LAB 1-2 REPORT

The lab report is written by all the participants of lab group 8 including: U Hemanth Reddy, Arth
Mishra , Shaswath Kaushish

Experimental results
Trial 1

T_in dry T_in wet T_out dry T_out wet Delta_P T_refrigerant
bulb(°C) bulb (°C) bulb (°C) bulb (°C) (Pa) (°C)
First
test 21.3 17.2 16.0 14.4 43 3.811

Trial 2

T_in dry T_in wet T_out dry T_out wet Delta_P T_refrigerant
bulb(°C) bulb (°C) bulb (°C) bulb (°C) (Pa) (°C)
Second
test 21.5 17.9 16.0 15.0 28.0 3.945

Trial 3

T_in dry T_in wet T_out dry T_out wet Delta_P T_refrigerant
bulb(°C) bulb (°C) bulb (°C) bulb (°C) (Pa) (°C)
Third
test 20.1 18.0 15.3 14.5 17 3.221

We find the volumetric flow rate from the above formula. With the dry and
wet bulb temperatures we determine water content and enthalpies.

The above formula is used to determine the cooling load

Calculations:
V (flow Water content Water content Enthalpy in Enthalpy Q (cooling load)
rate) [L/s] in (g/kg_da) out (g/kg_da) (kJ/kg) out (kJ/kg) [kW]
First test 200.001 10.4 10.18 49.14 41.38 1.979
Second
test 161.39 11.3 9.35 51.27 42.65 1.749
Third
test 125.754 11.3 8.7 51.79 41.2 1.674

Discussion
The temperature of the refrigerant appears to remain constant, as shown in
the experimental findings. This indicates that the refrigeration cycle appears to
continue operating as usual despite changes in flow rate. As it passes through
the steam humidifier more quickly at higher flow rates, there will be less water
present.  Similarly, as it spends less time with the cooling coil, resulting
in changed water content,  the volumetric flow rate increases and a small
increase in cooling demand is observed (80 watts). Additionally, in two of our
tests, the cooling process line is so steep that it doesn't meet the line for 100%
relative humidity, which indicates that in these situations the theoretical
concept of a bypass factor is not applicable.