## 3 Results and Discussions
Figure 6 demonstrates the heat transfer performance between the Ag TPMS structure and distilled water. As shown in Figure 6a, the temperature values of the Ag TPMS structure are lower compared to the Al TPMS structure. The lowest flow rate in the Ag block recorded lower temperature measurements compared to the highest flow rate in the Al block. This indicates that, due to the high thermal conductivity of Ag, heat is more effectively removed from the structure. Therefore, when examining Figure 6b, the effect of inlet temperature is eliminated, and it is observed that the temperature is high at low flow rates and decreases as the flow rate increases. Analysis of the temperature differential between TC1 and TC7 revealed values between 0.21 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 0.24 \({}^{\circ}\)C, which is significantly  
Figure 6: Ag TPMS structure using distilled water: (**a**) temperature, (**b**) temperature difference, (**c**) dimensionless temperature distributions. lower than observed in the Al TPMS structure, indicating enhanced thermal uniformity attributed to the superior thermal conductivity of the Ag material. Figure 6c presents the dimensionless temperature distribution, considering the inlet and outlet temperatures. It is demonstrated that temperature uniformity is maintained, and the TPMS structure provides a more homogeneous heat distribution. The temperature distributions obtained using nanofluid for the Al TPMS block are presented in Figure 7. Figure 7a illustrates a reduction in temperature, which is attributed to the nanofluid's superior thermal conductivity compared to that of water. In Figure 7b, a thermal enhancement is noted with an increasing flow rate when the inlet temperature is subtracted. The temperature variation between measurements taken at two distinct flow rates is smaller compared to the variation observed when using water as the cooling fluid. The temperature differential between TC1 and TC7 was measured between 0.97 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 1.04 \({}^{\circ}\)C across the tested flow rates, indicating that while the nanofluid enhances overall heat removal capacity, it also creates a more pronounced temperature profile along the TPMS structure. Figure 7c indicates that a stable temperature distribution is maintained across various flow rates, which is beneficial for ensuring uniform cooling in systems characterized by low pressure drops or flow rates, thus emphasizing the importance of nanofluids. Figure 8 presents the temperature distributions obtained using nanofluid in the Ag TPMS structure. Figure 8a illustrates that the superior thermal conductivity of the Ag TPMS structure, combined with the properties of the nanofluid, results in a uniform temperature distribution under turbulent flow conditions. As presented in Figure 8b, this situation offers an advantage in removing heat, allowing lower temperatures to be reached. Temperature differentials between TC1 and TC7 ranged from 1.18 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 0.73 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with the gradient decreasing as flow rate increased, demonstrating that at higher flow rates, the combination of Ag TPMS structure and nanofluid achieves not only enhanced heat removal but also improved temperature homogeneity. In Figure 8c, the \(\theta\) distribution in the heat exchanger block structure is presented. The approach of \(\theta\) to zero indicates an increase in heat transfer performance in such systems. Therefore, as the temperature approaches the outlet temperature, it is observed that the heat is distributed more homogeneously. This situation is considered an indicator of the efficiency of the heat exchange system. The temperature increase observed in the last two thermocouples (TC-6 and TC-7) can be attributed to a combination of several factors. First, as the fluid approaches the outlet region, its heat absorption capacity gradually decreases due to the progressive temperature rise along the flow path. This diminished heat absorption capability leads to a localized temperature increase in the near-outlet region.