Reviews of *The New Heat Transfer*, 1^{st}
edition

My view of the modern review process

My
view of the review by Professor Bell in *AIChE Journal*, November, 1974

My reaction to the review by F. Sturlese in *La* *Termotecnica*

When the hard cover edition of Volume 1 was received
from the printer, I wrote to editors of more than 200 engineering journals and
magazines to ask if they would like review copies. I received few affirmative replies, and sent review copies to
all of the more than 200 editors to whom I had written.

The few engineering journals and magazines that
published reviews are listed below.
(Many magazines published brief summaries that I do not consider
reviews. In my view, a review must
include the identity of the reviewer, and an appraisal of the book.) An
unpublished review is also listed below.

Only two of the reviews were favorable. The review by F. Sturlese in La Termotecnica
stated:

*The new heat transfer is simple and
clear. It is science, not art.*

The review by Owen Saunders in International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer stated:

*It is to be hoped that many will
read these volumes carefully. . . *

The publication of a Russian edition was in itself a favorable review. In the foreword to the Russian edition,
Professors Aladjev and Leontjev stated that the book “is of undoubted
interest”.

* *

Most of the reviews were unfavorable. The unpublished review
prepared for the editor of *Annals of Nuclear Science* indicates how strongly
some reviewers felt that the book was of no value. The anonymous reviewer summed up his view of the book in the
following:

*I don’t feel that Annals of Nuclear
Science should be the forum for a formal review of this book which expounds
ideas that would amount to a giant step backward in heat transfer.*

* *

Presumably, other journals and magazines did not
publish reviews because they also felt that the new ideas presented in the book
“would amount to a giant step backward in heat transfer”.

My view of the modern review process

Reviewers generally paraphrase what the author has
written, and then they disagree with the paraphrase. If the reviewer’s paraphrase differs from the authors’ words (as
it often does), then the review is not germane because it does not truly
address what the author has written.

Note in the reviews listed below that the reviewers
generally disagreed not with what I wrote, but with their paraphrase of what I
wrote. Also note that there is
oftentimes little resemblance between the reviewer’s paraphrase, and what I
actually wrote.

To avoid the inaccuracy that often results from
paraphrasing, reviewers should use direct quotes wherever practical.

Also, reviewers should reveal the length of time
they devoted to reading the book they are charged with reviewing. This would indicate whether the reviewer had
devoted the time necessary to gain a real grasp of the material presented in
the book, or whether he had simply perused the book for a few minutes before
writing the review.

Favorable reviews, and the foreword to the
Russian edition

Review by Professor F. Sturlese,
*La Termotecnica*, October, 1975

Review by Professor Sir Owen
Saunders, *International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer*, April, 1976

Unfavorable reviews

__ __

Unpublished, anonymous review
for *Annals of Nuclear Science*, August, 1974

Review by Professor Kenneth J. Bell, *AIChE*
Journal, November, 1974

Review by Professor R. S.
Silver, *International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer*, December, 1974

Review by Otto Frank, *Chemical
Engineering*, February 3, 1975

Review by Professor J.
Bridgewater, *The Chemical Engineer*, March, 1975

Review by C. J. Hsu, *Nuclear
Science and Engineering*, September, 1975

Review by Otto Frank, *Chemical
Engineering*, November 10, 1975

Review by Professor J. W.
Rose, *International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer*

__Reviews not translated__

Review in Italian A. Premoli, *Energia
Nucleare*, December, 1975

Review in Dutch by F. J. G.
Kwanten, *Polytechnisch Tijdschrift*, May, 1978

My view of the review by Professor Bell in the *AIChE
Journal*, November, 1974

The review by Professor Bell reveals that he is
biased against new ideas because he feels threatened by them, and he assumes
that the “Heat Transfer Establishment” will also feel threatened. (Bell implies that he is not a member of the
“Heat Transfer Establishment”, but in my view, he is a member of long
standing.) Note that, with regard to my
honest and straightforward description of the book,

*It is an attempt to describe the
new heat transfer and its application to engineers and educators who are
familiar with the old heat transfer.*

Professor Bell observes:

*So that’s what it is: a Manifesto
to overturn the Heat Transfer Establishment.*

Only someone who feels threatened by new ideas could
equate my description of the book with “a Manifesto to overturn the Heat
Transfer Establishment”.

My book is not intended to overturn the “Heat
Transfer Establishment” or anyone else.
It is intended to convince engineers and educators that the new heat
transfer is much better than conventional heat transfer, and that it should be
globally accepted.

Note Bell’s statement:

*I will let the film cooling and
pool boiling HTE’s defend their own turf.*

In his review, Bell “defends his turf” (the process
heat exchanger field), and feels that experts in other heat transfer fields
will want to defend theirs.

Only someone who feels threatened by new ideas would
speak of “defending his turf” against them.
Surely the scientific and proper attitude toward new ideas has nothing
to do with “defending ones turf”.
Surely the scientific and proper attitude toward new ideas is an
open-mindedness that says:

*Let us compare the new ideas with
their conventional counterparts, and if the new ideas are better, let us
replace the conventional ideas with the new ones.*

My view of the review by Professor Silver in the *International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer*, December, 1974

In reference to my book, Professor Silver’s review
states:

*However, quite apart from the fact
that (Adiutori’s) treatment cannot
support his fundamentally unsound thesis, he bedevils his presentation by sheer
error.*

The example he chose to illustrate my “sheer error”
is Eq. (1). For many years, the
dimensionless Eq. (1) was the correlation of choice for designing and analyzing
film cooling systems. (In Eq. (1),
η is film effectiveness, h is the equivalent slot height (defined as the
ratio of the cross-sectional area through which the film enters the mainstream
divided by the cooled length normal to the mainstream flow direction), and G_{s}
and G_{m }are mass flow rate per unit area at the slot exit and the
mainstream respectively.)

