Third Generation of Working Fluids for Advanced Refrigeration Heating and Power Generation Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1987 Montreal Protocol, chlorinated refrigerants (CFCs and HCFCs) have been pointed out as responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer. The chemical industry has realized suitable replacement for CFC-12 and for HCFC-22 e.g. HFC-134a, HFC-404A, HFC-410A, HFC-507. This generation of refrigerants developed by the chemical industry can be characterized by the no ozone depleting potential and long atmospheric lifetime resulting in global warming potential. The contribution of the HFCs to the global warming brings up to discussion whether the HFCs should be considered as a transitional substance. Historically the use of natural and ecologically safe refrigerants was a strategy to eliminate environmental problems and avoid uncertainties with synthetic replacement fluids. Since ammonia is toxic, carbon dioxide provide high pressure, and the hydrocarbons are flammable, the general conclusion is often drawn that natural fluids gave safety problems. This paper will describe the possibilities of application as working fluids in low-temperature engineering refrigeration, heat pumping and organic Rankine cycles of the hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) as third generation of synthetic working fluids.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".