If mass and heat transfer rate models are so powerful, why didn’t they become available a long time ago?
They have been—at least heat transfer rate models have—for nearly a century. Mass transfer rate modeling is another story. Because of the large number of components being transferred (not just heat), and the large number of trays in columns, mass transfer rate models have had to wait for the ready availability of high performance computing power. Today we have desktop computing power that far exceeds most mainframes of only 20 years ago. When you design a heat exchanger, you are using a heat transfer rate model that employs tube-side and shell-side heat transfer coefficients derived from correlations that account for such parameters as tube passes, shell-side baffling arrangements, tube Reynolds and Prandtl numbers as well as a variety of physical and transport properties. Heat exchanger design methods account for detailed equipment geometry, and the hydraulics of flow through the tubes and shell. It is now possible to apply exactly the same principles to the complex separation of mate
Related Questions
- How can I see extended results for my air valve, such as air volume, air flow rate, head and air mass, over time?
- If mass and heat transfer rate models are so powerful, why didn’t they become available a long time ago?
- What’s the difference between a "rate model" and a "mass and heat transfer rate model"?
