Simulated performance of HC-290 in air conditioners.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As per the accelerated phase out schedule of Montreal Protocol, HCFC-22 has to be phase out by 2020 in Article 5 countries and 2030 in non Article 5 countries. Being natural substance, HC-290 is considered as alternative to HCFC-22. In the case of HC-290, the consideration must be given to flammability. After achieving the reduction in charge of HC-290 up to 30% lower that of HCFC-22, this paper focuses on simulation studies for further reduction of HC-290 charge for air conditioners both window and split air conditioner using IMST ART v3.3. A 5.16 kW capacity window air conditioner and 4.95 kW capacity split air conditioners designed for HCFC-22 are considered. The air conditions considered are as per the Indian Standard IS 1391 (1992) Part I. First the baseline performance is established with HCFC-22 for both the air conditioners. The performance of HC-290 is predicted under drop-in condition. Under drop-in test, (replacing HCFC-22 with HC-290 without any other system changes) for both air conditioners, the cooling capacity is lower and COP is higher than that of HCFC-22. The optimized charge of HC-290 is in the range 48 to 50% that of HCFC-22 by weight. Standards like EN 378 specify the allowable charge of HC-290 in a closed space to avoid risk due to flammability. The condenser is the major component of air conditioner which contains the large amount of refrigerant. Therefore, the various combinations of low size condenser tube OD, ranging from 9.52 to 3.18 mm is considered to reduce charge with performance equivalent to HCFC-22. The lowest HC-290 charge is with 4.75 mm tube OD condenser for both window air conditioner as well as split air conditioner. For window air conditioner with 4.75 mm OD tube, the cooling capacity is 9.2% lower than that of HCFC-22 and COP is 2.9% higher than that of HCFC-22. For split air conditioner with 4.75 mm OD tube, the cooling capacity is 5.8% lower than that of HCFC-22 and COP is 7.1% higher than that of HCFC-22.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".