Impact of synthesis temperature on structure of carbon nanotubes and morphological and electrical characterization of their polymeric nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) were synthesized by chemical vapor deposition technique at a broad range of temperatures, i.e. 550°C to 950°C (at 100°C intervals). CNTs were synthesized by flowing source and carrier gases (ethane, argon, and hydrogen) over Fe catalyst in a quartz tubular reactor. CNTs were melt mixed with a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) matrix in a miniature mixer. The resulting nanocomposites were then compression molded, and electrically and morphologically characterized. Moreover, a wide range of characterization techniques were employed to obtain detailed information about the physical and morphological characteristics of CNTs. It was surprisingly observed that, despite the ascending trend of powder conductivity with the synthesis temperature, the nanocomposites made with (CNT)650°C had significantly lower percolation threshold (around 0.4wt.%) and higher electromagnetic interference shielding (20.3dB over the X-band for 1.1mm thickness) compared to the other temperatures. The characterization of nanofillers showed that the synthesis yield and quality of (CNT)650°C were highly superior to the other types of CNTs. At 850°C and 950°C, most of the synthesized carbonaceous materials formed graphitic structures around the sintered catalyst particles. It was also observed that the dispersion state of (CNT)650°C within the PVDF matrix was much better than that of CNTs synthesized at the other temperatures. Superior electrical properties of (CNT)650°C nanocomposites can be attributed to a combination of high synthesis yield, low diameter and decent quality of CNTs coupled with good state of dispersion within the PVDF matrix.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".