Thermal analysis of five flat air solar collectors in Epinal (France) using modelling and simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of the position of the solar collector absorber and stagnant air relative to the airflow path on the thermodynamic properties of traversing air and the overall thermal performance of the collector. A numerical model was developed and validated using five different absorber design positions. Numerical results are validated using experimental data obtained from Epinal (France). The model was subsequently used to parametrically study the influence of these absorber positions on the density, temperature, velocity variations of the airflow through the collector and the thermal efficiency of each case scenario. The study showed the importance of stagnant air in solar collector thermal performance. Also, it showed that when one absorber is used, it is better to locate the absorber on the top of the airflow path than below the airflow path. Sandwiching the airflow path between double absorbers with the upper absorbers having stagnant air between it and the plexiglass cover and the down absorber having stagnant air between it and the bottom of the collector can produce a thermal efficiency of 31% which is 2% higher than the closest case and 13% higher than the worst-case design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".