A Ceramic Rich Quaternary Composite Solid-State Electrolyte for Solid-State Lithium Metal Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid-state lithium metal batteries are one of the most promising candidates to take over the traditional liquid-based lithium ion batteries as they not only allow us to circumvent safety issues but also boost energy density far over the current limits imposed by the present chemistries. We have recently demonstrated that the combination of highly conductive inorganic solid electrolyte (ISE), Li 0.33 La 0.55 TiO 3 (LLTO), with the mechanically durable solid polymer electrolyte (SPE), polyethylene oxide: Lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (PEO:LiTFSI), alongside a solid plasticizer, Succinonitrile, has proved to be successful in making highly performing polymer-rich (70% polymer) quaternary composite solid electrolytes (CSEs) that evade both the brittleness of ceramics and the poor conductivity of polymers. Herein, we extend the work to ceramic rich quaternary CSEs (70% ceramic). Ceramic-rich films were fabricated using tape casting technique and have reasonable ionic conductivity of 1.5 × 10 −4 S cm −1 at 55 °C, decent mechanical properties and displays impressive endurance in Li ∣∣ Li symmetrical cells (> 800 h). Solid-state coin-type cells assembled with composite cathode show satisfactory cycling performance at 0.05 C and 55 °C reaching specific discharge capacity of 160.6 mAh g −1 , maintaining high Coulombic efficiency (> 95%) and high capacity retention of 90.3% after 30 cycles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".