A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Monopole Antenna and Microwave Oven for Water Heating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conducting a life cycle assessment (LCA) for technologies used for water heating is crucial for understanding their environmental impacts throughout their entire life cycles. This analysis facilitates the evaluation of resource consumption, energy usage, and emissions associated with each technology. Accordingly, a comparative LCA of a monopole antenna and microwave oven for water heating is presented in this research in order to identify the most environmentally sustainable alternative. Utilizing the SimaPro software, the results were assessed with TRACI 2.1 method for characterized and normalized data. The comparative LCA for both systems heating 1 L of water with electromagnetic radiation shows that the monopole antenna has a lower environmental impact than the microwave oven. In all environmental impact categories, the microwave oven's environmental impacts were found to be greater than 97.5% of a monopole antenna's. Using the monopole antenna can reduce GWP-related emissions by 36.37 g CO2 eq/L compared to the microwave oven. The results of this study demonstrate the monopole antenna's significant environmental advantages over the microwave oven in water heating applications. The monopole antenna exhibited consistently lower impacts across all assessed environmental categories, including global warming potential, smog, acidification, and eutrophication. These outcomes underscore the monopole antenna's potential as a sustainable alternative for water heating, with implications for reducing ecological footprints in everyday applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".