Fabrication of Current Collectors and Binder‐Free Electrodes on Separators Used in Lithium‐Ion Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report the fabrication of a composite electrode through the deposition of electrode materials directly onto a separator to avoid the use of a metallic current collector. In addition to being an active electrode material, this method employs only graphene as both a carbon additive and a binder. A major achievement is the elimination of heavy and inactive current collector, harmful solvents, and resistive binder. The deposition of the composite film electrode was applied through the filtrated dispersion of a redox active material and graphene through a separator (Celgard), which is commonly used in battery. The electronic conductivity of LiFePO 4 /Celgard electrodes was ∼10 times higher than that of conventional electrodes spread onto an aluminum current collector. The electrochemical performances of LiFePO 4 /C (LFP) and Li 4 Ti 5 O 12 (LTO) half‐cells fabricated according to this process and a conventional method were compared. A clear improvement in the electrochemical performance for electrodes fabricated using the new method was observed, particularly at high C‐rates. LiFePO 4 /Celgard electrodes deliver specific capacities of up to 125 mAh.g −1 electrode corresponding to more than 6 times the gravimetric capacity of an LFP electrode coated on Al foil. A LiFePO 4 /Li 4 Ti 5 O 12 full cell made using film electrodes deposited on a Celgard membrane shows stable specific capacities during the cycling at various C‐rates and delivers a specific capacity of 106 mAh.g −1 electrode at a C/10 rate.
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".