Supercapacitor Based On a Commercially Prepared Hydroxyl Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes With Hybrid Polymer Electrolyte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the development of three pieces of supercapacitor cells for portable applications such as mobile and wearable energy storage. In a primary embodiment, the three developed supercapacitors cells, each, consist of two flexible electrodes fabricated on thin metal base substrates. The electrode, mainly a commercially prepared multiwalled hydroxyl carbon nanotubes (CPHMWCNTs), sandwich a hybrid solid polymeric separator doped with an appropriate ionic material acting as an electrolyte. The integrated separator and electrolyte layer was made of filter paper, a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) doped with phosphoric acid at three different concentrations. The Three cells were then assembled and leveled as cell-A (C90PVdF-HFP10 |H50| C90PVdF-HFP10), cell-B (C90PVdF-HFP10 |H60| C90PVdF-HFP10) and cell-C (C90PVdF-HFP10 |H70| C90PVdF-HFP10). The evaluations of these three different electrodes and their substrate materials allowed for selection of a combination of active material and suitable percentage concentrations that yielded optimal supercapacitor performance. From the overall results of the electrochemical analysis of cyclic voltammetry (CV), cell-B delivered higher capacitance of 86.60.10 Fg?1 which was higher than the capacitance obtained by cell-C (65 Fg?1) and even doubling the capacitance obtained by cell-A (42.1 Fg?1). Whereas the charge-discharge (CD) tests carried out in the cells reveals that, even at the lower voltage window of 1.5 V, cell-B delivered better than cells A and C with a balanced and better discharge capacitance of 119.0 Fg?1 and higher energy/power densities of 597.0 Jg?1/12.6 Jg?1s?1and very low internal resistance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".