Conventional Engineering

George Smith HCR, Inc. P.O. Box 149 Lewistown, MT 59457-0149 800/326-7700 406/538-5506 (fax)

[1]

Part 1 Coincident Part 1 In-Balance Dehumidification Dehumidification & & Sensible Cooling Sensible Cooling
[2]

Entering-Air Temperature TheCoil Straight-Line Principle Not Being Observed Saturation Curve Leaving-Air Temperature Apparatus Dewpoint Temperature (ADP)
R! H S

Dehumidification Sensible Cooling

The Straight-Line Principle Not Being Observed [3]

Testing Equipment of the 1930s [4]

1938 ASHVE Guide

[5]

Authoritative Engineering Data 1978

Authoritative Engineering Data - 1978[6]

Part 2 Loading-Dock
Engineering
! ! ! !

Gravitational Effects Newtons Laws of Motion Applied Psychrometrics 2nd Law Oversights

[7]

Freezer-Doorway Air-Exchange

Gravitational & Psychrometric Effects

[8]

Doorway Haze

Gravitational and Psychrometric Effects

[9]

Frosted Doorway

Psychrometric Effects Complete

[10]

nd 2

Law Oversights

Stripper Units 2nd Law Oversights

[11]

Freezer

Loading-Dock

Traditional Dual-Passageway Freezer Vestibule

Freezer

Loading-Dock

Modern Non-Stop-Traffic Freezer Vestibule

The Inter -MixingVestibules of Two Atmospheres Freezer

[12]

3 second graph

The ThreeSecond

[13]

Chart A Dewpoint Temperature Reduction

[14]

Clean Vestibule Photo

Engineered Results

[15]

A Snow-Making Machine

Penthouse Photo

Engineering Gone Awry

[16]

Part 3 Psychrometric
Depictions

[17]

Authoritative Basis 1978

The Authoritative Basis 1978

[18]

Figure 1 No, Lo, Fo

[19]

Figure 2 No

[20]

Figure 3 Lo

[21]

Figure 4 Fo

[22]

Desiccant Dehumidification in the

Loading Dock Dock vs Freezer Dehumidification vs

Conventional Dehumidification in the

Freezer
Loading Dock
45F / 41%RH Room SHR = 0.80 COP = 0.17

Freezer
-5F / 90%RH Room SHR > 0.91 COP = 0.33

Energy input required in the Loading Dock is approximately double the energy input required in the Freezer:

0.33 0.17

For details, see Calculations 276-H32.

[23]

Part 4 Graphical
Comparison of Alternatives

[24]

Photo: EnergyLoad Analysis sheets

Energy-Load Analysis Sheets

[25]

for Four Alternatives Figure 5 Tons per Ton, Curves For a typical 1,2,3,&4 45F Loading Dock
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
2 3

Figure 5 Tons Required per Ton of Basic Heat-Gain

Tons per Ton

41% RH on the "Squall Line"

4

opening to a -5F Freezer

(Freezer-vestibule contribution to freezer tonnage is included in the 80%RH curves.)
Desiccant Conventional

1.0 0.5 0.0 1.00 0.90

80% RH a Normal Loading-Dock Design

0.80

0.70

0.60

Room Sensible-Heat Ratio

[26]

Figure 6 Tons per Ton, w/freezer vestibule For a typical

Figure 6 Comparative Tons per Ton of Basic Heat-Gain for Two Customary Designs
2.5 2.0

Tons per Ton

Desiccant-Based Refrigeration with an unheated "Traffic Door"

1.5
1

45F Loading Dock opening to a -5F Freezer

(Freezer-vestibule contribution to freezer tonnage is included.)

1.0
Conventional Refrigeration with a "Freezer Vestibule"

0.5

0.0 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60

Room Sensible-Heat Ratio

[27]

Commercial Scale Unit CSU

8 x 12 Freezer Door Freezer Vestibule if employed

(8) Truck Load-Out Doors

[28]

Figure 7 Electrical Demand for a CSU

Figure 7 Comparative Electrical Demand for a Typical CSU
80 70 60 50
Desiccant-Based Refrigeration with an unheated "Traffic Door"

KW

40 30 20 10 0 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60

45F Loading Dock opening to a -5F Freezer

(Freezer-vestibule contribution to electrical power is included.)

