## 3 Results
### Testing Results for a Pelletized Adsor
For a discharging time fixed at 900 s, charging times of 600 s and 750 s were evaluated, again considering two different evaporation temperatures. The results are presented in Figure 7b: for an evaporation temperature of 15 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the optimal charging time is 750 s, since no evident benefit from increasing the duration of charge is measured. Instead, for a 12 \({}^{\circ}\)C evaporation, a cycle with the same durations of charge and discharge is the best option. Such results were used for the realization of the other tests. In Figure 8a,b, the effects of evaporation temperature and driving temperature are shown for discharge power and recovered cold energy, respectively. All the tests have been performed for a charge and discharge duration of 900 s with a condensation/adsorption temperature of 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C. This part of the experimental test was carried out with the aim of evaluating the effects of two possible ICE operative temperatures (85 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C) and the effect of the cabin's inside temperature, assuming it at different constant levels (from 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C). It is visible that higher driving temperatures are beneficial, especially to discharge power, since an increment of about 15% can be obtained. The average discharge power measured, especially with 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C driving temperature, is as high as 850 W. By moving from an evaporation temperature of 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 15 \({}^{\circ}\)C, a great increase is observed; after such a temperature, a plateau is reached. For a lower driving temperature, discharge power in the range 500-730 W has been measured. The effect on recovered energy, though smaller, is still recognizable: for 85 \({}^{\circ}\)C tests,  
Figure 7: (**a**) The effect of charge/discharge time, composite adsorber; (**b**) the effect of charge time, composite adsorber. energy recovered lied in the range of 170-220 Wh, while for the higher temperature, the maximum energy recovered was about 220 Wh. The effect of condensation temperature is summarized in Figure 8c: both the recovered energy (e.g., 85/XX/17_1200s_E) and discharged power (e.g., 85/XX/17_1200s_P) decrease for higher condensation temperatures. The effect is more marked for the lower evaporation temperatures, corresponding to a higher pressure lift between the evaporator and the condenser. Subsequently, the effect of the flow rate in the two components has been evaluated, since it represents a key design parameter. In Figure 9a, the effect of the flow rate in the adsorber has been evaluated, considering both the discharge power and energy. The trend obtained is clear: there is an optimum value of flow rate allowing the maximizing of the performance of the system, which is 12 kg/min. Indeed, lower flow rates probably worsen the heat transfer inside the heat exchanger of the adsorber, while higher flow rates are as detrimental. Moreover, they lead to very a small temperature difference that might negatively affect the practical application. Therefore, the value of 12 kg/min has been considered for all the other tests. The same analysis has been done for the phase changer, by varying its flow rate in the range of 8-18 kg/min. In this case, the effect is smaller, with a slightly increasing trend for higher flow rates, as shown in Figure 9b. Such a result further highlights that the key parameter is the heat transfer inside the adsorber, since it affects the adsorption efficiency and dynamics. Figure 8: (**a**) The effects of evaporation temperature (XX—must be read on the figure) and driving temperature (85 \({}^{\circ}\)C or 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C) on discharge power for the composite adsorber; (**b**) the effects of evaporation temperature (XX—must be read on the figure) and driving temperature (85 \({}^{\circ}\)C or 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C) on recovered cold energy for the composite adsorber; (**c**) the effect of condensation (XX—must be read on the figure) temperature for the composite adsorber.