TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE CHOICE OF THE OPTIMAL DESIGN OF THE HEATING DEVICE WITH THE FUNCTION OF HEAT ACCUMULATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to increase the cooling time of the heating system of the building, especially in the conditions of its operation in pulse mode, a domestic highly efficient heating device with the function of heat accumulation has been developed. A criterion has been derived that can be used by every consumer when choosing the optimal design of a radiator. A study was conducted and a technical and economic evaluation of heating devices of known and developed new design with the function of accumulating phase transition heat was given. A heating device with the function of accumulating heat based on accumulative materials of organic origin with metal nanoparticles has been developed. Experimentally, it was established that 80 W were spent to "charge" a single "tube" with a total weight of 952.9 g and bring the temperature of the heat-accumulating material to 52.1 ºС. A technical and economic analysis of known designs of heating devices was carried out. It is shown that convectors and copper-aluminum radiators are the most efficient heating devices for modern heating systems, when it is necessary to use energy resources rationally or there is a limited amount of heat. From an economic point of view, the most efficient heating device is a convector, but not from a sanitary and hygienic point of view (the presence of dust between the fins). Comparing the efficiency of the developed heating device with the function of heat accumulation based on accumulative materials of organic origin with metal nanoparticles according to the indicator of the specific cost of the heating device, which is 0.24 €/(kW·year), and the indicator of technical and economic efficiency of the operation of the device - 0.27 €/(kW·year) is the most efficient.
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".