Thermodynamic Analysis Of Cascade Refrigeration System Using R12-R13, R290-R23 And R404A-R23
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal protocol and Kyoto protocol underlined the need of substitution of CFC’s and HCFC’s due to their adverse impact on atmospheric ozone layer which protects earth from U.V rays. The CFCs have been entirely ruled out since 1995 and a long-term basis HCFCs must be replaced by 2020. All this events motivated HFC refrigerants which are harmless to ozone layer. In this paper thermodynamic analysis of cascade refrigeration system has been done using three different refrigerant pairs R13-R12, R290-R23, and R404A-R23. Effect of various operating parameters i.e. evaporator temperature, condenser temperature, temperature difference in cascade condenser and low temperature cycle condenser temperature on performance parameters viz. COP, exergetic efficiency and refrigerant mass flow ratio have been studied. Thermodynamic analysis shows that out of three refrigerant pairs R12-R13, R290-R23 and R404A-R23 the COP of R290-R23 refrigerant pair is highest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".