Modélisation Thermodynamique Et Analyse Exergétique D’Un Tube Vortex Non Adiabatique Utilisant Un Fluide Naturel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The different definitions of exergy efficiency (RE), which have been proposed in the past for the thermodynamic evaluation of expansion and compression devices, operating above and through ambient temperature are discussed.The comparison between these efficiencies is illustrated.An expression for (RE) based on the concept of transit exergy is presented.This concept allows the quantitative and unambiguous definition of two exergy measurements: the exergy produced and the exergy consumed.The development of these (RE) in the case of a non-adiabatic vortex tube with dimensionless thermal conductivity, integrated with a compressor above or through ambient temperature is presented.The methods of calculating the transit exergy are described.Analysis based on the mentioned measurements, combined with traditional exergy loss analysis, identifies the most important factors affecting the thermodynamic performance of compression and expansion in a non-adiabatic vortex tube.It was obtained that the use of a natural reel fluid (CO2) compared to an ideal gas (Air) increases the transit (RE) by 31.5% and decreases the exergy losses by 37.3% under the same operating conditions of the two fluids in the system with the same COP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".