 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 2822 | 回復: 9 | ||||
| 當前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖，點擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | ||||
[交流]
幫忙分析一下這個審稿意見如何？先謝謝各位 已有7人參與
|
||||
|
大家?guī)兔纯?這個審稿意如何。尤其是第二個審稿人，他的潛意思是什么？ 因為沒有提到關于大修還是小修的問題，所以比較迷茫，再次真誠的希望大牛們給予指導。 Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: The paper is appropriate for a journal like IJTS. However, prior to publishing, some adjustments to the paper must be added. The paper is generally well written, overall information on ejectors seems appropriate but the paper lacks adequate details to fully describe the methodology and discussion presented in the paper. Accordingly, the authors should consider revising their paper, based on the following comments: Figure 11: specify the discharge pressure Figure 7: the symbol Pi should be added in the nomenclature English: please ensure that the document is checked for spelling mistakes P.6: the statement: 'Therefore only heat between motive and induced NG has been taken into consideration in the present simulation' should be more detailed in its meaning and clearly stated. Account of this heat exchange being implicit (through the energy equation). P.9: In the optimization approach described in this page, there are a number of information elements missing and/or leading to confusion: - was an initial size used? On what method was it based? - are the other 'independent' parameters fixed while Pp9-11: The entrainment ratio is indicated to be around 10% while it is stated elsewhere that (in the abstract and/or the introduction) to reach over 90%. Clarify to lift inconsistencies. P.11, eq. 3: use tan-1 symbol which is more common for the co-tangent. P.11, model validation: Validation in general understanding means that a comparison between numerical/experimental results under controlled conditions is made. It does not appear to be the case here because what is presented is a comparison between predictions from two models. This can be considered as an analysis example based on the developed model(s). The authors should therefore clarify this (link with $4 p.13, experimental verification which may be considered as a form of validation). P.13, The uncertainty on induced flow rate is high. Authors should evaluate the impact on model validation when using these results. Reviewer #3: The submitted manuscript presents the numerical and experimental analysis of an ejector for boosting gas removal from low pressure wells. The subject of the paper is interesting and relevant to the profile of International Journal of Thermal Sciences. However in the present form, it is not recommended for publication. Comments: Language: The English of the manuscript is relatively poor. It should be significantly improved before re-submission. Scientific issues: - On page 3, the authors claim that 1D models are useful "to understand the basic flow physics in the ejector". I do not agree with the statement since these models provide very little information on flow physics. They are more useful for evaluating the effect of the operating conditions on ejector performance or designing "baseline" ejector geometry. - On page 6, reference [15] is used to justify the turbulence model applied. I think correctly it should be another one: Bartosiewicz, Y., Aidoun, Z., Desevaux, P., Mercadier, Y., 2005. Numerical and experimental investigations on supersonic ejectors. Int. J. of Heat and Fluid Flow 26, 56-70. - On page 7-8, it is explained how the length of a component is related to the converging/diverging angles, etc. It is trivial; there is no need to discuss that. - Information is not given how the baseline model, used as a starting point for geometrical optimisation, was chosen. There were four design variables for the performance optimisation. Only one was varied at a time defining such its optimal value. This process could be argued to be the best one… - Section 3 is referred to as model validation, however model validation is carried out in section 4. Because of that it is confusing whether the results in section 3 come from simulations or experiments. All the figures related to this section include a "fitting curve", however it is not mentioned in the text how those curves were obtained. - On page 14 and under point 2 in Conclusions, the authors claim that the entrainment ratio showed an optimum value as a function of the primary inlet pressure for suction pressures below 4.5 MPa. It is not obvious from the data presented for 2MPa. Also there is no physical explanation why it should not be the case for suction pressures higher than 4.5 MPa. The author's statement is probably true only for the range of operating conditions (motive fluid pressure) considered! - Table 1 compares the present ejector design to previously published one. Very little difference can be observed. |
回復此樓» 收錄本帖的淘帖專輯推薦
 Publication tips |
» 猜你喜歡
0854控制工程 359求調劑 可跨專業(yè)
已經有9人回復
-
梁成偉老師課題組歡迎你的加入
已經有9人回復
-
化學調劑0703
已經有8人回復
-
環(huán)境工程調劑
已經有6人回復
-
326求調劑
已經有7人回復
-
一志愿985，本科211，0817化學工程與技術319求調劑
已經有5人回復
-
今年的國基金是打分制嗎？
已經有3人回復
-
304求調劑
已經有5人回復
-
一志愿蘇州大學材料工程（085601）專碩有科研經歷三項國獎兩個實用型專利一項省級立項
已經有5人回復
-
304求調劑
已經有4人回復
» 本主題相關價值貼推薦，對您同樣有幫助:
- 大家?guī)臀曳治鲆幌�，這種情況對投稿影響大么
已經有5人回復
- 請幫忙看看這個審稿意見
已經有4人回復
- 請大家?guī)兔聪逻@個審稿意見怎么處理好
已經有22人回復
- by independent method是什么意思？
已經有5人回復
- 大牛幫忙分析一下專家意見，下次希望大不大？
已經有5人回復
- 請大家?guī)兔纯磳徃迦说囊庖�，謝謝!
