Synthesis at Low Cost and Large Scale of Silicon Powder Suitable for Li-Ion Anodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silicon is considered as one of the most promising materials to replace graphite in Li-ion batteries. The main inconvenient of that material is its huge volume expansion during lithiation which induces the disintegration of the electrode architecture with cycling. Nanosized Si materials (nanoparticles, nanowires, nanocomposites…) better accommodate large volume variation without cracking. However, the use of such materials by industries is unlikely because of their high synthesis cost, handling difficulties and low tapping density. We have recently demonstrated that Si powder produced by high-energy ball milling (using a laboratory vibratory-type miller) present the same benefits of nanometric Si in terms of performance but not the drawbacks 1 . Milled Si powder is constituted of micrometric agglomerates (median size of ca. 10 µm), made of submicrometric cold-welded particles with a crystallite size of ca. 10 nm. The micrometric particle size provides handling and non-toxicity advantages compared to nanometric powders, as well as four times higher tap density. The nanocrystalline structure of the ball-milled Si powder is assumed to induce a smoother phase transition upon cycling. 1,2 In the present study, ball-milled Si powder is produced at larger scale (500 g/batch compared to 5g/batch in previous work) using a pilot-scale attritor (Fig. 1). Using optimal milling parameters and appropriate composite electrode formulation, this material displays very good electrochemical performance (see Fig. 2). Various analyses will be presented in order to understand the influence of the milling time on the physicochemical characteristics and electrochemical behavior of the Si powder. During these investigations, we noticed that the storage conditions of the electrodes prior to assembling the cell have also a major influence on the electrochemical performance. This aspect will be also discussed. References 1. M. Gauthier, D. Mazouzi, D. Reyter, B. Lestriez, P. Moreau, B. Lestriez, D. Guyomard, L. Roué. A low-cost and high-performance Si-based electrode for Li-ion batteries . Energy Environ. Sci. 6 (2013) 2145–2155. 2. M. Gauthier, D. Reyter, D. Mazouzi, P. Moreau, D. Guyomard, B. Lestriez, L. Roué. From Si wafers to cheap and efficient Si electrodes for Li-ion batteries . J. Power Sources 256 (2014) 32-36. Figure 1
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".