MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2525534813 · doi:10.1149/ma2016-02/3/231

(Keynote) The Introduction of Intercalation into Battery Science: 1968-1990

2016· article· en· W2525534813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Stanley Whittingham

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicHistory and advancements in chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntercalation (chemistry)Ionic bondingCathodeIonic conductivityBattery (electricity)OxideLithium (medication)Materials scienceChemistryNanotechnologyChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryIonElectrodePhysicsPhysical chemistryMetallurgyOrganic chemistryEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of Solid State Ionics was born with the discovery of fast ionic motion in a number of solids, in particular beta alumina in 1967 [1,2]. The challenge of measuring their ionic conductivity was achieved by using mixed ionic and electronic conducting materials such as NaxWO3 and LixV2O5 [3]. It was not until the early 1970s that the critical role of intercalation in batteries was generally recognized. Before then it was thought that reduction of the cathode occurred by the abstraction of oxygen forming Li2O and a lower oxide, rather than the intercalation compound LixV2O5 or MnOOH in a lithium cell or the alkaline cell. [4,5] Exxon in 1972 mounted a corporate research effort in energy beyond petroleum and chemicals. Part of this effort was directed at superconductivity in intercalation reactions, and out of the effort, which was focused on TaS2 came the relevation that significant energy could be stored in intercalation reactions. An effort on (Li,Na)xTiS2 batteries began in 1972, and shortly thereafter a full development and subsequently manufacturing facility was set-up. TiS2 was the preferred cathode of all the layered dichalcogenides because of its light weight and metallic conductivity, so no conducting binder was needed [6]. Large prismatic cells were demonstrated at the 1977 Electric Vehicle show in Chicago, and smaller coin cells were built for marketing purposes. These latter are still operational today, some 40 years later [7]. A challenge with the initial cells was the formation of dendritic lithium, and so pure lithium was not used in the commercial cells but rather a LiAl alloy [8], formed in situ by the reaction of lithium and aluminum foils. Similar lithium battery efforts on intercalation reactions (oxides, sulfides, and selenides) were underway at a number of companies in the 1970s, for example at Bell Labs and in start-ups in the Boston area and later at MoliEnergy in Vancouver. In the mid-1980s Exxon licensed the technology to a Japanese, a European and a US company. In the 1980s Bell Labs described the use of a carbon-based anode [9] and Oxford University described the cathodic behavior of the layered dioxide of cobalt [10]. SONY licensed both these technologies and developed them into the first commercially successful secondary lithium batteries in 1991 [11]. The history of the lithium battery has been well described by Fletcher in the book Bottle Lightening [12], and further in-depth science has been reviewed in Chem. Rev. [13]. [1]. Y. Y. Yao, J. T. Kummer, “Ion transport in beta alumina”, J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem., 29, (1967) 2453. [2]. M. S. Whittingham, R. A. Huggins, “Beta Alumina - Prelude to a Revolution in Solid State Electrochemistry” NBS Special Publications 1972, 364, 139-154. [3] M. S. Whittingham, R. A. Huggins, “Measurement of Sodium Ion Transport in Beta Alumina Using Reversible Solid Electrodes” J. Chem. Phys., 54, (1971) 414. [4]. M. S. Whittingham, “The role of ternary phases in cathode reactions”, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 123 (1976) 315-320. [5]. M. S. Whittingham “Electrical energy storage and intercalation chemistry”, Science, 192 (1976), 1126-1127. [6]. M. S. Whittingham, “Chemistry of Intercalation Compounds: Metal Guests in Chalcogenide Hosts”, Prog. Solid State Chem., 12 (1978) 41-99. [7]. Nathalie Pereira, Glenn G. Amatucci, M. Stanley Whittingham, Robert Hamlen, “Lithiumtitanium disulfide rechargeable cell performance after 35 years of storage”, J. Power Sources, 280 (2015) 18-22. [8]. B. M. L. Rao, R. W. Francis, H. A. Christopher, “Lithium-Aluminum Electrode” J. Electrochem. Soc. , 124 (1977) 1490-1492. [9]. S. Basu, “Ambient temperature rechargeable battery”, US Patent 4,423,125 1982. [10]. K. Mitzushima, P. C. Jones, P. J. Wiseman, J. B. Goodenough, “LixCoO2 (O [11]. Y. Nishi, in Lithium Ion Batteries; M. Wakihara, M., O. Yamamoto, Eds.; Kodansha: Tokyo, 1998. [12]. Seth Fletcher, “Bottled Lightening”, (2011) [13]. M. S. Whittingham, “Lithium Batteries and Cathode Materials”, Chem. Rev., 104 (2004) 4271.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.055

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting Abstracts→Same topicHistory and advancements in chemistry→French-language works237,207→