Conventional Refrigeration with a "Freezer Vestibule"

Room Sensible-Heat Ratio

[29]

Figure 8 Energy Cost for a CSU

$30,000 $25,000
Desiccant-Based Refrigeration with an unheated "Traffic Door"

Figure 8 Comparative Energy Costs for a Typical CSU

Dollars per Year

$20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60

45F Loading Dock opening to a -5F Freezer

(Freezer-vestibule contribution to energy cost is included.)

Conventional Refrigeration with a "Freezer Vestibule"

Room Sensible-Heat Ratio

[30]

Figure 9 9 Comparative EnergyConsumption Consumption Figure Energy for a Typical CSU for a CSU
6 5
Desiccant-Based Refrigeration with an unheated "Traffic Door"

Billions of Btu per Year

4 3 2 1
Conventional Refrigeration with a "Freezer Vestibule"

45F Loading Dock opening to a -5F Freezer

(Freezer-vestibule contribution to energy consumption is included.)

0 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60

Room Sensible-Heat Ratio

[31]

Part 5 Energy-Input
Comparisons

[32]

Table A Loading-Dock Comparisons for a Typical CSU

Table A Loading Dock Room SHR Comparisons

0.90 0.80 Average Excess

Tons
Conventional System Desiccant System
25.2 29.5 25.2 32.7

23%

Electrical Demand KW
Conventional System Desiccant System
25.4 31.4 26.1 38.8

36%

Annual Energy Cost Dollars

Conventional System Desiccant System
$6,700 $10,600 $6,900 $14,200

82%

Annual Energy Consumption Billions of Btu

Conventional System Desiccant System
1.14 1.78 1.17 2.37

80%

[33]

Table B Comparative COPs Table B Comparative COPs for a Typical CSU

80% RH Dock with "Freezer Vestibule"
1 2

COP

Excess Energy Compared to 1 55%

Conventional Refrigeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.04 Desiccant-Based Refrigeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.67

41% RH Dock with Unheated "Traffic Door"

3 4

COP
96% 89%

Conventional Refrigeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.53 Desiccant-Based Refrigeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.55

For details, see Calculations 277-H32 for SHR = 0.80.

[34]

Table C COPs from the Solid-Desiccant Air-Drying Tested at Near-ARI Conditions . . . . . . . . Literature

ARI Basis: 80F, 50%RH Room Year-2000 ASHRAE Transactions No. 4325

Table C Comparative COPs From the Literature

COP 0.38

Air-Drying for a 70F, 52%RH Room from a National Journal For Solid-Desiccant Drying where after-cooling is not required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.35 For Air-Cooled Refrigeration where after-cooling unavoidably occurs. . . . . . . . . 0.32 Air-Conditioning : A Typical ARI Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.90 Basis: 80F, 50%RH Room For 34% generating efficiency, EER=(0.90)(3.4 Btu/watt-hr)/(0.34)= 9.0 Air-Conditioning : A 65F, 46%RH Operating-Room Complex: Calculated from ASHRAE Technical Data Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 3. Case A Desiccant-Based Refrigeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.56 Case B Conventional Refrigeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.80

[35]

Part 6 Misleading
ASHRAE Literature

[36]

1992 C
1992 Collection of 25 Papers

No Authenticated Comparison

[37]

1993 Air C
1993 Air-Conditioning Manual

No Authenticated Comparison

[38]

1993 Manual A Non-Authenticated Statement

NonAuthenticated Statement of the 1993 Manual

[39]

1993 Manual An Illusory Comparison

Illusory Comparison of Desiccant-Based vs Conventional Air-Conditioning

An Illusory Compariso n
[40]

1996 Technica
1996 Technical Data Bulletin 10 Papers
Erroneous Baseline! & No Authenticated Comparison

[41]

1996 Bulletin An Authenticated Reversal

Dallas-Area Hospital Operating-Room Complex 65F, 46% RH

Case A
(Desiccant)

Actual Cooling Load . . . . . . . . . . . .tons Electrical Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . kw

An Authenticated Reversal
127 185 2,307 0.56

Excess of (Conventional) A/B Case B 107 157 19% 18% 43%

Primary Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .mbh COP For details see Calculations 278-H32.

1,608 0.80

[42]

The Remedy

GRP-158 & Conventional Engineering

[43]