Design, Fabrication and Characterization of a Commercially Prepared Carboxyl Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes With a Hybrid Polymer Electrolytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reported the fabrication of three different supercapacitor cells using a commercially prepared carboxyl multiwalled carbon nanotubes (CPCMWCNTs) as electrode, and hybrid solid polymer electrolytes (HSPE) of different electrical conductivities as separators. The Three cells were then constructed 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). Numbers of analysis, such as FESEM, XRD, TGA and electrochemical analysis were carried out on both the commercial CNT and that of the electrolytes. From the overall results of the electrochemical analysis of cyclic voltammetry (CV), cell-B delivered higher capacitance of 60.10 Fg?1doubling that of cell-A, and tripling cell-C. Whereas the charge-discharge (CD) tests carried out in the cells reveals that even at the lower voltage window of 1.5 V, cell-A delivered slightly better than that of B and C with a balanced and good discharge capacitance of 86.06 Fg?1 and higher energy/power densities of 432.22 Jg?1/8.37 Jg?1s?1and less internal resistance. All the cells were able to deliver a modest capacitance at a voltage window of 3V.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".