Versatile MnO<sub>2</sub>/CNT Putty‐Like Composites for High‐Rate Lithium‐Ion Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A facile and simple method is developed to synthesize putty‐like MnO2/carbon nanotube (CNT) nanostructured composite which shows promising performance as the anode for lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs). The interwoven structure between CNTs and MnO2 enables excellent putty‐like processability, which can be easily molded to various shapes or rolled to a flexible film with different thickness. Furthermore, the morphology and structure of the composite can be easily controlled by adjusting the mass ratio of MnO2 to CNT. Serving as anode materials in LIBs, a high‐specific capacity of 796 mAh g−1 is achieved at a current density of 500 mA g−1 with a potential window from 0 to 3.0 V. And a specific capacity of 236 mA h g−1 is maintained even at a high current density of 10 A g−1. The high‐specific capacity and outstanding high‐rate performance of the material are attributed to the layered structure with unimpeded Li ions diffusion channels, high electron transport efficiency from the interlayered CNTs, and the high stability and flexibility of the skeleton. This work provides an insight for the scalable preparation of novel electrode materials with both enhanced electrochemical performance and increased mechanical properties/flexibility for future multifunctional energy storage devices.
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".