This search combines search strings from the content search (i.e. "Full Text", "Author", "Title", "Abstract", or "Keywords") with "Article Type" and "Publication Date Range" using the AND operator.
Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2013, 4, 611–624, doi:10.3762/bjnano.4.68
Figure 1: Comparison of the cycling performances of non-optimised Li–S batteries prepared with different bind...
Figure 2: SEM images of (a) DBC-PVDF before cycling, (b) DBC-PVDF after the 50th discharge, (c) SC-PVDF befor...
Figure 3: X-ray pattern of the Li2S sample before (a) and after (b) approximately 25 min in contact with air.
Figure 4: Mapping of DMT modulus and current/adhesion of basic materials used for cathode preparation from AF...
Figure 5: Statistical evaluation of mechanical properties of the basic materials used for preparing the catho...
Figure 6: AFM images of an SC-PVDF sample before cycling. a) topography, b) deformation, c) adhesion, d) DMT ...
Figure 7: AFM image of topography, DMT modulus, and QNM™ current of a) SC-PVDF after cycling b) DBC-PVDF befo...
Figure 8: Conductive area during image acquisition under identical conditions at the cathodes before and afte...
Figure 9: Comparison of mean values of roughness, adhesion, energy dissipation, and stiffness, from statistic...
Figure 10: Discharge capacity of the optimized Li–S battery in the range of 2.8–1.5 V vs Li/Li+ at a current d...
Figure 11: Force separation curve with scheme of evaluation of mechanical properties by AFM (left) and scheme ...