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 LiFePO4/Celgard electrodes was ∼10 times higher than that of conventional electrodes spread onto an aluminum current collector. The electrochemical performances of LiFePO4/C (LFP) and Li4Ti5O12 (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. LiFePO4/Celgard electrodes deliver specific capacities of up to 125 mAh.g−1electrode corresponding to more than 6 times the gravimetric capacity of an LFP electrode coated on Al foil. A LiFePO4/Li4Ti5O12 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−1electrode 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".