24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

felicity6056

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

应助: 6 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.033
金币: 10209.1
散金: 389
红花: 6
帖子: 6701
在线: 1054.7小时
虫号: 762546
注册: 2009-05-04
专业: 化石能源储存与输送

[交流] 文章审稿意见回来了，请虫子们帮忙看看意见是正面的还是负面的？已有11人参与

Combining a 20-steps reduced mechanism and CFD code, this paper predicts the ethylene/air combustion and soot formation. The results show that this 20-steps reduced mechanism can provide results with the similar accuracy and less CPU times with the detailed reaction model. This paper also analyzes how the soot nucleation, growth, oxidation is influenced by air velocity and temperature. All these indicate that the authors did a lot of work in this area.
Some suggestions are as follows:
1. The authors should clarify how many species are assumed in quasi-steady state? If the detailed mechanism is reduced too far, that is, too many species are assumed in quasi-steady state, the input problem results will not be well reproduced. Please add some explanations on this point.
2. In “3 validation of reduced chemistry” part (Fig4, 5), authors need to compare the 20-steps reduced mechanism results with the data by Gibbs, Law or Scholte too, not only limited to comparison with GRI 3.0? It would make the paper more convictive. Moreover, the unit scales of left and right y axis in Fig.2, 4(b) and 5 are not consistent, which make readers confused.
3. In 4.3 results part, please interpret the reasons why the parameters (temperature, soot nucleation rate, growth rate and oxidation rate) appear different distributions in the three cases calculated at different equivalence rates and air velocities. Although the distribution of the results are described in detail, the difference and the reasons are little demonstrated.

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

药学硕士，第一、第二作者已发表6 篇 SCI，药理方向及相关方向2026年/2027年博士申请已经有6人回复
一篇MDPI论文改变了学习工作和生活已经有5人回复
26年博士申请自荐-电催化已经有3人回复
中国地质大学（北京）博士招生补录，数理学院材料科学与工程专业和材料与化工专业已经有6人回复
收到国自然专家邀请后几年才会有本子送过来评已经有4人回复
考博已经有5人回复
26年申博自荐-计算机视觉已经有4人回复
药化及相关博士的申请已经有3人回复

努力的过程讲究方法！

1楼 2010-06-29 17:23:20

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

visitor958

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

IEEE杂志与会议专家

应助: 2283 (讲师)
贵宾: 0.05
金币: 17310
散金: 2544
红花: 76
帖子: 15735
在线: 2926.6小时
虫号: 489254
注册: 2008-01-01
专业: IEEE

“是不是审稿人就是给个一般的意见让我修改，能否录用还要看文章的质量？”
这个你真的看不出来？

All these indicate that the authors did a lot of work in this area. （证实你做了很多工作 - 再多的话，应该可以投更好的杂志了。。。）

Some suggestions are as follows:（几点修改建议 - 注意这不是一定要做的修改要求，即能改就改，不能，说明一下就可以）。

（第二个又没有意见，编辑应该是给你小修吧？）