Critical Resources has completed 65 cycles across more than a month in a full-format pouch cell using its solvent-free DSD cathode matrix. The cell retained about 75% of its starting capacity, offering a useful engineering baseline but not yet a commercial performance result.
- 65 cycles and approximately 780 hours of testing
- Capacity declined from about 145 to 110 mAh g⁻¹
- Characteristic LFP voltage plateau remained present
- Single hand-assembled cell used liquid electrolyte
- ASE solid-state electrolyte integration is next
Full-format cell completes 65 cycles
Critical Resources Limited (ASX:CRR) has cleared an important laboratory hurdle in its battery program: a single hand-assembled full-format pouch cell completed approximately 780 hours of continuous cycling. At the deliberately slow 0.2C rate, the test ran for 65 charge-discharge cycles, with each cycle taking roughly 12 hours.
The cell began with specific capacity of about 145 mAh g⁻¹ and delivered approximately 110 mAh g⁻¹ after 65 cycles, equivalent to retention of roughly 75%. The characteristic lithium iron phosphate voltage plateau at 3.4-3.5 volts remained visible throughout the test, while coulombic efficiency stayed near 100% for most of the run. Those results are consistent with the cathode chemistry remaining electrochemically active, although they do not establish commercial cell performance.
Capacity fade points to an unoptimised build
Critical Resources attributes the result to a solvent-free, binder-free LFP/LLZO cathode matrix deposited in a single dry step using Dry Supersonic Deposition. The test used a conventional liquid electrolyte and lithium-metal anode to isolate the cathode matrix against known reference components.
The company’s interpretation is that the fading capacity was primarily associated with the first-generation cell build and those reference components, rather than the deposited cathode. The sharper decline in the final cycles coincided with rising resistance and unstable coulombic efficiency. A post-test visual inspection found heavy degradation of the lithium-metal anode while the cathode appeared stable and intact, but Critical Resources acknowledged that no quantitative post-mortem failure analysis has yet been completed.
One cell is a baseline, not a performance guarantee
The result matters because the cell was assembled by hand, without production-line dry-room automation, calibrated stack fixtures or optimised formation protocols. The company says the main engineering variables still to be refined include electrolyte wetting, stack pressure, electrode alignment, layer-to-layer contact and protection of the lithium-metal surface.
There is also a meaningful gap between this pouch-cell result and the approximately 85% retention reported for pure DSD-deposited LFP over 500 cycles in peer-reviewed coin-cell work. The comparison is not like-for-like: the coin-cell test examined the LFP cathode alone, without the LLZO phase used in the pouch matrix, and involved a different test format. Still, the contrast gives the optimisation program a clear target while highlighting that repeatability across further pouch cells has not been established.
ASE electrolyte integration becomes the next gate
Critical Resources’ next technical step is to replace the liquid baseline with its proprietary Amorphous Solid-State Electrolyte, or ASE, while continuing to refine deposition parameters, layer thickness, conductive-network loading and cell assembly. The company also plans independent third-party testing of an optimised baseline cell.
In parallel, CSIRO’s Lab22 is commencing Digital Twin modelling of the DSD deposition process, while the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology’s CEPS team continues the pouch-cell work. For a company pursuing a licensing model rather than cell manufacturing, the commercial question is now less whether one laboratory cell can cycle for a month and more whether the process can produce repeatable, independently validated cells once the solid electrolyte and engineering controls are added.
Bottom Line?
The month-long test strengthens the case that the DSD cathode can function in a full-format cell, but repeatability, solid-state integration and substantially longer cycle life remain unresolved.
Questions in the middle?
- Will repeated pouch cells reproduce the 75% retention result or show materially different behaviour?
- Can ASE integration reduce the degradation associated with the liquid electrolyte and lithium-metal baseline?
- Will independent testing confirm that cell-engineering improvements can narrow the gap with the 500-cycle coin-cell result?