Elsevier
is a giant publisher that has a long speech against plagiarism. But acts
against it only when the plagiarism happens with other publishers (e.g., Retraction or http://alexexch.org/File/2012003301/En/2169.pdf). The paper by Poos and Varju (2017) published in Energy Procedia (Elsevier) contains plagiarisms,
scientific errors and dishonest statements.
Furthermore, this paper is essentially the same
work (same text, same figures, same equations, same system, same problems) as the
one by Poos and Varju (2016) published in other conference and by Orvos, Szabo and Poos (2016).
The main problems are that Poos and Varju
(2016; 2017) and orvos et al (2016) attributed to themselves a discovery and development made by
Sartori as well as they also made many experimental and theoretical errors, copied
entire sentences from Sartori (2000) without referencing them, and considered that
evaporation within tubular systems is equal to the evaporation from free water
surfaces. All of these situations also correspond to a very weak review process.
Let’s see:
1) The authors state that “Sartori (2000) established
three different cases for the evaporation rate in terms of temperature-based
driving forces. This theory can be supplemented to four categories, where the
evaporation rate can be written to these cases:”. The “four” cases referred by
the authors are:
a) TW > TA
The water temperature is higher than the air temperature [evaporation]
b) TW < TA
The water temperature is lower than the air temperature [evaporation]
c) TW = TA
The water temperature is equal to the air temperature [?]
d) TD > TW The air dew point temperature is
higher than the water temperature [condensation]
Sartori, in his theory published at least in
Sartori (1987; 1989; 1991; 1996; 2000; 2003; 2012), did not consider only three
cases of evaporation! When Sartori considered the evaporation according to TW
< TA and according to TW > TA he considered the lower and upper limits of
temperatures for evaporation, besides the condensation when TD > TW. Thus,
if the evaporation happens from TW < TA up to when TW > TA, it is obvious
that it also happens in between these limits, that is, when TW = TA (but for
this case a further condition is required in order to know what happens, as
shown by Sartori). Without considering this additional condition, as Poos and
Varju (2016; 2017) and Orvos et al (2016) did, the case for TW = TA alone is incomplete and
scientifically erroneous. Sartori (2000) considered this additional condition explicitly
for the case when TW = TA and RH (relative humidity) = 100%, being this the
only case when the evaporation is zero. In other words for this case, Sartori
correctly considered the evaporation that happens when TW = TA and 0 ≤
RH ≤ 100%. Therefore, due to the determining influence of the RH, to consider
the evaporation when TW = TA alone without the information from the RH denotes the
Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) and Orvos et al (2016) incorrect understanding of the evaporation process.
When TW = TA and RH < 100%, this is the same case as TW > TA. Thus, the
authors did not create nor measured another case! Also, according to the
erroneous authors’ thinking, there would be a case of evaporation for every
degree and fraction of temperature, which makes no sense. And Poos and Varju
(2016; 2017) and Orvos et al (2016) cited the reference Sartori (2000) where the condition TW = TA is
demonstrated, but the authors intentionally did not assign this case to Sartori.
Thus, the authors cannot assume as their
authorship a fourth case of evaporation, because this situation had already
been considered and demonstrated by Sartori correctly. Hence, Poos and Varju and Orvos et al's corresponding statements are characterized as plagiarism or idea theft.
2) The authors’ experimental system is very
similar to the one made by Raimundo et al (2014), and both do not correspond to
evaporation from free water surfaces and under natural environments. On the
contrary, both correspond to evaporation that happened within tubular systems
with artificial flows and conditions. The heat and mass processes within
tubular systems are affected by the walls of the system and do not correspond
to those that happen in a free atmosphere. The internal flow is much different
than an external one, also because the boundary layer conditions are very
different between them. The flow within tubes is confined by the surfaces,
while an external flow is not. A flow of air within a tube does not represent and
reproduce the flow and the heat and mass exchanges and conditions that happen
in a free atmosphere. A free water surface means a surface that is exposed to
the ambient air, which one is not the case of the authors’ experiments as well
as those by Raimundo et al (2014). Thus, the paper and the results cannot
represent the evaporation from real free water surfaces, but Poos and Varju
attribute their work as if it was valid for free water surfaces. Raimundo et al
(2014) did the same.
Sartori (2012) compared his theoretical equation
for the fully turbulent air flow in forced convection with the evaporations
from real and true free water surfaces of different sizes and conditions as
well as compared it with the corresponding results from several well-known
empirical formulas (obtained only through particular experiments, which are not
valid generically – see Sartori 2006), and the Sartori equation showed to be the
most accurate with very high accuracy.
