Energy and exergy analysis of possible alternatives to R134a in a vapourcompression refrigeration cycle of a water cooler unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In this paper, the energy and exergy performance of a vapour-compression refrigeration cycle of a water dispenser unit has been analyzed theoretically using different refrigerants as possible alternative substitutes to R134a. The selected low ?Global Warming Potential (GWP) ? refrigerants are: HydroFluoroOlefins (HFO) R1234yf and R1234ze(E), HydroCarbons (HC) R290 and R600a, and HydroFluoroCarbon (HFC) R152a. The process was evaluated based on the evaporator and condenser temperatures, which range between -10 and 5?C and between 30 and 45?C, respectively. The theoretical model based on the first and second laws of thermodynamics has been developed using the Matlab environment. The performances of the vapor compression cycle are discussed in terms of coefficient of performance, exergy destruction and exergy efficiency. The results show that the maximum COP achieved is 5.12 and 5.10 for R152a and R600a respectively, the highest total exergy destruction is about 82.82 W for R290, the highest exergy efficiency is about 55.12% for R600a.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".