Talk:History of the battery

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the battery article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 30 days

History of the battery is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
January 31, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured article candidate

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics: History Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pictures

Modern battery picture needs to be better quality / clearer !

Who's the first to construct the lithium battery?

In the article, it is said that:

Experimentation with lithium batteries began in 1912 under G.N. Lewis, but commercial lithium batteries did not come to market until the 1970s.

However, there seem to be no direct reference that G.N. Lewis began the experimentation with lithium batteries in 1912. Also, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2019/popular-information/ said that

In the early 1970s, Stanley Whittingham used lithium’s enormous drive to release its outer electron when he developed the first functional lithium battery.

--Plurm (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? - It has two references at the end of the sentence and google brings up further confirmation. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary" does not mean "one-time use."

The article asserts that primary batteries are fully charged at the moment when they are assembled, and it also asserts that primary batteries can not be recharged. The first assertion simply is the definition of "primary," but the second assertion is false.

All batteries can be recharged in principle, but the chemical changes that take place during charging and discharging degrade the physical structure of a battery. How much degradation depends on the type. If a battery can still be useful after a few hundred cycles, we call it "rechargeable." If not, we call it "disposable."

For some disposable battery types, the physical degradation is profound. In the so-called "gravity cells" that powered early electric telegraph systems, the electrodes would completely disintegrate during the first use. But, other "disposable" types actually can survive a few cycles. You can sometimes buy factory made chargers designed for "carbon-zinc" and "alkaline" disposable batteries. You can use them to recharge your batteries once, twice, maybe a few more times, and save yourself a few pennies before you eventually go one cycle too far, and the batteries leak caustic juice inside your precious electronic device.

151.201.129.79 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR observations

Cracking open a 1903 book and noticing mention of "lithium electrode" and placing it as a precursor to 1912 / Gilbert N. Lewis's work is original research. There actually has to be a recent historical text that compares both of these to be anywhere "reliable", it can't just be one editors observations. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not true, numerous Wikipedia articles feature original observations that aren’t necessarily backed up by explicit references in historical textbooks covering the same topic that aren’t removed because they are self-evidently true and easy to verify. See the section on history in the Wikipedia article on the planing machine or the section on machine tools and lathes in the history section of the Screw article. It can also be problematic if you have several historical textbooks or sources of supposedly equal reliability which contradict each other, necessitating Wikipedia editors to make a judgement themselves on which source to use, typically by reaching a consensus. So, instead of misusing Wikipedia’s rules against me to shut down any changes to articles on this website you disagree with how about we look at the reference I provided, which, incidentally, I believe also meets the criteria for reliability outlined in the Wikipedia article on original research you mention here, and try and reach a consensus on whether or not what I’ve relayed is accurate or not.SQMeaner (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

errrr, it is true in Wikipedia, in fact its policy. If you mean other editors are not backing up a primary source with a secondary source, that's against Wikipedia policy and just because other editors are doing3 it is not a reason to do that here. As for this addition being "self-evidently true", nope, it’s nonexistent. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I suppose just because other Wikipedia articles do that doesn’t mean it’s in line with Wikipedia policy, but how is what I added actually original research? It’s an academic book published by one of the 20th century’s leading chemists that mentions using a lithium electrode in battery experiments which is the definition of what a lithium battery is I believe and, as I have literally not been able to find a single other reference to a lithium electrode on Google Books, Newspapers.com or archive.org prior to Cohen and Lewis, may indeed be the earliest reference to one period but I doubt such a simple and obvious modification or attempt occurred so late in the development of the battery but I can’t really prove that right now.SQMeaner (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The academic book is a source but the wording implies a conclusion not stated by the source. You could write up that research in a historical treatise but it would take a while for that to get into Wikipedia as a source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go into detail on how the usage of a lithium electrode in my source doesn’t qualify it as an early example of a lithium battery, or at least something closely related to it and thus probably still worthy of mention?SQMeaner (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what either of us have to say about it, a reliable source has to say it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I believe the reference I’ve provided is reliable though.SQMeaner (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, miss read you reply. Its "History of the battery" so the only reliable sources would be the works of historians -->the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not seeing anything in that article you linked to that indicates only subject matter experts are allowed to be used as a source for Wikipedia articles or any specific sections in them. Again, Ernst Cohen technically is a subject matter expert and according to encyclopedia britannica has published a few historical articles himself.SQMeaner (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? WP:REPUTABLE literally says that. The source here isn't Cohen, it’s you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote the part for me where it says that? As I said before, I’m pretty sure the reference I provided meets all the criteria for reliability on Wikipedia and as for me being the source rather than the one I provided, well, it’s pretty much a word-for-word quote from the source I provided.‘Lithium electrode’ doesn’t really leave much room for interpretation IMO.SQMeaner (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ernst Cohen a historian? Is he presenting a historical perspective after the invention of the Lithium battery? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, Cohen is a historian as, as I said before, he has published several historical articles before. However, you don’t necessarily need to be a historian to be considered a reliable source on topics to do with history on Wikipedia, as you can see by visiting the Baghdad Battery page which, pseudoscientific nonsense though it is, contains numerous contributions from non-historians and archaeologists on it which are considered reliable enough to be included. And what do you mean by ‘historical perspective’? Where on Wikipedia does it state that sections on history are only allowed to use sources approaching it from that direction?SQMeaner (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? It says that in the dictionary --> "Historian - an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does quoting the dictionary definition of a historian answer any of the points I’ve raised?SQMeaner (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a bit of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, so I suggest scrolling up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you’re ignoring my points. You don’t need to be a historian to be considered a reliable source on topics to do with history on Wikipedia or even explicitly be dealing with the topic of history to be considered usable either. If you disagree with this, kindly point out where on Wikipedia it states that this must be so to be usable on it.SQMeaner (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]