The process of adding moisture to the air, without change in its dry bulb temperature, is known as humidification. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The process of adding moisture to the air, without change in its dry bulb temperature, is known as humidification.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Plants that grow in a dry habitat like deserts and can survive without moisture?....

QA->The process of sudden heritable change in a gene due to change in its composition is called ?....

QA->Theproperty of a substance to absorb moisture from the air on exposure is called–....

QA->The change in temperature of a body is 50°C. What is the change on Kelvin scale?....

QA->Dry steam which is further heated at a constant pressure thus raising its temperature is called as:....

MCQ->The process of adding moisture to the air, without change in its dry bulb temperature, is known as humidification.....

MCQ->In a laboratory test run, the rate of drying was found to be 0.5 x 10-3 kg/m2.s, when the moisture content reduced from 0.4 to 0.1 on dry basis. The critical moisture content of the material is 0.08 on a dry basis. A tray dryer is used to dry 100 kg (dry basis) of the same material under identical conditions. The surface area of the material is 0.04 m2/kg of dry solid. The time required (in seconds) to reduce the moisture content of the solids from 0.3 to 0.2 (dry basis) is....

MCQ->200 kg of solids (on dry basis) is subjected to a drying process for a period of 5000 seconds. The drying occurs in the constant rate period with the drying rate as, Nc = 0.5 x 10-3 kg/m2.s. The initial moisture content of the solid is 0.2 kg moisture/kg dry solid. The interfacial area available for drying is 4 m2/1000 kg of dry solid. The moisture content at the end of the drying period is (in kg moisture/kg dry solid)....

MCQ->The wet bulb temperature is lower in dry air than in wet air at the same temperature. A dry bulb thermometer registers a higher temperature than a wet bulb thermometer except at __________ percent relative humidity.....

MCQ-> Recently I spent several hours sitting under a tree in my garden with the social anthropologist William Ury, a Harvard University professor who specializes in the art of negotiation and wrote the bestselling book, Getting to Yes. He captivated me with his theory that tribalism protects people from their fear of rapid change. He explained that the pillars of tribalism that humans rely on for security would always counter any significant cultural or social change. In this way, he said, change is never allowed to happen too fast. Technology, for example, is a pillar of society. Ury believes that every time technology moves in a new or radical direction, another pillar such as religion or nationalism will grow stronger in effect, the traditional and familiar will assume greater importance to compensate for the new and untested. In this manner, human tribes avoid rapid change that leaves people insecure and frightened.But we have all heard that nothing is as permanent as change. Nothing is guaranteed. Pithy expressions, to be sure, but no more than cliches. As Ury says, people don’t live that way from day-to-day. On the contrary, they actively seek certainty and stability. They want to know they will be safe.Even so we scare ourselves constantly with the idea of change. An IBM CEO once said: ‘We only re-structure for a good reason, and if we haven’t re-structured in a while, that’s a good reason.’ We are scared that competitors, technology and the consumer will put us Out of business — so we have to change all the time just to stay alive. But if we asked our fathers and grandfathers, would they have said that they lived in a period of little change? Structure may not have changed much. It may just be the speed with which we do things.Change is over-rated, anyway, consider the automobile. It’s an especially valuable example, because the auto industry has spent tens of billions of dollars on research and product development in the last 100 years. Henry Ford’s first car had a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber types, a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, and four seats, and it could safely do 1 8 miles per hour. A hundred years and tens of thousands of research hours later, we drive cars with a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber tyres a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, four seats – and the average speed in London in 2001 was 17.5 miles per hour!That’s not a hell of a lot of return for the money. Ford evidently doesn’t have much to teach us about change. The fact that they’re still manufacturing cars is not proof that Ford Motor Co. is a sound organization, just proof that it takes very large companies to make cars in great quantities — making for an almost impregnable entry barrier.Fifty years after the development of the jet engine, planes are also little changed. They’ve grown bigger, wider and can carry more people. But those are incremental, largely cosmetic changes.Taken together, this lack of real change has come to man that in travel — whether driving or flying — time and technology have not combined to make things much better. The safety and design have of course accompanied the times and the new volume of cars and flights, but nothing of any significance has changed in the basic assumptions of the final product.At the same time, moving around in cars or aero-planes becomes less and less efficient all the time Not only has there been no great change, but also both forms of transport have deteriorated as more people clamour to use them. The same is true for telephones, which took over hundred years to become mobile or photographic film, which also required an entire century to change.The only explanation for this is anthropological. Once established in calcified organizations, humans do two things: sabotage changes that might render people dispensable, and ensure industry-wide emulation. In the 960s, German auto companies developed plans to scrap the entire combustion engine for an electrical design. (The same existed in the 1970s in Japan, and in the 1980s in France.) So for 40 years we might have been free of the wasteful and ludicrous dependence on fossil fuels. Why didn’t it go anywhere? Because auto executives understood pistons and carburettors, and would be loath to cannibalize their expertise, along with most of their factoriesAccording to the above passage, which of the following statements is true?
....