4.7 Article

Reduction of real gas losses with a DC flow in the practical regenerator of the refrigeration cycle

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 183, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.116123

关键词

Real gas effects; Practical regenerator; Refrigeration cycle; DC flow; Efficiency

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51506152, 51777141]
  2. China Scholarship Council (the International Clean Energy Talent Programme, 2017)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental results show that utilizing a DC flow in regenerative refrigeration systems can significantly improve the coefficient of performance and reduce real gas losses. Therefore, using a DC flow in regenerative refrigeration systems is a practical way to enhance performance.
A working fluid behaves more like a real gas as the refrigeration temperature gets close to or below its critical temperature, and such real gas effects seriously degrade the refrigeration efficiency. Previous theoretical study has found that imposing a direct-current (DC) flow in an ideal regenerator improves the coefficient of performance (COP) significantly. However, factors in practical regenerators bring about profound influences on the DC flow, and its value deviates severely from that in ideal regenerators. In this paper, three factors are identified, and their effects are estimated based on specific simulations on regenerators. The expression of the DC flow and the COP are derived. Experimental measurements about the DC flow are carried out with a pulse tube refrigerator, and the COP at the temperature range of 4-7 K is found to be improved by a maximum value of 83%. It is the first time to provide a direct experimental evidence of reducing real gas losses with a DC flow in the regenerator. Further discussions on improvement potentials of the refrigeration performance and the liquefaction rate show that it should be a realistic way to utilize a DC flow in regenerative refrigeration systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据