Talk:Recuperator

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Artillery recuperators?

I notice this article doesn't talk about them, nor do they really fit the description given (given they are pistons which store kinetic energy from recoil and use it to return the barrel to the ready-to-fire position). Should a new section be added? Herr Gruber (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the principals are totally different. From your description Artillery recuperators would appear to be recovering kinetic energy, and not heat energy. Perhaps worthy of its own article instead?Pahazzard (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recuperator Efficiencies

The posted image (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Heat_exchanger.svg/400px-Heat_exchanger.svg.png) contains specific claims of efficiency for different recuperator configurations, but these claims do not seem to be supported by any cited sources. Should this image be removed from this, and possibly the Heat recovery ventilation and Countercurrent_exchange pages too? That would be a shame, because it's a very informative diagram, but may give very misleading information if incorrect. Billysugger (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that heat exchangers are not rated with efficiencies. Instead, effectiveness is the parameter describing the performance of a heat exchanger. These two terms have very specific definitions and cannot be used interchangeably. If the image is modified in the future, the term "efficiency" ought to be removed and replaced with "effictiveness". (We ought to still verify the effectivenesses of the configurations as listed in the table in agreement with the above talk page entry.) 128.101.142.152 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Within building services engineering and the UK construction industry generally it is common to cite or specify the performance of an air-to-air heat exchanger in terms of efficeincy, being the percentage heat transfer from the exhaust air-stream to the supply. The efficiency of this process depends upon many different design factors, but there are basic cell configurations which are inherently more efficient than others, this graphic demostrates this in fairly simplistic terms, providing 'typical' efficiency ranges for normal cell design. As such I see nothing wrong with this graphic, other than requiring a suitable reference. I think I can find this within CIBSE or ASHRAE handbooks. Pahazzard (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Billysugger and Pahazzard: I'm a little suspicious of that image for other reasons, TBH. It's an SVG conversion of a JPEG original image, File:Heat_exchanger.jpg, that had a flippin' url watermark on it! (A commercial URL, for a manufacturer of heat exchangers.) Yeah, the uploader claimed it was their own work and attached a public domain dedication, but apparently nobody thought to even question that, or better yet double-check its status? And if the original image is actually a copyrighted work, does that mean the SVG version is similarly ineligible for public domain licensing? FeRDNYC (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"laid to falls"?

In the Energy Transfer Process section of the article, we find (emphasis added):

However, the film of condensation will also slightly increase pressure drop through the device, and depending upon the spacing of the matrix material, this can increase resistance by up to 30%. If the unit is not laid to falls, and the condensate not allowed to drain properly, this will increase fan energy consumption and reduce the seasonal efficiency of the device.

I don't think I've ever encountered the term "laid to falls" before. Is it some sort of technical jargon? Can someone expand its meaning / link to an appropriate article? FeRDNYC (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laid to falls is used widely in UK Construction and mechanical/public health engineering. It implies that something (most often pipework) is not insalled level but laid to falls to assist gravity drainage. For heating and chilled water pipework for instance it is good practice to install drain cocks at pipework low points to aid flusing, cleaning, and drain down for maintenance. If pipework is horizontal, then those drain points need to be located at the low points of pipe runs 'laid-to falls' usually at a 1:80-1:120 gradient. Vent cocks are opposedly provided at high points, etc. Pahazzard (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]