MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385740605 · doi:10.3390/en16165902

Extensive Analysis of a Reinvigorated Solar Water Heating System Using Low-Density Polyethylene Glazing

2023· article· en· W4385740605 on OpenAlexaff
Balamurali Duraivel, M. Natarajan, Saboor Shaik, Erdem Cüce, Abdulhameed Babatunde Owolabi, Hong Li, Miroslava Kavgic

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicSolar Thermal and Photovoltaic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersVIT University
KeywordsLow-density polyethyleneGlazingSolar energyExergy efficiencyEnvironmental scienceExergyPhotovoltaic thermal hybrid solar collectorEnvironmental engineeringMaterials sciencePolyethyleneNuclear engineeringProcess engineeringComposite materialEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solar energy is one of the most promising forms of alternative energy because it has no adverse effects on the environment and is entirely free. Converting solar energy into thermal energy is the most common and straightforward method; the efficiency of solar thermal conversion is approximately 70 percent. The intermittent nature of solar energy availability affects the performance of solar water heaters (SWH), which lowers the usefulness of solar energy in residential and commercial settings, particularly for water heating. Even at low temperatures, the performance of a collector can be improved by using low-density polyethylene (LDPE) glazing instead of traditional glass because it is less expensive and lighter than glass. Using a comprehensive experimental-simulative study, the Glass Solar water heater (glass SWH) and the low-density polyethylene solar water heater (LDPE SWH) are analyzed, examined, and compared in this work. These solar water heaters have galvanized iron (GI) as their absorber material. The SWHs were operated in a closed loop at a constant mass flow rate of 0.013 kg/s, and a 4E analysis (which stands for energy, exergy, economics, and efficiency recovery ratio) was carried out. This analysis included a look at the dynamic time, uncertainty, weight reduction, carbon footprint, and series connection. An LDPE SWH has an energy efficiency that is 5.57% and an exergy efficiency that is 3.2% higher than a glass SWH. The weight of the LDPE SWH is 32.56% lower than that of the glass SWH. Compared to the price of a conventional geyser, installing our SWH results in a cost savings of 40.9%, and monthly energy costs are reduced by an average of 25.5%. Compared to October, September has the quickest dynamic time to reach the desired temperature, while October has the most significant dynamic time. The efficiency recovery ratio (ERR) of a glass SWH is 0.0239% lower than that of an LDPE SWH. LDPE SWHs had a carbon credit worth INR 294.44 more than glass SWHs. The findings of these tests demonstrate that the LDPE SWH is a practical replacement for traditional means of heating water, such as SWHs and geysers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicSolar Thermal and Photovoltaic SystemsFrench-language works237,207