Heat Transfer Comparison in Coaxial Tube in Tube Heat Exchanger Operating with Refrigerants R407C and R22
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to hazardous environmental impact of the CFC and HCFC refrigerants that are currently used in R&AC systems, in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, actual is exchange of those by new, ecologically acceptable, HFC refrigerants. Therefore system performance analysis was made where the single component R22 refrigerant was replaced by zeotropic mixture R407C. In the system operating at the same conditions, a comparison of heat transfer in coaxial exchanger for R22 and R407C is performed. Experimental data are presented in the form of average heat transfer coefficients as a function of heat flux and mass velocity. Results have showed that in the heat exchange process with R407C refrigerant heat transfer coefficient is lower (10-35%) than for R22. As R407C is a blend of three pure refrigerants (R32, R125 and R134a) with temperature glide of 5-7°C, the concentration shift occurs during two-phase flow in the condenser and evaporator.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".