Reviews of The New Heat Transfer, 1st edition
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 An unpublished review is also listed below.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. . .
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 The unpublished review prepared for the editor of Annals of Nuclear Science indicates how strongly some reviewers felt that the book was of no value.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”.
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
Reviews not translated
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.
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 Gs and Gm are mass flow rate per unit area at the slot exit and the mainstream respectively.)
η = 21.8(hGs/xGm) 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 Gs, even though it actually states that η is not a function of h and Gs —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 Gs, 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 Gs, even though Eq. (1) states that h and Gs 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 Gs, 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. Gs is dependent on h, as shown by Eq. (2) where As and L are the area and length of the equivalent slot:
Gs = Wc/As = Wc/(hL) (2)
Combining Eqs. (1) and (2) results in Eq. (3):
η = 21.8(Wc/xGgL)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, Gg, Wc, 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 Gs, when in fact it states that η is completely independent of h and Gs.
(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, Gg, Wc, and L—ie that η is completely independent of h and Gs.
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, Ws, Gg, 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.)
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 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.