Energetic and Exergetic Performance Comparison of an Ejector Refrigeration System Using Modern Low GWP Refrigerants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, a novel model is used to precisely predict the performance of an ejector refrigeration system utilizing modern environmentally benign working fluids in both the critical and subcritical modes of operation. Energetic and exergetic performance of low global warming potential and non-ozone depleting HCFO and HFO refrigerants: R1233zd(E), R1224yd(Z), R1225ye(Z), hydrocarbon refrigerants: Isobutane and Isopentane and RE245cb2 is compared with that of conventional refrigerants: R141b and R245fa. The model takes the ejector area ratios, generator pressure, and evaporator pressure into account in the determination of the ejector loss coefficients. A program written in Engineering Equation Solver (EES) was used to obtain solutions of the developed mathematical model. In the analysis, ejector area ratios between 6.44 and 12.76, evaporator temperatures between 4 and 16°C, condenser temperatures between 25 and 50°C as well as generator temperatures between 70 and 110°C were used. Results show that Isobutane and R1225ye(Z) have the greatest performance, giving an over 150% increase in the coefficient of performance (COP) compared to R245fa. The increase in the COP with isopentane, RE245cb2, R1224yd(Z) and R1233zd(E) were as high as 22%, 32%, 16% and 14%, respectively at the lowest area ratio. Results further show that the ejector contributes the highest exergy losses (up to 55%, depending on the evaporator, condensing and generator temperatures) compared to the other components. The contribution of the condenser to the total exergy loss is up to 28%, for the generator it is up to 34% and up to 12% for the evaporator. The pump and the throttle valve give values lower than 0.5 and 9%, respectively for all the refrigerants.
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".