Talk:Iron redox flow battery

Hype?
The article is written by one author, who has never contributed otherwise to Wikipedia, and it reads like hype.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that this article describs the facts of a technical/scientific item straight as they are. No "hype" or hyperventilation visible at all. "Hype" is not an objective category anyways and not an criterion for importance. IRF batteries are established technology and will have a greater role in future technology, therefore should have an article in Wikipedia. Vkoenigsbuescher (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles have to come from somewhere. Many of them started because one person saw a need for an article and had the resolve to do it themselves. Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is without that. I agree that the article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry, and do think that is sufficiently objective. To add to the discussion though, here's a link to a description of an iron chloride version of an iron redox flow battery:
 * https://dornsife.usc.edu/labs/narayan/all-iron-redox-flow-battery/
 * There are many different ways to implement the basic idea, with many different possible chemistries and physical implementations, so arguably it makes sense to only focus on the iron oxidation states. I personally would not mind seeing some more details about the implementation and which systems people have tried (like iron chloride) and what the tradeoffs are. Anyone who wants to do it, give that a go. It would also make the article more encyclopedic by not focusing on any one group's or company's particular IP for a concept that is very general. Tkircher (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)