 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Coolth edit
With regards to a suggested non-existant word: Coolth is a real term, it is referenced in the Oxford English dictionary "Origin: mid 16th century (but rare before the 20th century): from cool + -th."
It is widely used and understood in the UK building services engineering industry. Pahazzard (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Airstreams must be flowing in opposite directions? edit
The sentence: "The airstreams must be flowing in opposite directions or no beneficial heat exchange can occur." is incorrect. The heat exchange will of course also occur with air streams flowing in the same direction, but the efficiency of heat exchange may be lower.--Jidu Boite (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Kyoto Wheel KyotoCooling KyotoWheel edit
KyotoCooling and the use of the term Kyoto in the context of a thermal wheel was coined by KyotoCooling(R) a Mission Critical Cooling Solution Manufacturer. The technique is Patented in 30 Countries Currently For reference the technique is Protected by US Patent US7753766 and Protected by EU/UK Patent EP1903849.
The technique provides for a unique use of the heat wheel for heat rejection with two non mixing air streams. Specific engineering controls limit leakage to less than .3% at peak air volume.
In the US KyotoCooling is exclusively licensed by Air Enterprises of Akron Ohio for Design, Engineering, Manufacture and Support. www.airenterprises.com KyotoCooling is www.kyotocooling.com and was control acquired by Cloudsite in 2013 providing investment for EMEA growth.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/09/05/cloudsite-acquires-kyoto-cooling/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulton.kyotocooling (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
One reference? edit
I prodded this article. I'd found a commercial website with the same text. I was an idiot and did not document the site and date information. Nonetheless, the article remains without a shred of reference. The editor who reverted the prod likewise had no proof of dates, either. Rhadow (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)