of the invention of the flashlight, which was not supported by the reference. If someone has a source for that information, by all means add it.KLindblom (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Agastya Samhita

I did some looking around, and the only cite I can find for this in English is at http://booksfact.com/technology/ancient-technology/formula-for-electric-battery-in-agastya-samhita.html, which has interesting information but does not seem like a reliable source (indeed, the site itself seems like it's full of woo). Can someone who is more familiar with this subject help? -lee (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If some expert can find the original and translate it, would be well worth including, even if no physical evidence remains of such batteries actually having been constructed, since from the description they would clearly have worked. We would need to accurately date the manuscript. If it were before 1800, it would be interesting, and worthy of a careful translation. I doubt the original mentioned hydrogen and oxygen.CharlesHBennett (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Daniell and porous pot cells

• The description of Porous pot cell makes it sound exactly like the Daniell cell.
• The description of the Birds cell contradicts the description of Daniells original cell.
• The image labelled both Porous pot cell and Daniell cell has the copper inside the zinc unlike the description of either cells.

Help - Rod57 (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of the battery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090405165321/http://www.faradic.net:80/~gsraven/tools/tools4.html to http://www.faradic.net/~gsraven/tools/tools4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071031140501/https://www.faradic.net/%7Egsraven/telegraph_tales/drgw/part2/jbnpage7.htm to http://www.faradic.net/~gsraven/telegraph_tales/drgw/part2/jbnpage7.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928002618/http://www.elmuseet.dk/pdfer/hellesenskorrektur.pdf to http://www.elmuseet.dk/pdfer/hellesenskorrektur.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the battery. 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/20120716205546/http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-v01-volta.htm to http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-v01-volta.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Where are the carbon cathodes??

THe dry cell is normally known as carbon-cathode cells. Yet this section seems to indicate they have non-carbon cathodes

I agree with the previous observation. Paradoxically, in section "Zinc-carbon cell, the first dry cell", no word is spent about the carbon rod cathode of these cells. This gap should be filled.Ekisbares (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The carbon is just a current collector; in a Leclanche cell or the dry battery derived from it, the cathode is manganese dioxide. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Manganese dioxide Does not conduct electricity and therefore cannot be an electrode. The carbon is the cathode. In fact: you could remove the manganese dioxide entirely, and the cell would still develop 1.5 volts. It would polarise very quickly under load and it is that problem that the manganese dioxide is there to solve. But this is Wikipedia where accuracy of information is heavily frowned upon. 148.252.128.180 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on “Electrode” states that an electrode is an electrical conductor used to make contact with a nonmetallic part of a circuit (e.g. a semiconductor, an electrolyte, a vacuum or air). Later, it states that, in an electrochemical cell, an electrode is referred to as either an anode or a cathode. The anode (or cathode) is defined as the electrode where oxidation (or reduction) occurs. (In my opinion, it would have been preferable to say that oxidation and reduction occur at the electrode/solution interphases). Therefore, I think that an expression such as “carbon rod cathode” should not regarded as wrong. For truth’s sake, it is to be added that in electrochemistry, terms such as cathode (or anode) are often loosely employed to mean the whole half-cell where the reduction (or oxidation) half-reaction takes place. In this respect, in the case under discussion, besides the carbon electrode, the cathode would include the manganese dioxide (i. e., the electrochemically active material, the one that actually undergoes reduction), and the electrolytic conductor, or 2nd-kind conductor, here an aqueous solution, mainly of ammonium chloride, plus the immobilizer of the electrolytic phase. Therefore, I think that stating that, in the zinc-carbon dry battery, the cathode is manganese dioxide, is only partly correct. In my opinion, the cathode is primarily the carbon rod, and, by extension, may mean the whole half-cell, including manganese dioxide. Rather than as cathode, manganese dioxide could be better referred to as electrochemically, or cathodically, active material. In addition, it is true that the carbon electrode is “just a current collector” and, unlike the zinc electrode of the same cell, does not undergo chemical transformation. But, in my opinion, these facts do not imply for it a secondary role in the cathodic half-reaction, and therefore in the whole electrochemical process. The electrons it provides are primary actors of that process.

Going back to the article under consideration, I think a brief description of the carbon electrode, its preparation in order to optimize its performance in the cell, etc., could be profitable. I cannot do myself, as I am not an expert in that field.Ekisbares (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You are correct in that the manganese dioxide does undergo a reduction reaction. However, this particular reaction is not part of the electrochemical process of the production of electricity. It is here that I believe that the confusion arises. As I stated above, the manganese dioxide can be completely removed without affecting that process. The problem is that the reduction process at the carbon cathode that is part of that process produces hydrogen gas that coats the carbon restricting the flow of electricity (called polarisation). All the manganese dioxide does is immediately oxidise two hydrogen atoms the moment they are formed into water (the manganese dioxide becoming manganese oxide (Mn₂O₃) in the process). People attempt to add the manganese dioxide reduction reaction to the overall electricity producing reaction. Although that is the final outcome, the reality is, that there are two separate and unconnected reactions. One that produces the electricity, of which, manganese dioxide plays no part. And the oxidation of the hydrogen gas of which the manganese dioxide does nothing else.

