Performance, environment, and cost‐benefit analysis of a split air conditioning unit using <scp>HC</scp>‐290 and <scp>HCFC</scp>‐22
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A widely used hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerant HCFC‐22 in the split air conditioner (AC) is being phased out in all countries under the Montreal Protocol. Propane (HC‐290) is a favorable substitute for HCFC‐22. The performance, environment impact and cost‐benefit analysis of a split AC unit operated with HCFC‐22 and HC‐290 has been carried out experimentally under different test conditions prescribed by IS 1391. The results showed that the variation in system performance was more significant for HCFC‐22 than for that of HC‐290 while varying the refrigerant charge. The experienced optimum charges that represent the maximum coefficient of performance (COP) was varied with the working environment and it was realized that, generally the optimum charge for HC‐290 was 50% lesser than that of HCFC‐22. The COP of the AC unit with HC‐290 was observed to be 5% more than that of HCFC‐22. However, the system capacity diminished by 7.8%. The operation of a split AC unit with HC‐290 produced up to 15.9% lesser CO2 emission than that of HCFC‐22 under all the test conditions. The use of HC‐290 in an existing HCFC‐22 split AC system can save up to 12.22% of the life time total cost. Finally, it was inferred that the replacement of HCFC‐22 with HC‐290 in the split AC unit showed dominance in all aspects such as performance, emission, and life time total cost.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".