Effects of Intercooling and Inter-Stage Heat Recovery on the Performance of Two-Stage Transcritical CO2 Cycles for Residential Heating Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the harmful effects of synthetic refrigerants, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)n the environment, natural refrigerants like carbon dioxide (CO2) have been attracting great interest. The higher inter-stage superheating of CO2 makes it difficult to predict the effects of the intercooling on heating performance of a two-stage transcritical CO2 cycle. In addition, very little is known about the potential of inter-stage heat rejection recovery in the heating performance enhancement of this cycle. In order to explore the effects of intercooling and inter-stage heat rejection recovery potential, three “sub-cycles”—(1) a sub-cycle with heat recovery, (2) a sub-cycle without heat recovery, and (3) a sub-cycle without intercooling—were modeled in Engineering Equation Solver (EES) software for three commonly-used two-stage transcritical cycles: (1) an intercooler cycle, (2) a flash cycle, and (3) a split cycle. Then, the discharge pressure and intermediate pressure were simultaneously optimized. Based on the optimization results, the heating performance of the sub-cycles for each cycle were compared. The results demonstrate that the incorporation of intercooling without heat recovery was detrimental to the heating performance in comparison to the absence of intercooling. It is also clear that there is a great potential for heating performance improvement through inter-stage heat recovery.
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".