Nacre‐Inspired Composite Electrolytes for Load‐Bearing Solid‐State Lithium‐Metal Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solid‐state lithium‐metal batteries with solid electrolytes are promising for next‐generation energy‐storage devices. However, it remains challenging to develop solid electrolytes that are both mechanically robust and strong against external mechanical load, due to the brittleness of ceramic electrolytes and the softness of polymer electrolytes. Herein, a nacre‐inspired design of ceramic/polymer solid composite electrolytes with a “brick‐and‐mortar” microstructure is proposed. The nacre‐like ceramic/polymer electrolyte (NCPE) simultaneously possesses a much higher fracture strain (1.1%) than pure ceramic electrolytes (0.13%) and a much larger ultimate flexural modulus (7.8 GPa) than pure polymer electrolytes (20 MPa). The electrochemical performance of NCPE is also much better than pure ceramic or polymer electrolytes, especially under mechanical load. A 5 × 5 cm 2 pouch cell with LAGP/poly(ether‐acrylate) NCPE exhibits stable cycling with a capacity retention of 95.6% over 100 cycles at room temperature, even undergoes a large point load of 10 N. In contrast, cells based on pure ceramic and pure polymer electrolyte show poor cycle life. The NCPE provides a new design for solid composite electrolyte and opens up new possibilities for future solid‐state lithium‐metal batteries and structural energy storage.
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".