Range-extending Zinc-air battery for electric vehicle
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A vehicle model is used to evaluate a novel powertrain that is comprised of a dual energy storage system (Dual ESS). The system includes two battery packs with different chemistries and the necessary electronic controls to facilitate their coordination and optimization. Here, a lithium-ion battery pack is used as the primary pack and a Zinc-air battery as the secondary or range-extending pack. Zinc-air batteries are usually considered unsuitable for use in vehicles due to their poor cycle life, but the model demonstrates the feasibility of this technology with an appropriate control strategy, with limited cycling of the range extender pack. The battery pack sizes and the battery control strategy are configured to optimize range, cost and longevity. In simulation the vehicle performance compares favourably to a similar vehicle with a single energy storage system (Single ESS) powertrain, travelling up to 75 km further under test conditions. The simulation demonstrates that the Zinc-air battery pack need only cycle 100 times to enjoy a ten-year lifespan. The Zinc-air battery model is based on leading Zinc-air battery research from literature, with some assumptions regarding achievable improvements. Having such a model clarifies the performance requirements of Zinc-air cells and improves the research community's ability to set performance targets for Zinc-air cells.
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.
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 it