3) There are many shortcomings with the
measurements and results.
3.1) Many results in Table 2 present a positive
evaporation when in the reality the physical conditions show that there was condensation
(‘negative’ evaporation) of the humid air onto the water surface, because the
dew point temperatures Tdp of the humid air were higher than the water
surface temperatures Tf, as shown in the table below:
Run
|
TG
|
Tdp
|
Tf
|
14
|
50.0
|
28.21
|
27.30
|
20
|
49.9
|
27.67
|
27.60
|
21
|
50.0
|
34.42
|
25.10
|
27
|
49.8
|
27.70
|
22.70
|
29
|
50.7
|
31.86
|
26.70
|
This lack of accuracy generates lack of
confidence on the experimental tests and results as well as on the whole work, because we can not trust on it.
3.2) The authors said that “Its maximum volume
is 5 dm3”, which is equal to 5 liters or 5
kg. So, how there were evaporations of 5.652 and 5.528 kg/m2h?
4) The work by Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) and
its results cannot be confused with evaporation from a free water surface under
a natural environment, because:
4.1) Air temperatures of 50 °C and relative humidities of 20–30% are common
for deserts, but not for humid places.
4.2) The authors’ result of the order of 5.652
kg/m2h is an absurdity! True free water
surfaces produce such magnitudes during a day, not during an hour. For the
authors’ average water surface temperature of 40 °C, such value corresponds to a
released heat of 3,777 W/m2, which is 2.8 times higher than the
solar constant of 1,366 W/m2, i.e., their “free water surface” releases
more energy than receives from the Sun, which is impossible and a violation of
the first law of thermodynamics.
5) In the Conclusions: “In this paper, a
critical review on several well-known equations employed for the calculation of
evaporation rate from free water surfaces has been carried out. Both empirical
and theoretical working formulas have been analysed. Since up to now there was
not consensus on which equations were better to employ, a large scattering of
evaporation rates has resulted”. These sentences were entirely copied from
Sartori (2000) and not referenced! Another clear example of plagiarism!
6) Besides the plagiarism referred in the topic
(5), the authors did not “carried out a critical review on several well-known
equations employed for the calculation of the evaporation rate from free water
surfaces” as well as no analyses were made on “Both empirical and theoretical
working formulas”. There are no data, no equations, no tables, no graphs and no
comments showing such comparisons and analyses. The authors only made a limited
survey of references (most of them taken from Sartori 2000) and did not show
and did not analyze and compare objectively the corresponding equations. So,
since no result of this type was obtained by Poos and Varju, the authors are
not authorized to state that “…a large scattering of evaporation rates has
resulted”. These are others of the authors’ fake and not scientific statements!
7) The equations regarding references 7, 8, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21 and 24 as they appear in Table 1 of Poos and Varju
(2016) were not derived by the corresponding authors, but were converted to SI Units
by Sartori (2000). Nobody is authorized to present these equations in this converted
way without crediting them to Sartori (2000). Some of these equations gave exhaustive
work to convert their coefficients, but Poos and Varju (2016) did not give the deserved
credit and for this case did not cite Sartori (2000) where they took from these
converted equations. This is not an honest way to make science!
8) The authors say that “Our future plan is to
establish an equation system that can describe the phenomenon of evaporation in
wide range of interpretation, taking into account the different categories”. The
authors made lots of basic and scientific errors and did not show to own a sufficient
and correct theoretical and experimental background on evaporation, but presumptuously
intend to “establish an equation system valid for wide range of
interpretation”. Sartori (2012) equation (recommended for all real free water
surfaces) is valid for any real free water surface in forced convection and
combined with the parameters for saline waters from Sartori (1991) equation is
also valid for any salty free water surface. Sartori equations are also the only ones for evaporation that can obtain the amount of water vapor condensed (dew) onto the water surface. Sartori equations are also the only ones that can be applied to other planet or moon that have liquid water on the surface. And they take into account all of the cases or categories of evaporation.
9) “In the cases
examined, evaporation was not only consequent upon environmental impacts, but
it was also assisted by the heat source of the liquid. This case has been
discussed deficiently by literature on the description and calculation of
evaporation”. Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) don’t know that the water temperature
is the final result of all heat and mass interactions of the water body with
the environmental conditions and with the physical and thermal characteristics
of its container, no matter the type of the heat source. All of this is seen
through the texts and equations of the Sartori models and papers on evaporation.
