520 may be channelled into the first evaporative cooler 510 to improve the cooling effect at the first evaporative cooler 510. The cooled airflow 20 may be evaporatively cooled further in the first evaporative cooler 510 and at the same time, due to the cooled first evaporative cooler 510, the waterflow 10 through it may be cooled further before being directed into the second evaporative cooler 520 again. As one may appreciate, the feedback cooling loop enhances the thermal effectiveness of the cooling apparatus 500 and produces colder waterflow 10 as compared to a conventional cross-flow cooling tower. Further, the present cooling apparatus 500 produces a lower air-flow resistance as compared to a conventional counterflow cooling tower. [0048] As shown, the cooling apparatus 500 of the present invention has a higher thermal efficiency than a conventional cross-flow cooling tower. As shown above, the feedback cooling loop increases the effectiveness of the cooling effect in the second evaporative cooler 520. Due to the improved cooling efficiency, some of the physical and operational parameters used for the cooling apparatus 500 of the present invention may be reduced to achieve the same results as a conventional cooling tower. For example, the width of the second evaporative cooler 520 may be narrower than that of the cross-flow infills used in a conventional cooling tower. The electric consumption of the fan 550 for the present cooling apparatus 500 may be lower than that of a conventional cooling tower. Alternatively, a lower power exhaust fan may be used. While it is not shown, the cooling apparatus 500 of the present invention does not require additional power consumption, e.g. no additional pump required. Consequently, there will be savings in the power consumption. As the size of the physical parameters, e.g. size of fan 550 and first evaporative cooler 510, are reduced, the size of the cooling apparatus 500 may be smaller than that of a conventional cooling tower of the same cooling efficiency. As a result, the present cooling apparatus 500 may be more compact and has a smaller footprint than a conventional cooling tower. As such, for the same space, it may be possible to install more cooling apparatus 500. In terms of part costs and maintenance, it is more cost effective to purchase or replace a smaller fan 550 and evaporative coolers 510,520. As it can be appreciated, the abovementioned will result in cost savings now and in the long term. [0049] A skilled person would appreciate that the features described in one example may not be restricted to that example and may be combined with any one of the other examples.