Calorimetric measurements of the dynamics of a finned adsorbent: early assessment of the activated carbon cloth–ethanol pair with prismatic aluminium fins

Performance of a finned activated carbon cloth-ethanol adsorption chiller

“…10). Admittedly the fin shape and the co-328 ordinates of thermocouples differed, but after 100s predicted axial temperature gradients along the 329 fins for both LTJ tests and the adsorption heat exchanger were < 1 K [11]. (Thermocouples were in 330 the centre of a square mid-plane for LTJ tests but within 3 mm of the edge for the adsorption heat 331 exchanger).…”

“…Term Qo,pred (a-lx) was found from Equation 6, with root mean square 249 discrepancy of 13.5% between this prediction and measured values. Note that the mass ratio of fin to 250 ACC was identical to that in bench-scale tests [11] but it was necessary to replace the heat capacity of 251 an aluminium base (at bench-scale) with that of a copper tube (full scale). 252…”

“…Putting measured (a-lx) into the multiplier (1-exp(1/2/(a-lx)) yielded the 720 standard deviation and hence uncertainty ef23 = {0.0%, 0.1%, 0.9%} depending on 1/2, the duration 721 of half cycle. Otherwise Equations [10] and [11] hold strongly coupled terms and the procedure was 722 not amenable to straightforward manipulation of variances, and instead the same simulation was 723 run 250 times with a Gaussian distribution of random errors (lines 24,25,26) …”

“…The heat input was estimated from equations [10] or [11] in the main text. Regarding the 717 contribution from LTJ related tests, viz 718…”

“…The root 210 mean square discrepancy between measured and estimated values was 13.5% (LTJ and LPJ 211 tests were used in the same analysis -see Figure 4 and reference [11] to the adsorption of non polar gases and onto activated carbon in particular [21]). …”