10) “In the course of
our work, evaporation from a liquid surface was examined…”. This statement is
not accurate. The authors carried out experiments only with water, not with any
other liquid, contrarily to what such statement induces the readers to think.
In several parts of the paper the word ‘liquid’ is employed in place of
‘water’, inducing the readers to think that the experimental results are valid
for other liquid, which is not true.
11) The dimensions of the experimental
apparatus were not given.
12) The parameters 'Dm’, ‘a’, ‘M’ and ‘P’ were not defined and
the units of qcond and qconv were not given.
13) Some references from Poos and Varju (2016)
were withdrawn and the remaining ones were kept in Poos and Varju (2017), but
the numbering was kept the same. For example, Sartori [4] in Poos and Varju
(2017) in reality is Sartori [3].
14) “Sartori (1989) [9] created an equation depending on
laminar, transitional and turbulent range”. The correct is “Sartori (1987,
1989, 2000) created equations depending on laminar, turbulent and transitional (or
mixed) ranges, respectively”.
I was a reviewer for this paper and commented all the above issues, but the editors for that congress neglected my comments.
The paper by Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) does not
correspond to “high quality conference proceedings”, contrarily to what the journal Energy Procedia states for itself.
References:
Poos T, Varju E (2017) Dimensionless
evaporation from free water surface at tubular artificial flow. EENVIRO 2016, Energy Procedia, V. 112, 366–373.
Poos T, Varju E (2016) Determination of
evaporation rate at free water surface. Conference, Budapest, Hungary.
Raimundo
AM, Gaspar AR, Oliveira VM, Quintela DA (2014) Wind tunnel measurements and
numerical simulations of water evaporation in forced convection airflow. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, V
86, 28–40.
Sartori E
(1987) A Mathematical Model for Predicting Heat and Mass Transfer from a Free Water
Surface. Proc. of the ISES Solar
World Congress, Hamburg, Germany, 3160–3164.
Sartori E (1989) Prediction of the Heat and Mass
Transfer from a Free Water Surface in the Turbulent Flow Case”. Proc. of the ISES Solar
World Congress, Kobe, Japan, V. 3, 2343–2347.
Sartori E
(1991) Evaporation from a Free Water Surface with Salt Concentration. Proc.
of the ISES Solar World Congress, Denver,
USA, 2347–2351.
Sartori E
(1996) Solar Still versus Solar Evaporator: A Comparative Study Between their Thermal
Behaviors. Solar Energy, V. 56, 199–206.
Sartori E
(2000) A Critical Review on Equations Employed for the Calculation of the
Evaporation Rate from Free Water Surfaces. Solar Energy, V. 68, 77–89.
Sartori E (2003) Letter to the Editor, Solar
Energy, V. 73, No. 6, 481.
Sartori E (2006) Convection
Coefficient Equations for Forced Air Flow over Flat Surfaces. Solar Energy, V. 80/9, 1063–1071.
Sartori E (2012) The Physical
Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors and Human-Induced Climatic Consequences.
Open J. of Applied Sciences, V. 2, 302–318.
NOTE ON NOVEMBER 23,
2017: It was hard,
extremely hard to get a publication to restore the truth. Initially, it was
very difficult to convince the Elsevier representatives to understand that the
paper “Dimensionless Evaporation Rate from Free Water Surface at Tubular
Artificial Flow”, by Poós and Varju, published in the Journal Energy Procedia,
contains plagiarism and/or idea thefts, among other problems. First, the
Elsevier representative said that the advisory editor of the journal was
contacted and he did not find plagiarism. But I insisted and explained again
the complaints. Then, the Elsevier representative said that a software was used
to identify plagiarism and it did not detect this. Then, I explained that
computer programs do not have self intelligence and thus detect only what was
programmed by humans, and in this case even humans did not identify the correct
situations. I also said that softwares are not scientists to detect scientific issues,
and then I explained once again all the scientific situations. I also requested
a Letter to the Editor to be published in the Journal, but the Elsevier
representative said that Energy Procedia does not have a section for Letters to
the Editor and thus nothing could be done. Then, I contacted the authors directly
and they showed a more favorable position for corrections, but not without a
great resistance which also brought a long scientific discussion.
Fortunately, after all difficulties, a
satisfactory result was obtained and the following Corrigendum has been
published regarding the authors’ article in Energy Procedia:
Now, those editors are seeing the results of their irresponsibilities.
