Performance variation of an R22 window air conditioner retrofitted with a HFC/HC refrigerant mixture under different ambient conditions over a range of charge quantities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract R22 has been generally accepted as the most suitable refrigerant for air conditioners, due to its favorable thermodynamic properties. However, R22 is a controlled substance under the Montreal protocol. M20 is a HFC/HC refrigerant mixture that can be used as a substitute for R22. This paper presents experimental investigation on the performance comparison of a window air conditioner operated with the M20 tested under different refrigerant charge levels and outdoor conditions against that with R22. Experiments were conducted in accordance with BIS procedure in a psychrometric test facility. Refrigerant charge in the air conditioner was systematically varied from 900 to 1600 g in steps of 50 g for R22 and 697 to 1279 g in steps of 39 g [equivalent to 50 g of R22] for the M20. At each charge levels, the outdoor room conditions were changed in accordance with BIS standards. It is observed that R22 is more sensitive to deviations in charge levels as compared to the M20. A decrease in charge level of about 7% reduced the system refrigerating capacity by 11.3% with R22 while with the M20 refrigerant mixture it reduces by 6.9% only. Similarly an overcharge by 7% reduces the refrigerating capacity of the system by 13.8% with R22 while with M20 it reduces by 6.5% only. Thus M20 is less sensitive to charge deviations. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Heat Trans Asian Res; Published online in Wiley Online Library ( wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/htj ). DOI 10.1002/htj.20339
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".