Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSharqawy, Mostafa H.
dc.contributor.authorZubair, Syed M.
dc.contributor.authorLienhard, John H.
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-31T18:42:18Z
dc.date.available2017-05-31T18:42:18Z
dc.date.issued2012-09
dc.date.submitted2012-08
dc.identifier.issn03605442
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/109472
dc.description.abstractWe have had several conversations with Knutson during recent months, and we certainly agree that the one-dimensional mass exchanger model is more appropriate than the zero-dimensional model which has appeared in much of the past literature and which we also applied. We have been working on revisions of these calculations that incorporate the one-dimensional model, and we report some of our findings in Refs. [2] ; [5]. However, we believe that PRO has clear potential for energy recovery, as we explain in detail below. Further, Knutson's analysis of the power generation is flawed and his conclusions regarding energy recovery are not accurate. Knutson's method of analysis makes the assumption of infinite membrane water permeability (equivalent to infinite surface area), taking the value of A in Eq. (1) to be infinity. Because the value of A for the membrane is assumed to be infinite, the local water flux is equal to zero at the inlet, outlet, or both ends of the PRO module. In another words, the driving force for the water flux will vanish at the inlet, outlet, or both ends. This is similar to the assumption of zero pinch at the end of a heat exchanger, such as might be obtained with infinite surface area. This is an interesting method, and it should give similar trends as given in Ref. [4] if it is applied correctly.en_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.en_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.08.035en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alikeen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/en_US
dc.sourceProf. Lienhard via Angie Locknaren_US
dc.titleRebuttal to “Discussion of ‘Second law analysis of reverse osmosis desalination plants: An alternative design using pressure retarded osmosis’ [Energy 2011] 36: 6617–6626]”en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationSharqawy, Mostafa H., Syed M. Zubair, and John H. Lienhard. “Rebuttal to ‘Discussion of “Second Law Analysis of Reverse Osmosis Desalination Plants: An Alternative Design Using Pressure Retarded Osmosis” [Energy 2011] 36: 6617–6626].’” Energy 46, no. 1 (October 2012): 691–693.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineeringen_US
dc.contributor.approverLienhard, John Hen_US
dc.contributor.mitauthorLienhard, John H.
dc.relation.journalEnergyen_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's final manuscripten_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dspace.orderedauthorsSharqawy, Mostafa H.; Zubair, Syed M.; Lienhard, John H.en_US
dspace.embargo.termsNen_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2901-0638
dspace.mitauthor.errortrue
mit.licenseOPEN_ACCESS_POLICYen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record