Comparing Ni vs NiO as the Nickel Source in the All-Dry Laboratory and Industrial Scale Synthesis of LiNi<sub>0.925</sub>Mn<sub>0.02</sub>Co<sub>0.055</sub>O<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ni or NiO was used as the nickel source in two samples (Ni-92 and NiO-92) to make LiNi0.925Mn0.02Co0.055O2 layered oxides using the all-dry synthesis process. In-situ X-ray Diffraction was conducted at the Canadian Light Source to probe phase evolutions during calcination. For calcination in the alumina capillary used for in situ experiments, NiO is advantageous over pure Ni powder. The first reaction product that forms is a solid solution of transition metal and lithium in a disordered rock salt structure, followed by the formation of a short range ordered cubic rocksalt structure with transition metals and lithium beginning to segregate into alternating layers along the cubic [111] direction. This undergoes further lithiation and ordering at high temperature to form the intended hexagonal layered phase. The onset of this layered phase happens relatively early for the NiO-92 sample at around 635 °C. However, as the metallic Ni in the Ni-92 sample needs to undergo oxidation to form the rock salt phase, this slow process retards the formation of the poorly ordered phase and subsequently the layered phase. Work at NOVONIX’s pilot line shows that both Ni and NiO can be used successfully in the all-dry method to synthesize high nickel cathodes with electrochemical performance comparable to commercial materials made from co-precipitated precursors. Hence, this method is a strong candidate for the industrial scale-up of high nickel content cathode materials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".