4.7 Article

Comparative study of heat pipes and liquid-cooling systems with thermoelectric generators for heat recovery from chimneys

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 2546-2557

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/er.7326

关键词

heat pipes; liquid cooling; power; thermoelectric generators; waste heat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents a comparative experimental study of three different cooling systems used with thermoelectric generators mounted on a chimney for waste heat recovery. The results show that liquid cooling systems are a better option compared to the heat pipes' system, especially when considering the required surface area.
This article presents a comparative experimental study of three different cooling systems used with thermoelectric generators mounted on a chimney for waste heat recovery. The studied systems are heat pipes, closed-circuit liquid cooling, and open-circuit liquid cooling. The study considers the variation of the performance of each system at different operating conditions and their impact on the output thermoelectric generator power. The auxiliary power consumed by the cooling system itself is included. The heat pipes' system is studied at different fan speeds, while the liquid-cooling systems are studied at different water flow rates and fan speeds for the radiator (closed-circuit only). Also, the required surface area for each system is considered. The results show that for the heat pipes' system, the optimum system net power is achieved at medium fan speed at an operating voltage of 5.5 to 6.0V. The closed-circuit liquid-cooling system can generate up to 8% more power compared to the heat pipes' system, while the open circuit can generate up to 45% more power. When considering the occupied area, these numbers become 111% and 184% more power per unit area, respectively. The liquid-cooling system is a better option compared to the heat pipes' system, especially when considering the required surface area.

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