Supercapacitance of Solid Carbon Nanofibers Made from Ethanol Flames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid carbon nanofibers (CNFs) made from ethanol flames were used to prepare supercapacitors. Their microstructure, crystallinity, porosity, chemical properties, and electrochemical activity were compared with the multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) synthesized by chemical vapor deposition. The produced CNFs have a unique microstructure with a solid core and porous surface. The specific surface area of CNFs was comparable to that of MWCNTs because of their larger amount of micropores on the surface. The synthesis environment also resulted in abundant functional groups absorbed on the surface of the CNFs. Electrochemical characterization shows that CNFs have much larger capacitance than that of MWCNTs. The capacitance of CNFs consists of both double-layer capacitance contributed by micropores and pseudo-capacitance produced from redox reactions of the absorbed oxygen functional groups. In comparison to the reported MWCNTs-based supercapacitors, the CNF demonstrates more promising potential in energy storage applications because of its larger electrochemical capacitance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".