A Simple Coin Cell Design for Testing Rechargeable Zinc-Air or Alkaline Battery Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coin cells require small amounts of material, can have good reproducibility, are easily fabricated in large quantities and have small space requirements that allow many cells to be tested simultaneously under controlled conditions.If thin electrodes are used, concerns over bulk electrode issues can be alleviated, making coin cells an ideal research tool for testing new active materials, electrode material recipes, electrolytes and separators.This work focused on the choice of materials for the components in an alkaline Nickel-Zinc coin cell.The experiments showed that nickel should be used for all positive electrode side components, including the current collector, while tin should be used for all negative electrode side components.A non-woven separator as well as a microporous separator are both required for long cycle life.Nickel-Zinc coin cells created in this work achieved Nickel active material utilizations over 100% and cycle lives of over 300 cycles with unoptimized electrode materials.The procedures and recipes developed may be of value for researchers working on rechargeable Zn-air cells.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".