MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2299301843 · doi:10.1149/ma2014-02/3/157

Invited: To be or Not to be Pseudocapacitive

2014· article· en· W2299301843 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMaterials Science
ThématiqueSupercapacitor Materials and Fabrication
Établissements canadiensUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSupercapacitorMaterials scienceElectrolyteCapacitanceEnergy storageElectrodePower densityCapacitorNanotechnologyVoltageElectrochemistryNitrideIonic liquidPorosityOptoelectronicsElectrical engineeringComposite materialPower (physics)ChemistryLayer (electronics)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Electrochemical capacitors (ECs), so-called supercapacitors are energy storage device that combine a high power density with long cycle life. Their main drawback is their moderate energy density that usually hardly exceeds 5 Wh/kg. This limitation becomes even worse when reported as volumetric energy density, a critical parameter in many applications. Indeed, ECs often have a given volume due to standardization of the size of electrochemical energy storage devices, and the challenge is to optimize the energy stored in such volume. Carbon based device are currently commercialized, but due to their low density and high porosity, the capacitance cannot lead to very high energy density. Their major advantage is the possibility to operate such device with cell voltage up to 2.7V in organic based electrolyte and even higher with ionic liquids. The optimization of the cell capacitance C using carbon electrodes is a dilemma since high porosity is required to enhance electrode/electrolyte interaction but an increase in porosity often translates in a decrease in the density of carbon electrodes. The use of oxide or nitride based pseudocapacitive materials as electrodes also leads to a dilemma since the cell capacitance is usually enhanced but at the expense of the cell voltage, since most of these alternative electrodes can only be operated in aqueous electrolytes. An option is to couple different oxide or nitride based electrodes in order to enhance the cell voltage, playing on HER and EOR overpotentials at the negative and positive side respectively. The main advantage of using such alternative materials to carbon is that they combine fast and reversible surface redox reactions which provide the pseudocapacitive properties and make the electrodes "look like" carbon, but with usually much higher capacitance. However, upon the past 5 years, many studies have targetted the use of electrode materials that definitely do not exhibit pseudocapative behavior. A typical example is the use of Ni(OH)2, a well known alkaline battery material for positive electrode in NiMH cells for example, which is now presented as a pseudocapacitive electrode for supercapacitor. The origin of that probably lies in the use of Ni(OH)2 in hydrid device using a negative carbon electrode (capacitive) and a positive faradaic electrode (Ni(OH)2). Many authors now believe that battery type electrode can be turned in supercapacitor type electrode simply by making composite electrode with various carbons such as graphene or carbon nanotubes. The situation is of course again a dilemna since the resulting composite electrode usually does not fulfill the requirement of pseudocapacitive materials which are concommitant to their electrochemical properties: long term cycling efficiency, power capability, etc... In this communication, the aim will be to clearly show the difference between battery type electrodes and pseudocapacitive materials, based for example on the capacitance calculation which gives tremendously high values in the case of Ni(OH)2 but these values are dependant on the width of the potential window used for the calculation, unlike most of the pseudocapacitive materials identified up to now. Strategies to improve volumetric energy and power densities will also be detailed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,031
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,041
Tête enseignante GPT0,278
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle