| 查看: 744 | 回复: 3 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
ZY19960414新虫 (正式写手)
|
[交流]
论文被拒有必要申诉吗？求大佬帮看看。 已有1人参与
|
||
|
The three-dimensional flow field around a hypersonic vehicle was numerically simulated in the study. The manuscript focused on the realistic reentry plasma sheath, the electron density and temperature at the hypersonic reentry stage. It was shown that the maximal total pressure on the leeward side decreased with the angle of attack and that on the windward side increased with the angle of attack, in agreement with previous studies. The results showed that the thickness of the plasma sheath increased on the leeward side, but the electron density decreased. Since electron density is related to reduction of electromagnetic wave, so radio communication on the leeward side at a large angle of attack might overcome the communication ‘blackout’. These results might be helpful for seeking the way to eliminate ‘blackout’ at reentry stage. however, there are some flaws in the paper. The necessity of 3D simulations was not discussed. It seems that all conclusions obtained from 3D and experiments can also be drawn from 2D simulations. The three-dimensionality of the flow should play a role in determining the flow around the vehicle, which should be discussed to prove the importance of 3D simulations. Unfortunately, there is no further talk about 3D simulations, except for validating the 3D computations. One of the highlights of the study is the decreased electron density with increasing the angle of attack. The underlying physics of this event should be discussed or supposed in the paper, even though it might be still elusive. Moreover, whether this phenomenon has been found in previous 2D simulations is neither introduced nor discussed. These issues should be explored and addressed in this paper. Substantial revision following the academic standards in proper written English is necessary. For example, ‘AOA’ should be explained at the first appearance of the term. The manuscript is not recommended to publish. 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
我就是申请一个面上项目而已，这评审意见是按照杰青的条件评的吧？
已经有3人回复
-
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有18人回复
-
国自然评审意见
已经有15人回复
-
为什么资助数各大高校都创新高，自己申请怎么就这么难
已经有13人回复
-
国自然面上复盘~欢迎讨论
已经有14人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有11人回复
-
有没有仍没收到信息的
已经有3人回复
-
导师吐槽：我怎么摊上了这么个极品研究生！
已经有8人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有11人回复
-
麻烦专家们看看评委们的意见（F口面上）
已经有9人回复
ZY19960414
新虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 274.3
- 散金: 1018
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 394
- 在线: 110.4小时
- 虫号: 14902268
- 注册: 2019-04-18
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 等离子体物理
|
以上是审稿意见，1.主要问题审稿人要的就是三维对比二维的优点在哪，为什么要用三维算流场。但是二维就算不了攻角的情况，旋转轴对称每个位置的流场分布都是不一样的。我只是截取XOY比较容易分析而已，审稿专家就抓着二维也可以仿真攻角。2.确定对给出的结论分析不够，但感觉可以进行补充。3还有就是语言问题。但是最主要的问题觉得他提出来是错的。 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
3楼2019-07-06 12:09:47
易晓伟
铜虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 12 (小学生)
- 金币: 2450.9
- 红花: 11
- 帖子: 972
- 在线: 71.7小时
- 虫号: 1472996
- 注册: 2011-11-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 食品科学
ZY19960414
2楼2019-07-06 12:08:30
ZY19960414
新虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 274.3
- 散金: 1018
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 394
- 在线: 110.4小时
- 虫号: 14902268
- 注册: 2019-04-18
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 等离子体物理
4楼2019-07-06 12:10:35
10