24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 534  |  回复: 5
当前主题已经存档。
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

longzai

铜虫 (小有名气)

[交流] 求助 有关审稿人意见

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Page 3 lines 15: Please show a comparison of the COP between ejector-absorption or expander-absorption cycle and the novel proposed cycle. Because the cycle aims at getting a higher COP as the authors mentioned.

Can the cycle get a higher COP than these combined ejector-absorption or expander-absorption cycles? This point is significant. However, the authors are compared the COP of the novel cycle among simple cycles those are a conventional single effect cycle and a conventional two stage cycle in the section 4.
This is a kind of practice calculation. It is not enough to say the useful results.
Why doesn't the authors compare the novel cycle with an advanced cycle?

Cycle description:
In order to understand the cycle can be driven with thermo dynamically, please describe the novel cycle with pointing out the state number among their elements on T-s diagram and P-T diagram.




Reviewer #2: The authors have proposed a novel absorption refrigeration cycle with an expander-compressor in order to improve the performance of a conventional ammonia-water based absorption refrigeration cycle. The performance of the proposed system is compared to that of both single and two stage absorption refrigeration cycles.  The work is interesting. However, this reviewer suggests suggest the acceptance of the paper provided that the authors made the amendments (Required Amendments) as suggested below.

Strength of the paper
1.     The innovation of this paper is the coupling of expander- compressor which results in the improvement in  performance.
2.     The proposed system can be powered by low grade heat sources.

Main weakness of the paper
1.     The mathematical modeling of this paper is only based on first law of thermodynamics and it is too simple. Moreover, it can be found in any related text book.
2.     Overall efficiency of the expander-compressor of 0.8 and 1, which is difficult to attain in reality.
3.     Maximum COP of the present system is about 0.105 (as shown in Fig. 2) which is very  low.

Required Amendments
1.     More details of the modeling should be introduced from the rigor of classical thermodynamics.
2.     In Figure 3, the plot of COP versus evaporation temperature should be in the range of  -10oC to 20oC so that the reader can see the advantage of the proposed cycle clearly.
3.     The reference section is incomplete.  Should cite the following papers among other relevant papers:
(a) M. Hultén, T. Berntsson, The compression/absorption cycle - influence of some major parameters on COP and a comparison with the compression cycle, International Journal of Refrigeration, Volume 22, No. 2, pp. 91-106, 1999.
(b) R. Ayala et al., Ammonia/Lithium nitrate absorption/compression refrigeration cycle. Part II. Experimental, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 18, No. 8, pp. 661-670, 1998
(c)  L. Åhlby, NH3/H2O---LiBr as working fluid for the compression/absorption cycle,
International Journal of Refrigeration, Volume 16, No. 4, pp. 265-273, 1993,
(d) H.Y. Kim et al., Development of a slug flow absorber working with ammonia-water mixture: Part 1. Flow characterization and experimental investigation, International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 508-515, 2003.
(e) H.Y. Kim et al., Development of a slug flow absorber working with ammonia-water mixture: Part 2. Data reduction model for local heat and mass transfer characterization, International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 698-706, 2003.

4. Reference 6 of the present version is incomplete.
5. English language should be improved.
6. Should require clear statement about the advantage of the proposed system over other conventional system.
------------------------------------------------------------------
编辑的意思是大修,第一个审稿人可能对我做的东西不是很明白,提的问题不是很对路,不知道是不是没有仔细看还是真的不懂。决定跟他进行比较礼貌的说明。
第二个审稿人应该是内行。
不知道这样的情况是好事坏?投的第一篇国外的杂志。

[ Last edited by longzai on 2010-1-5 at 18:56 ]
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

longzai

铜虫 (小有名气)

这种审稿意见要求修改的地算不算多的
4楼2010-01-05 19:22:24
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 6 个回答

longzai

铜虫 (小有名气)

这种情况下,怎么做才能让审稿人比较倾向于接受呢?
如果明显有一个审稿人不是太懂这一块,编辑会不会更看重更内行的审稿人的意见?
2楼2010-01-05 18:55:14
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

mandolin

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

小木虫之如花传奇


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
有些情况下,编辑也不是内行,按照修改意见仔细修改,要是审稿人外行,就有礼有节的给与辩论
生活是一日接着一日
3楼2010-01-05 19:19:00
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

mandolin

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

小木虫之如花传奇


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
我看了你的审稿意见,第一个主要是要回答“It is not enough to say the useful results.‘
Why doesn't the authors compare the novel cycle with an advanced cycle?

你的审稿意见不算多,你在回答第一个审稿人时,尽量多引用他人的文献来说明,祝好运
生活是一日接着一日
5楼2010-01-05 19:30:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见