η = 21.8(hG_{s}/xG_{m})_{ }^{0.8} (1)

In my book, I correctly state that Eq. (1) is in an *undesirable*
form because it seems to state that η is a function of h and G_{s},
even though it actually states that η is *not *a function of h and G_{s}
—ie it states that η is *completely independent* of h and Gs.

It has been my long and frequent first hand experience
that most engineers and educators erroneously conclude that Eq. (1) states that
η is a function of h and Gs.
Although it is not important for educators to recognize that Eq. (1)
indicates that η is independent of h and G_{s}, it is critically
important for engineers who use Eq. (1) to recognize it. Otherwise an engineer who designs film
cooling systems using Eq. (1) might try to influence film cooling behavior by
adjusting h and/or G_{s}, even though Eq. (1) states that h and G_{s}
have no influence on η.

With regard to my correct statement that Eq. (1) is
in an undesirable form because it strongly suggests that η depends on h
and G_{s}, Professor Silver proclaims:

*This is of course nonsense.*

After this observation, Professor Silver explains
why it is nonsense to say that Eq. (1) is in an undesirable form. His explanation reflects a poor
understanding of functionality.

With regard to dimensionless groups in general, it
is self-evident that dimensionless groups should be described in terms of *independent
*variables. When dimensionless
groups are defined in terms of *dependent* variables, confusion results,
as in the case of Eq. (1).

The cause of the confusion with regard to Eq. (1) is
that the dimensionless group in the equation is *not *defined in terms of
independent parameters. G_{s }is
dependent on h, as shown by Eq. (2) where A_{s }and L are the area and
length of the equivalent slot:

G_{s }= W_{c}/A_{s}
= W_{c}/(hL) (2)

Combining Eqs. (1) and (2) results in Eq. (3):

η = 21.8(W_{c}/xG_{g}L)^{0.8} (3)

Equations (1) and (3) are *identical*. Equation (3) is in a desirable form because
it states that η is influenced by the *independent* variables x, G_{g},
W_{c}, and L—the *only* variables that actually influence η,
according to Eqs. (1) and (3). Equation
(1) is in an undesirable form because it seems to state that η is
influenced by h and G_{s}, when in fact it states that η is
completely independent of h and G_{s}.

(I have many
years of practical design/analysis/test experience in this area. (See my U. S. Patents 3,388,888
and 3,542,486.) During the
years I designed and analyzed film-cooled turbine vanes and blades, I did my
best to ensure that engineers working in this area were consciously aware that
Eq. (1) states that η depends only on x, G_{g}, W_{c}, and
L—ie that η is completely independent of h and G_{s}.

While I was employed at GE Aircraft Engines, I was
asked to give a seminar on film cooling for approximately 20 engineers, most of
whom were Senior Engineers whose work concerned film cooling. During the seminar, I gave a surprise
quiz. The quiz involved using Eq. (1)
to determine η given the geometry at the film coolant exit, L, W_{s},
G_{g}, and x. I intentionally
made the geometry at the film coolant exit very complicated so that it would
require 10 to 15 minutes to calculate h, but it would require only 1 or 2
minutes to solve the entire problem if one recognized that Eq. (1) states that h is
independent of h.

After 5 minutes, I asked for a show of hands by all
who were still calculating the value of h.
Many in the class raised their hands, indicating that they, like
Professor Silver, did not recognize that Eq. (1) states that η is
independent of h. While hands were
raised, I announced that those who had their hands up had flunked the test
because the sole purpose of the quiz was to ask the question

*Do you really understand that Eq.
(1) states that η is independent of h?*

(Eq. (1) is undesirable in both form and
substance. Note that, by definition,
η cannot exceed 1.00, since a value of 1.00 indicates that the film-cooled
region is at the temperature of the coolant.
Also note that, as x (the distance from the slot) approaches zero,
η approaches infinity! Thus the
film cooling correlation of choice for many years predicted that η equals
infinity at x = 0, even though it is physically *impossible* for η to
exceed 1.00! This seeming anomaly was
“corrected” by stating that Eq. (1) applies only in the region far downstream
of the point where the film coolant enters the mainstream.)

My reaction to the review by F. Sturlese in *La* *Termotecnica*

In his review, F. Sturlese states that:

*The concepts are presented clearly,
and the writing is neat and conclusive.*

* *

*. . . the new heat transfer is
simple and clear. It is science, not
art.*

I was greatly pleased that the reviewer had taken
the trouble to understand my work, and had the courage to publicly endorse it.

The impact of the review by Professor Sir Owen
Saunders in *International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer*

The review by Professor Sir Owen Saunders, F. R. S., Imperial College, London,

Past-chairman of the Honorary Editorial Advisory
Board of *International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer* is noteworthy
because of his impressive credentials, and because his favorable review
followed the highly unfavorable review by Professor Silver, also published in *International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer*.

Because of Professor Saunders’ impressive
credentials, I assumed that his favorable review would make my work more
credible to the persons who control the engineering media.

I was wrong.

* *