Solar still versus solar evaporator: A comparative study between their thermal behaviors

Sartori, Ernani

doi:10.1016/0038-092x(95)00094-8

Cited by 62 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected, the evaporation in a greenhouse effect due to the full cloud cover and free convection is much lower than that from free water surfaces submitted to forced convection, even for shallow water layers of higher water temperatures, as already demonstrated physically [5] [7]. That is, although evaporation is a strong function of the water temperature, it is incorrect to state that the evaporation increases based solely on the water temperatures when there is the greenhouse effect caused by the full cloud cover and in comparison with the corresponding open system.…”

Section: The Physical and Mathematical Demonstrationssupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Furthermore, since the heat released per square meter as well as per total Earth's surface area is mostly by evaporation (in solar stills it is about 60% of the total heat emitted-calculated and well referenced [5] [8]; this same proportion is verified for the ambient temperatures of the Amazon [9]), the water cannot be ignored and the water vapor cannot be removed from the atmosphere for mass and heat balances and for air temperature, greenhouse effect and climatic changes considerations, in contrast to what is done by the literature and its "feedback" concept. This heat by evaporation and the corresponding variation of water vapor in air act every instant for building and changing the air temperature, which is the result of all heat and mass interactions in the atmosphere.…”

Section: The Physical and Mathematical Demonstrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, as demonstrated [7], the atmosphere works according to the working principles of the solar still (closed evaporator) and of an open evaporator (depending on the cloud cover and water vapor conditions), being both systems demonstrated in depth [5] [7]. All the corresponding atmospheric processes are the same, only their amounts change and although the thermal processes of the closed (solar still) and open evaporators are the same as the ones that happen in the atmosphere, some remarks should be done for the harmonization of these two solar applications with the planet's conditions.…”

Section: The Physical and Mathematical Demonstrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are properties of greenhouses where there is evaporation, e.g., a solar still, and that caused by a cloud cover increase, too [5] [7]. It is also known that the 20 th Century and most of the world became wetter and with increased precipitation (e.g., [11] [12]), especially in the last decades.…”

Section: The Physical and Mathematical Demonstrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The behavior of a greenhouse formed by the cloud cover is very similar to that of a common greenhouse where there is evaporation (e.g., a solar still) and thus the corresponding evaporation happens in free convection and is calculated by an equation that is based on the Nusselt, Prandtl, Grashof and Rayleigh numbers, on Bowen-Sartori equation [4], and takes into account the density gradient effect caused by temperature and composition gradients of the atmospheric air [5]. This Sartori equation converted to the environmental temperatures range and made explicit the atmospheric pressure becomes: …”

Section: The Physical and Mathematical Demonstrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works

Sartori¹

2015

OJAppS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Top concepts adopted by the current science on climate changes or atmospheric warming are not in agreement with the first principles of the physics. This paper presents a new understanding on the atmospheric behaviors. For example, the radiation is not the only factor that influences the air temperature, as the law of conservation of energy defines and as shown physically and mathematically in this article. The Sun is not the only heat source for the atmosphere because there is generation of heat at the Earth's surface by human activities. It is also shown that the water vapor is not a null effect and that the water vapor cannot be removed from the atmosphere for air temperature, greenhouse effect and climate changes considerations, in contrast to the current literature beliefs. The "feedback" concept is unfounded and invalid. The literature also says that "water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms", but this is also incorrect. The above equivocated understanding is accompanied by another one which believes that more water evaporates if the air temperature increases, but it is not in this way. These demonstrations and other authors' surveys showing that in the last decades the planet became wetter eliminate the literature concept that the water vapor does not have influence on the atmospheric warming/cooling. The conventional water cycle is related to the mass of water (mass of evaporation  mass of precipitation) and then the physical and mathematical principles of the new hydrological cycle that includes the direct human influence are shown. The same is done for the carbon cycle. It is solved the problem on why the wind speed on Venus is very high above the cloud deck while it is stagnant below it, being this the same physical principle valid for the Earth's cloud cover. In the atmosphere, all the corresponding principles are the same, only their amounts change. It is demonstrated that the CO2 is not decisive for building and changing the temperatures of Venus, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter and Earth. Ice cores are not valid for "determining" "past" temperatures of the planet, because the mass of their air bubbles may be old, but the corresponding temperatures are not.

show abstract

Section: The Physical and Mathematical Demonstrationssupporting

confidence: 82%