Dual-Oxide Nanostructures Electrodes for High Energy Density Asymmetric Supercapacitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electricity storage is necessary to address the intermittency problem from renewable energy resources such as wind and solar energy. Supercapacitors are energy storage devices which are complimentary batteries in terms of power density are attractive for many applications. Developing high energy density supercapacitor with high power density remains a challenge. Here, we present a strategy to fabricate the high energy density dual-oxide and reduced graphene oxide composites of dual-oxide asymmetric pseudocapacitors operating in an environment friendly aqueous neutral electrolyte. The 1D and 2D rGO/V2O5 nanostructures display superior electrochemical performance compared to the V2O5 nanostructure electrodes in aqueous electrolytes. Nanostructured MoO3 was used as an anode to fabricate the dual-oxide asymmetric supercapacitor. The asymmetric supercapacitor devices show a working voltage window of 1.6 V. The energy and power density values are, to our knowledge, higher than any that have been previously reported for asymmetric supercapacitors using V2O5 electrodes. Reference: D. H. Nagaraju, Qingxiao Wang, P. Beaujuge and H. N. Alshareef J. Mater. Chem. A , 2014, 2, 17146-17152.
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".