Nanofluids as heat transfer fluids: Hurdles to industrial application and economic considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nanofluids have gained substantial interest over the past years due to their enhanced thermal properties. However, these nanoparticle dispersions remain scarcely used in industrial applications. In this work, we demonstrate how the stability of nanofluids and economic factors are the major hurdles preventing their industrial large‐scale use through an economic analysis. The cost‐effectiveness of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT)–water and copper oxide–water nanofluids used in a concentric tube heat exchanger as substitutes for freshwater was assessed in four different scenarios. It was determined that three of the four cases were not economically viable, as a deficit was generated due to a recurring annual investment for the renewal of the nanofluids because they destabilized with time. The fourth case, however, was sustainable because of the nanofluid's high stability (5 years) and showed a payback period on investment of less than a year. Finally, a tool illustrating the operating window for nanofluid economics in our selected heat exchanger geometry was developed.
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".