To get really technical about this, the potential E.M.F. of any electrical cell can be found from the difference between the electropositivity (not to be confused with electronegativity - different but not unrelated concept) of the materials that form the anode and cathode. For carbon and zinc, this is slightly greater than 1.55 volts (the electrolyte can reduce this voltage if it contains certain elements, such as chlorine). The more electropositive material is the anode. Manganese dioxide, being a non conductor, has no electropositivity An electrochemical cell constructed entirely of manganese dioxide, an electrolyte and another conductive electrode produces nothing. Of course, adding carbon to the manganese dioxide creates a working cell, but it is the carbon that doing the job not the manganese dioxide. The cell is correctly called a 'zinc-carbon battery' named after the two electrode materials. Any attempt to call it a zinc-manganese dioxide battery is quite wrong. Even the linked article is wrong to claim that the battery is really a zinc-manganese dioxide battery as it indeed does. I note that there is a redirect from 'zinc-manganese battery', but this is a different construction. Manganese, as a (conductive) metal is quite viable for an electrochemical cell but would have a potential E.M.F. of just over 1.6 volts when paired with carbon. 148.252.128.180 (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chapter 8 of "Handbook of Batteries" by Linden says the cathode is manganese dioxide, with carbon powder dispersed in it to increase conductivity. All the reactions they show don't include any reaction with carbon. The reaction that book shows doesn't evolve hydrogen nor dissociate the water of the electrolyte. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Then Linden is as wrong as the article is. All primary cells regardless of the chemistry require a depolariser. The depolariser does not take part in the production of electricity. The depolariser in this case is the manganese dioxide. Of course the reactions don't show the dissociation of water. That is because the water has been dissociated but then (separately) reassociated and the net quantity remains the same. Also, the cathode of any primary cell does not explicitly take part in the reaction (though it does determine the e.m.f.), which is another reason that the manganese dioxide is not the cathode, the article has it erroneously taking part in the electricity production process. 185.69.144.96 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

References? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

From, the base reaction for the Leclanché cell is:

Z_n + 2NH₄Cl -> Z_nCl₂ + 2NH₃ + H₂

Since the H₂ will quickly polarise the cell, a depolariser of manganese dioxide is added around the carbon cathode. The depolariser oxidises the produced hydrogen by:

2MnO₂ + 4H -> 2Mn₂O₃ + H₂O

The '4H' rather than '2H₂' reflects the fact that the manganese dioxide 'grabs' the hydrogen in nascent form. (it says here). ZnCl₂ can obviously be substituted for NH₄Cl with the quantities adjusted accordingly for the dry cell version.

I suspect that most people cannot reconcile the fact that the C for the carbon cathode does not figure in the base equation anywhere, and insist on including the manganese dioxide in the base reaction to get around that. The reality is that the cathode is donating the electrons flowing into the cell to the hydrogen ions in the reaction which releases part of the generated electrical energy. 185.69.144.96 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

NH3? That's ammonia. I have never smelt ammonia from any dry battery. 81.155.203.91 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I spotted that as well, and wondered about it at the time. However, turning over the page reveals the answer. It seems that there is a law of chemical reactions along the lines of, "If an insoluble compound is given the opportunity of forming, it is formed". There is a secondary reaction which has nothing to do with the main electricity producing reaction. The soluble zinc chloride reacts with the otherwise gaseous ammonia to produce the insoluble compound ammoniacal zinc chloride [Z_n(NH₃₎.2Cl₂]. Since this reaction takes place in the vicinity of the cathode, this insoluble compound forms inside the porous pot of the cell and contributes to the increase of cell resistance as the discharge proceeds. 148.252.128.191 (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Baghdad Battery

I added this, because it is a claim that is disputed, but not Fringe Science. People may have heard of it, and anyway it has its own Wiki article.

People seem determined to avoid mentioning it. Claiming 'it is not a battery'. But that's not certain.--GwydionM (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

But it's not a battery? SO why is it here? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Check sources. No one can be certain what it was. The elements found would have made a working battery.--GwydionM (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"Battery" vs. "Cell"

One definition of "battery" is "a number of similar articles, items, or devices arranged, connected, or used together".[1] I believe etymologically "battery" in the context of these chemical sources of electricity originally referred to a collection of cells connected in series in order to produce a usable voltage. Or, in the case of Volta's pile, the ordered collection of disks and electrolyte. This might be worth a sentence somewhere early in the article, even though "battery" has long since come to be used to refer to even a single cell. Can't find that reference, though...

By the way, the book History, Theory, and Practice of the Electric Telegraph,[2] published in 1860, contains an extensive review of the development of the battery up to that point. Apart from that, it's a fascinating book about what was then the acme of high tech. --Kbh3^rdtalk 21:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Agastya Concept of making power cell

I'd need to see what the quote actually said before taking it seriously. Tales of magic can be seen as ancient technology, but probably are not--GwydionM (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)