A comparative study of a direct current heating system and a gas furnace heating coil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research is to compare the efficiency of a direct current (DC) heating system with an electrical furnace coil. This was done using a house lab as a test bed located on the Durham College Whitby Campus in Canada. The house is approximately 1000 square feet, originally built circa 1950's/1960's, with an existing gas furnace of 60,000 BTUs and an energy efficiency EnerGuide rating of 95.5. Three options were tested during winter 2016 along with the electrical heating element. Weather normalization was taken into consideration using data provided by the weather network. The analysis showed that the direct current heating system option 3 had a higher BTUH/Watt= 3.73 compared to the furnace heating element=2.25 BTUH/Watt which represent a difference of 39.6%. An energy simulation was run using the HOT2000 software to evaluate the direct current technology vs gas, oil, propane and electricity. In each case the direct current technology showed an energy savings better than the comparative technology. From the data collected and analysis, it can be concluded that the direct current system is a valid technology for heating buildings. It is more efficient than the industry standard electrical heating coil with an efficiency of up to 40% better.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".