## 3 Results
### Cooling Capacities of LT and MT Ewaportors  
The variation in compressor power consumption with respect to LT evaporator cooling capacity is presented in Figure 10. As the LT cooling capacity increases, the mass flow rate of LT evaporator increases leading to higher power consumption by Compressor 1. The increase in that mass flow rate also causes Compressor 2 to consume more power since all the refrigerant is compressed at Compressor 2 after mixed. However, power produced by turbine and consumed by pump are not affected by changes in evaporator cooling capacities. Consequently, the net power output of the combined cycle decreases. Figure 11 illustrates the effect of LT evaporator cooling capacity on the net power production of the proposed novel cycle, along with net power improvement over the reference cycle for each working fluid. As LT cooling capacity increases, the power consumption of Compressor 1 increases from 1 kW to 4 kW as shown in Figure 10. Compressor 1's power consumption remains nearly identical across all refrigerants, primarily due to the low cooling capacity and relatively low mass flow rates. Under these conditions, the variations in thermophysical properties among the working fluids have minimal effects, resulting in negligible differences in compressor performance. However, Compressor 2's power consumption increases from 23.5 kW to 32 kW. As a result, net power output decreases for each fluid. When R290 is used, the net power drops by 5.5% as cooling capacity increases from 10 kW to 40 kW. Likewise, R600a shows a 6% decrease, R601 exhibits a 6.3% reduction, and R1234 ze(E) has a 5.7% decline in net power production. In terms of improvement over the reference cycle, higher LT cooling capacities yield greater enhancements, with the maximum improvement reaching 10.7% for R601, the highest among all fluids investigated. Figure 12 shows the effect of the change in MT evaporator cooling capacity on the power consumption of the compressors. As the MT evaporator cooling capacity increases, the mass flow rate through this evaporator also increases, causing Compressor 2 to consume more power. In contrast, Compressor 1 operates independently of the MT evaporator and thus shows no change in its power demand throughout this analysis. The increase in power consumption of Compressor 2 results in a decrease in the net power output of the cycle because power produced by turbine and power consumed by pump stay same for all cooling capacities. Figure 13 displays the resulting net power values of the proposed novel cycle and compares the performance to that of the reference system across different fluids. Figure 9: Net power comparison of the proposed novel and reference cycle with heat source mass flow rate variations. Compressor 2's power consumption increases from 17.5 kW to 51.9 kW as the MT cooling capacity increases, which negatively impacts net power production. Specifically, the net power output decreases by 17.4% for R290, 18.9% for R600a, 19.7% for R601 and 17.9% for R1234 ze(E) when the MT cooling capacity is increased from 50 kW to 200 kW. Despite this drop in power output, the novel cycle continues to outperform the reference system, with performance gains becoming more pronounced at higher MT cooling capacities. The most notable improvement is observed with R601, reaching 26.9%, the highest among the fluids studied. Figure 11: Net power comparison of the proposed novel and reference cycle with LT evaporator capacity variations. Figure 10: Power consumption values of compressors of the proposed novel cycle with LT evaporator capacity variations. Table 6 presents the regression line equations representing the net power production trends of the proposed novel cycle for each working fluid during the evaporator capacity analyses. These equations provide a mathematical description of how net power output varies with changes in both LT and MT evaporator cooling capacities, enabling a clearer comparison of fluid-specific performance responses.