THIS note gives comments on the paper by Kitaev et al on p._x000D_
68 of this book and compares results with those obtained by ourselves. We wish to say that the authors are to be congratulated on their sophisticated approach to an important problem and that it complements our efforts on flow maldistribution.1-5 It is our view that Eqs. (1)-(5) on p. 69 are impressive, but unfortunately with present day computers and computational facilities, it would be quite impractical to contemplate the numerical solution of these. Eq. (8) in the authors' paper, on p. 70, does provide the logical starting point for tackling flow maldistribution problems and strictly speaking this equation is more accurate than Eq. (1) in our paper in this book. We note in passing that there is direct experimental evidence to support the contention that our Eq. (1) is at least a reasonable approximation and one may question in a practical sense whether the refinement afforded by Eq. (8) in the paper by Kitaev et a/ is justified. While one must readily accept the appropriateness of Eq._x000D_
(8) of Kitaev et al as a starting point, the subsequent mathematical manipulation by the authors is open to serious criticism. In order to solve this complex, non-linear equation Kitaev et al postulated irrotational flow, which afforded considerable simplification. One can argue simply on physical grounds that the assumption of irrotational flow is inappropriate, a fact which should be readily apparent on inspection of the flow fields shown in Figs. 2 and 3 of Kitaev's paper. It follows that while the starting point through the use of Eq. (8) is correct the results derived from this starting point may be suspect because of the erroneous nature of the irrotational flow assumption.