segunda-feira, 5 de junho de 2017


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 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:   


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. 


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.