Talk:VRLA battery

Proposed Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It seems to me that Gel Battery, Absorbent glass mat and VRLA would fit much better into a "Types of Lead-Acid Batteries" subsection in the Lead-acid battery page. See the discussion over at Talk:Lead-acid battery. Matt B. 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contradiction?

Not being an expert on Battery chemistry, nor topology - the following article seems to contradict a number of "facts" in this article? http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0101/Nelson-0101.html An experts attention sure seems to be required! Carl L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.169.142 (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Contradiction was not made clear by any commenter above. The article may have flaws, such as the role of Hydronium Ion in its chemistry. Hydronium does not show in its chemical reaction formulas. I am not competent to assess validity of the entire article though, and wikipedia is not intended to be a forum for critique of other non-wikipedia reference material. I suggest unless there is a clear indication of a flaw or contradiction, that this section be removed from the Discussion page. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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 consensus against move

VRLA battery → VRLA electrochemical cell — The electrochemical battery is simply a pair of electrochemical cells. this article deals around how this type of cell works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Do not rename, proposed name does not exist in actual use, current article name is clear, accurate and common. This is one of several dubious renames proposed by this anon editor. With so much real work to be done, we should not be spinning our wheels on renamings to arguably the wrong name of an article. --Wtshymanski (talk)
• Strong Oppose and suggest speedy close (is that possible?). This is not what the general public would be looking for. HumphreyW (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose along with all the other nominations made by the same IP address. These are all at the common name already and should stay there. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Note: Converted to multimove. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lead-acid battery which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

No discussion on electrical characteristics

How does the electrical characteristics compare to other lead acid cells? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Where a VRLA battery is designed to replace a flooded-cell battery, the electrical characteristics are generally the same, both in charging and discharging modes. Other than that, the specifications need to be studied on a case-by-case basis, depending on application. The subject is broad enough that trying to explain it in this article would get it hopelessly lost in details.—Quicksilver^{T @} 17:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification/ corrections needed

In the introductory paragraph The "electrolyte starved" comment: "Electrolyte Starved" doesn't refer as much to the overall volume as it does to the glass mat (AGM) is not fully saturated- therefore not prone to leakage if the case is broken open.

Also the "short duration" of discharge is questionable. An AGM can maintain a high level of discharge much longer than a flooded cell starting battery! (even if the peak rate is somewhat lower) Not that anyone should ever try arc welding using these as a power supply- but AGM's are very willing to maintain a high discharge rate for anyone crazy enough to demand that of them.

The last paragraph in the Construction section is overly generalized which seems to imply AGM & Gel technology both should be limited in charging rate. The difference between these technologies are night and day different in terms of performance under charging conditions. Please remove the generalization and allow the explanation below carry this or else offer more specifics under construction.

Orienting an AGM battery on its side may actually lead to a minor decrease in capacity. Ref wind-sun.com website. Pancaking helps them? Maybe, but may be type specific.

Please explain difference between "specific power" & "specific energy". Not sure this makes sense, though I confess to not researching this one yet.

Aircraft use? I know F-16's use AGM's for on board battery. Never heard of any sailplane or aerobatic aircraft using gel cells. I can see unmotorized sailplanes use gel cells for their greater depth of discharge ability, but in airplanes or motorized sailplanes probably not at all. Never saw any in my flying or flight line attendant days, and gel cells cannot be reasonably used as a starting battery. Please be more specific here!

Arctic use? Not a chance! Output drops to zero! They use NiCd exclusively unless some other technology I am thus far unfamiliar with has been implemented relatively recently. Possibly exception would be where batteries are kept in a climate controlled area 100% of the time. Maybe your source was way off here?

Overall this is a pretty good article, but some sources may be incorrect. I have seen worse! I suggest adding more sources. Some in academia aspire to "higher knowledge" but are completely inept when it comes to actual experience with a given technology. I suggest studying the wind-sun website as well as several manufacturer's sites to find answers from those with first hand engineering knowledge. East Penn (MK, Deka) should be one good source. Concorde, and a few others recommended by Wind-Sun would be preferred since quality is a priority to these folks, and there are many who compromise on quality. Manufacturers who care about details should be better able to articulate these details! Many in academia have had their hands dirty and know very much indeed, but beware the book writers who have never picked up a tool other than a keyboard!

s bryant69.226.99.253 (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Great. WP:SOFIXIT. Don't forget references.--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

AGM disadvantages contradiction

AGM - disadvantages contradicts article: Lead Acid Battery - Valve Regulated

True: if a battery was made AGM and not Valve Regulated eg. just let the gas out; unsealed, it would loose water faster. I don't think such a thing exists. For example the batteries in your UPS are Valve Regulated AGM. They don't make unsealed/unregulated AGM's. Though sometimes I see/get AGM's that let gas out upon minor overcharge though they clearly say "sealed" on he case so I think they were improperly sealed from the factory. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Gel Cell confusion

People tend to confuse "gel cell" and SLA or VRLA or AGM generally. This article falls victim as well. For example the part about the wheelchair saying that gel cell is used there for low gas output, but an AGM type will not release any more or less gas because of underlying of being Sealed Lead Acid and Valve Regulated. Actually, when people say "gel cell" they almost always mean an AGM type. Gel cell is an older technology and I see the majority of batteries in service are AGM type. Even the picture of a "gel cell" is the same as the AGM picture, only the color is different. If the manufacturer colors their batteries differently to ID them AGM vs. gel cell, then I'd like to see that added to the article. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For accuracy, I would recommend depicting an Ultracell UCG series battery if the illustration must be captioned as a gel electrolyte battery. The UL series are AGM batteries. --82.131.31.197 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning in caption on disassembled battery

My edit to include a warning in the caption of the disassembled battery was reverted. I believe if this page shows a photo of a deconstructed battery then it should also caution readers as to the dangers of deconstructing a battery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.51.116 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pros n' cons

I encountered an article hyping sealed batteries, rife with errors (they do not deliver more zap for the buck but less; they do not charge faster but slower; they do not last longer but rather die more quickly, their lead is not 'purer' but rather salted with calcium, etc. etc.) So I've tried to fix it with a better balanced pros n' cons. I agree with those who think the page title should be "sealed batteries" with VRLA redirected to this page. Everybody knows what a sealed battery is. Nobody knows what a VRLA is. Not even industry literature calles them VRLAs. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done, but I don't agree on the name change. Many years ago I had the misfortune to repair some equipment that these allegedly "sealed" batteries had sprayed all over; lots of the "battery" literature sticks to VRLA as a designation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The editorial reductions to take out the "colorful" opinions are probably improvements, but I need to step back from the article and think about the pro/con balance. I also wonder whether this article should be combined with the larger "battery" article. But I have family crisis right now so I'll take a week or so to get back to this.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We need sources less specialized than someone talking about boat batteries; there's tons of industry literature out there. I wouldn't merge it to "battery", we have many articles about individual spare parts which are less noteworthy as a topic than VRLA batteries. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)