| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 2821 | 回復(fù): 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(guān)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(dǎo)。 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. |
Publication tips |
至尊木蟲 (知名作家)
至尊木蟲 (正式寫手)
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 一志愿蘇州大學(xué)材料工程(085601)專碩有科研經(jīng)歷三項國獎兩個實用型專利一項省級立項 +3 | 大火山小火山 2026-03-16 | 4/200 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 0703一志愿211 285分求調(diào)劑 +5 | ly3471z 2026-03-13 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 070303一志愿西北大學(xué)學(xué)碩310找調(diào)劑 +5 | d如愿上岸 2026-03-12 | 8/400 |
|
|
[考研] 312求調(diào)劑 +3 | 陌宸希 2026-03-16 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 0703化學(xué)調(diào)劑 290分有科研經(jīng)歷,論文在投 +7 | 膩膩gk 2026-03-14 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 274求調(diào)劑 +4 | 時間點 2026-03-13 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 331求調(diào)劑(0703有機化學(xué) +5 | ZY-05 2026-03-13 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 085600求調(diào)劑 +3 | a邵星池 2026-03-09 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 308求調(diào)劑 +3 | 是Lupa啊 2026-03-10 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] b區(qū)環(huán)境工程求調(diào)劑 +4 | Maps1 2026-03-10 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 318求調(diào)劑 +3 | 李新光 2026-03-10 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] [0860]321分求調(diào)劑,ab區(qū)皆可 +4 | 寶貴熱 2026-03-13 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 332求調(diào)劑 +3 | Zz版 2026-03-13 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 【考研調(diào)劑求收留】 +3 | Ceciilia 2026-03-11 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 274求調(diào)劑0856材料化工 +12 | z2839474511 2026-03-11 | 13/650 |
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 資源與環(huán)境 285 +3 | 未名考生 2026-03-10 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 333求調(diào)劑 +3 | 152697 2026-03-12 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 收調(diào)劑 +7 | 調(diào)劑的考研學(xué)生 2026-03-10 | 7/350 |
|
|
[碩博家園] 木蟲好像不熱鬧了,是不是? +4 | 偏振片 2026-03-10 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 數(shù)二英二309分請求調(diào)劑 +3 | dtdxzxx 2026-03-09 | 4/200 |
|