已經有6人回復
- 審稿意見分析與修改
已經有11人回復
- 編輯給的審稿意見，怎么解答啊~~謝謝親們~~
已經有6人回復
- 請大家?guī)臀曳治鱿聦徃逡庖?/a>
已經有18人回復
- 二審審稿意見怎么回復？謝謝大家，幫忙看看吧，給點意見
已經有3人回復
- Energy的審稿意見，望各位大俠指導
已經有22人回復
- 大家?guī)头治鱿聦徃逡庖?/a>
已經有8人回復
- ECM審稿意見返回了，求各位幫忙解讀一下，謝謝
已經有28人回復
- 大家請幫我看看這個審稿意見是什么意思？
已經有7人回復
- 請各位幫忙看看審稿意見
已經有8人回復
- 請各位SCI大�？纯丛搶徃逡庖娙绾位貜�
已經有3人回復
- 大家?guī)涂匆幌逻@個審稿意見棘手不，謝謝了。
已經有22人回復
- International Journal of Thermal Sciences,4個審稿人，3個修改后接收，1個拒
已經有19人回復
- 文章第二次修改，有點迷茫
已經有17人回復
- 求高人幫忙分析下APL審稿意見
已經有7人回復
- 審稿意見回來了，大家?guī)兔Ψ治鲆幌拢行┮庖娍床欢?/a>
已經有14人回復
- 專家審稿意見，請大家?guī)兔Ψ治觯?/a>
已經有5人回復
- 幫忙看下審稿意見
已經有6人回復
- 大家?guī)臀曳治鲆幌耺aterial and design的審稿意見，錄用幾率大不？
已經有24人回復
- 審稿意見回來了，大家?guī)兔匆幌��！?/a>
已經有9人回復
- 【求助】大家?guī)臀曳治鱿聦徃迦私o的評語 （關于納米顆粒細胞內化）
已經有4人回復
6樓2010-07-19 20:32:01
whutxdh
至尊木蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 10951.6
- 散金: 6
- 紅花: 2
- 帖子: 732
- 在線: 791.9小時
- 蟲號: 954877
- 注冊: 2010-02-11
- 專業(yè): 無機非金屬類光電信息與功
2樓2010-07-19 16:56:54
3樓2010-07-19 16:59:11
4樓2010-07-19 19:06:58
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 化學調劑0703 +8 | 啊我我的 2026-03-11 | 8/400 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
[考研] 0703 物理化學調劑 +3 | 我可以上岸的對?/a> 2026-03-13 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 311求調劑 +6 | 冬十三 2026-03-15 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研]
 機械專碩調劑
+3
|
笨笨兔子 2026-03-12 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085601材料工程315分求調劑 +3 | yang_0104 2026-03-15 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 復試調劑 +4 | z1z2z3879 2026-03-14 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 297求調劑 +4 | 學海漂泊 2026-03-13 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿鄭大070303，338分，求調劑 +4 | dadawaf 2026-03-10 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料與化工（0856）304求B區(qū)調劑 +6 | 邱gl 2026-03-12 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 336求調劑 +6 | Iuruoh 2026-03-11 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] ［0860］321分求調劑，ab區(qū)皆可 +4 | 寶貴熱 2026-03-13 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 332求調劑 +3 | Zz版 2026-03-13 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 302求調劑 +6 | 負心者當誅 2026-03-11 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 考研調劑 +4 | 芬達46 2026-03-12 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 工科材料085601 279求調劑 +8 | 困于星晨 2026-03-12 | 10/500 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085600材料與化工 309分請求調劑 +7 | dtdxzxx 2026-03-12 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 化工學碩306求調劑 +9 | 42838695 2026-03-12 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 081200-11408-276學碩求調劑 +3 | 崔wj 2026-03-12 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考博] 2026年博士申請 +3 | QwQwQW10 2026-03-11 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考博] 讀博申請 +5 | 感dd 2026-03-10 | 7/350 |
|