4.7 Article

Comparative Study of Carbon Nanosphere and Carbon Nanopowder on Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity of Nanofluids

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano11030608

关键词

carbon nanosphere; carbon nanopowder; nanofluids; thermal conductivity; viscosity

资金

  1. European Union [VEKOP-2.3.2-16-2017-00013]
  2. State of Hungary
  3. European Regional Development Fund
  4. BME Nanotechnology and Materials Science TKP2020 IE grant of NKFIH Hungary (BME IE-NAT TKP2020) Stipendium Hungaricum scholarship grant
  5. [NRDI K 124212]
  6. [NRDI TNN_16 123631]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comparative study was conducted on the thermal conductivity and viscosity properties of carbon nanosphere (CNS) and carbon nanopowder (CNP) nanofluids, revealing that CNP nanofluids exhibit higher thermal conductivity enhancement compared to CNS nanofluids.
A comparative research on stability, viscosity (mu), and thermal conductivity (k) of carbon nanosphere (CNS) and carbon nanopowder (CNP) nanofluids was performed. CNS was synthesized by the hydrothermal method, while CNP was provided by the manufacturer. Stable nanofluids at high concentrations 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 vol% were prepared successfully. The properties of CNS and CNP nanoparticles were analyzed with Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), scanning electron microscope (SEM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), specific surface area (S-BET), X-ray powder diffraction (XRD), thermogravimetry/differential thermal analysis (TG/DTA), and energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX). The CNP nanofluids have the highest k enhancement of 10.61% for 1.5 vol% concentration compared to the base fluid, while the CNS does not make the thermal conductivity of nanofluids (k(nf)) significantly higher. The studied nanofluids were Newtonian. The relative mu of CNS and CNP nanofluids was 1.04 and 1.07 at 0.5 vol% concentration and 30 degrees C. These results can be explained by the different sizes and crystallinity of the used nanoparticles.

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