## 2 Results
### Conductivity  
The temperature dependent conductivity of the mixtures upon cooling was measured to compare with the pure C18 LiTFSI salt. Specifically, we investigated the conductivity of the C18 MS-based mixtures at various ratios as well as the influence of each of the additives at the molar ratios of 0.05:1 and 0.3:1 of additive:C18 TFSI. Table 5 summarizes select values for DC conductivity (S/cm) over all phases. Figure 5 shows the ionic conductivity of C18 LiTFSI mixed in several different ratios with C18 MS. The isotropic to smectic transition temperatures based on DSC data are also shown to compare conductivity across phases. Discontinuities in the temperature dependent conductivities can be seen just after the crystallization points of approximately 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. In general, the discontinuities and changes in the temperature dependence of conductivity indicate changes in the ion transport mechanism that occur as a result of phase changes. As will be elaborated upon in the Discussion section, the liquid crystalline materials were found to exhibit Vogel-Tammann-Fulcher (VTF) temperature dependent conductivity, whereas the semicrystalline materials exhibited Arrhenius temperature dependent conductivity. The overall DC conductivity decreases significantly at the highest additive concentration. The lower ratios are on par with C18 LiTFSI at higher temperatures and in the smectic phase range, but significantly outperform C18 LiTFSI in the semicrystalline phase. DC conductivity was also compared across additive molecules for two ratios, 0.05:1 and 0.3:1 (Figures 6 and 7, respectively). The C18 ES and C18 IFS additives did not result in an increase in ionic conductivity at either the high or low temperature range. At higher ratios, as shown for 0.3:1, the blends exhibited lower conductivity as additive size increased. Some anomalous conductivity behavior was observed for C18 ES0.05 at temperatures near the crystallization point for which the reason is unclear at this time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Temperature** & **30 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **60 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **120 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **135 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **210 \({}^{\circ}\)C** \\ \hline C18 LiTFSI & \(2.4\times 10^{-8}\) & \(2.1\times 10^{-5}\) & \(2.4\times 10^{-4}\) & \(3.5\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.2\times 10^{-3}\) \\ C18 MS05.05 & \(9.8\times 10^{-7}\) & \(2.4\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.9\times 10^{-4}\) & \(2.6\times 10^{-4}\) & — \\ C18 MS03.3 & \(1.5\times 10^{-6}\) & \(3.1\times 10^{-5}\) & \(2.1\times 10^{-4}\) & \(2.8\times 10^{-4}\) & — \\ C18 MS1.0 & \(2.2\times 10^{-9}\) & \(8.1\times 10^{-6}\) & \(7.9\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.1\times 10^{-4}\) & — \\ C18 ES0.05 & \(5.2\times 10^{-10}\) & \(2.2\times 10^{-5}\) & \(3.4\times 10^{-5}\) & — & \(3.7\times 10^{-4}\) \\ C18 IFS0.05 & \(1.3\times 10^{-12}\) & \(3.6\times 10^{-5}\) & \(3.0\times 10^{-5}\) & \(5.4\times 10^{-5}\) & \(3.1\times 10^{-4}\) \\ C18 ES0.3 & \(3.3\times 10^{-10}\) & \(1.8\times 10^{-6}\) & \(4.8\times 10^{-5}\) & \(8.0\times 10^{-5}\) & \(4.2\times 10^{-4}\) \\ C18 IFS0.3 & — & \(5.9\times 10^{-7}\) & \(2.2\times 10^{-5}\) & \(3.6\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.8\times 10^{-4}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Values of DC conductivity in S/cm across C18 MS ratios in the crystalline, smectic and isotropic phases. “—” indicates a measurement was not taken at that temperature. Data for C18 LiTFSI were originally reported in [21]. Figure 5: DC conductivity of C18 MS mixtures by temperature compared to pure C18 LiTFSI measured by dielectric impedance spectrometry. Isotropic to smectic transition values measured using DSC are indicated by vertical lines for each material, and regressions calculated based on Arrhenius or VTF models are displayed as fit lines. Data for C18 LiTFSI were originally reported in [21]. Figure 6: DC conductivity of 0.05:1 C18 RS:C18 LiTFSI ratios across temperatures compared to C18 LiTFSI.