2020
DOI: 10.1007/s42452-020-03848-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental performance analysis of an improved receiver for Scheffler solar concentrator

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(38 reference statements)
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As can be observed, Mekonnen et al [24][25][26] found the overall heat loss factors of 62 W/m 2 K, 109 W/m 2 K, 41.8 W/m 2 K, respectively which were higher than IR system of present study which was found to be 59.65 W/m 2 K. For COR, present study performed well with 0.29 compared to Mekonnen et al [24] who found 0.16. In terms of the first figure of merit, the AFR system for the present study performed well comparing with the IR system, system studied by Mekonnen et al [24] and systems studied by Chandak et al [33].…”
Section: Comparison Of Findings Of Present Work With Similar Studiessupporting
confidence: 58%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As can be observed, Mekonnen et al [24][25][26] found the overall heat loss factors of 62 W/m 2 K, 109 W/m 2 K, 41.8 W/m 2 K, respectively which were higher than IR system of present study which was found to be 59.65 W/m 2 K. For COR, present study performed well with 0.29 compared to Mekonnen et al [24] who found 0.16. In terms of the first figure of merit, the AFR system for the present study performed well comparing with the IR system, system studied by Mekonnen et al [24] and systems studied by Chandak et al [33].…”
Section: Comparison Of Findings Of Present Work With Similar Studiessupporting
confidence: 58%
“…Glazing enhanced the performance. The overall heat loss coefficient without glazing was 41.8 W/m 2 K and with glazing was 6.04 W/m 2 K. [26] Experimental performance analysis of an improved receiver for Scheffler solar concentrator…”
Section: Referencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this experiment, under average beam radiation 640 W/m 2 receiver temperature of 241 • C, 266 • C, 253 • C was achieved with first, second and third arrangement. The average thermal efficiency of the receiver for first, second and third arrangements has been calculated 57.71%, 60.93% and 68.03%, receiver cover with tube coil increases the overall efficiency of the system" [10]. In this study, the receiver with the third arrangement was found efficient, while, in [11], Ruelas et al found that the more suitable geometry for the receiver has an elliptical form.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…The size of the image also affects the size of both the receiver and the eventual secondary optics. Malwad et al in [10] analyze three receiver versions: "In these experiments, a receiver with three different types of arrangement was tested under identical solar radiation condition . .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The work objective of [ 29 ] was to save electrical energy for a 1-ton room air conditioner by developing a solar refrigeration system. The designed solar-powered ejector refrigeration system was integrated with a flat-plate collector and Scheffler concentrator [ 30 ]. New design basics were using a Scheffler concentrator as a vapor system and an ejector as a cooling system.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%