| 查看: 1832 | 回复: 4 | |||
longzai铜虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
悲剧 一篇文章被拒 已有2人参与
|
|
Dear Prof.**, Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it. For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. Yours sincerely, ** ** ** Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: The composition of the stream (2) at the rectifier outlet is not considered neither in the condenser nor in the evaporators. So, according to the equations indicated in the manuscript, it seems that there is a problem in species balance in those components of the cycle. It is not realistic to assume pure refrigerant at the rectifier outlet. Moreover, in real cycles, a bleeding line between evaporator and absorber is mandatory in order to keep low levels of absorbent in the evaporator. Additional figures, such as the cycle representation in a PTX diagram would be appreciated for the better understanding of the cycle. Reviewer #2: The manuscript reports on a very simple analysis of a new ammonia-water absorption refrigeration cycle. The cycle proposed consists of two evaporation-absorption stages. The absorption process at low pressure is divided into two stages: adiabatic absorption in the LPHTA and absorption with heat rejection in the LPLTA. The LPLTA is cooled by evaporation of ammonia in the HPE. The analysis is performed considering the cycle activation by means of an exhaust gas stream. Based on a peer review of the manuscript, I regret to inform you that I cannot recommend the publication of this paper in an International Journal for the reasons cited below. 1º.- The thermodynamic analysis reported in the manuscript is too simple. The analysis does not take into account any parameter to characterize the thermal behaviour of the system components, such as efficiency, AU, etc. Consequently, the results do not provide any useful information about the practical feasibility of developing a system based on the proposed cycle. 2º.- The results are referred to the exhaust gas stream characteristics (mass flow rate and temperature) which shows an inadmissible lack of generality and makes them useless for comparison against other cycles and/or systems reported in the literature. Reviewer #3: 1) By using kW instead of W for the y-axis labels of Figures 2, 4, and 6, dozens of unnecessary zeros could be eliminated, greatly reducing clutter and improving clarity. 2) Although "SC" is defined in the text, it would help to include the definition in the nomenclature section. 3) "Unit" is misspelled as "unite" numerous times, "does" is misspelled as "dose", "combining" is misspelled as "combing", numerous sentences are lacking basic grammatical sense, and there are numerous other language errors throughout. For example the sentence starting with "Kalinowski et al [6]" should be split into two, and proper use should be made of grammatical articles. There are far too many language details for me to list here, an English editor needs to look it over. 4) The first sentence of the introduction makes no grammatical sense at all. It appears that the adjectives "great" and "huge" are being used as nouns, among other problems. 5) "Paul Kalinowski [6]…" should read "Kalinowski et al [6]…" 6) In Figure 1, state points 12 and 10 are shown to mix, forming state point 13, before entering the LPLTA. This does not make sense, as the absorption section of the absorber should have one solution outlet, one solution inlet, and one refrigerant vapor inlet. What is state point 13 meant to represent? 7) What is a typical refrigerant vapor quality at state point 5, or what portion of the refrigeration capacity is consumed by the HPE? 8) Regarding the repeated references to "exhaust gas/water" in the abstract: It makes sense to deal with exhaust gas on a per-unit-mass basis, since exhaust is an open loop. But cooling water needs to be dealt with on a per-unit-heat basis, since it flows in a closed loop. Lowering the usable temperature of a heat-activated device will allow it to extract more energy from exhaust. However, although lowering the usable temperature may allow lower temperature coolant sources to be used, it typically won't allow more energy to be extracted from a given coolant loop. 9) As a novel cycle, it should be shown on a Dühring diagram, with state point labels corresponding to those on Figure 1. 10) What is meant by assumptions 7 and 8, about the SHX and SC temperature differences? Please specify in terms of state points, as is done for assumption 6 11) Assumption 10: the units of specific heat are J/kg-°C. The units of specific heat capacity flow rate are W/kg-°C. 12) In equation 1, what does the subscript "cons" mean? It is not defined in the nomenclature. 13) Why have you chosen to ignore COP? What is the relation between COP and 14) It would be interesting to see how the T_m changes with T_evap and T of the generator. This could be done as a plot or a quantitative comment. Reviewer #4: The paper presents an absorption refrigeration cycle. The authors claim it is a new one, appropriate for operation with sources having a large temperature glide. The key device for that behavior is an absorber which has a higher pressure and a higher concentration, as that of a single-stage cycle. The question is if such a cycle really worked, and at what cost? If this absorber had same sink source, then both cycles operate with same source temperatures for the sink, heat and cooled ones. Changing anything (without even improving cycle internal heat recovery, as it is the case here), cannot lead to any cycle improvement. Besides this, in order to achieve such a structure, the proposed cycle sacrifices precious refrigerant vaporization at higher pressure for eliminating the absorption heat in the LPLTA absorber. This is a non-technical idea which is probably paid very hard in terms of cycle effectiveness, diminishing obviously the useful effect (cooling) capacity of LPE. For the above short considerations, it results the proposed cycle cannot work to higher effectiveness, as authors claim, but on the contrary, it seems its COP is less than that of the single-stage. Moreover, the cycle has a higher complexity. The work is rejected for publication for the reasons expressed above. The reviewer(s) may also have uploaded detailed comments on your manuscript as an attachment. To access these comments, please go to: http://ees.elsevier.com/thesci/ Your username is GMCHEN and your password is 87951680 Click on 'Author Login'. You will find your submission in the folder entitled "Submission Needing Revision". Click on 'View Reviewer Attachments' (if present). |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
化学0703-一志愿211-338分求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
求调剂！生物与医药专硕
已经有8人回复
-
275 求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
一志愿085404，总分291，四级已过，求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
085600专硕材料与化工348分求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
电子信息346
已经有3人回复
-
0703总分331求调剂
已经有21人回复
-
301求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
材料专硕调剂
已经有12人回复
-
327求调剂
已经有9人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 被拒了，悲剧了
已经有81人回复
- 文章悲剧，能argue吗？
已经有31人回复
- 第一篇SCI被拒了..求助啊....
已经有34人回复
- 新年伊始，论文被拒，悲剧啊！！！
已经有35人回复
- 圣诞前一天文章莫名其妙被拒稿，申诉成功后今天戏剧接收
已经有231人回复
- 第一篇SCI投出被悲惨的REJECT了~编辑回信如是说~
已经有70人回复
- 第一次投外文SCI文章，被拒，心灵严重受伤
已经有40人回复
- 说说我遇上的审稿人
已经有43人回复
- 虎年以悲剧开始，以悲剧结束~文章被拒，需要回复编辑表示感谢吗？
已经有20人回复
- 文章被拒，求助被拒信中一段话的意思
已经有12人回复
- 文章被拒，是否申诉？
已经有25人回复
- 【求助/交流】毕业在即，文章频频被拒，求投稿经验
已经有15人回复
- 有比我更悲剧的吗？说说你最长审稿时间的一篇文章
已经有40人回复
- 悲剧的稿子认真修改后再投这个杂志可以不？
已经有16人回复
longzai
铜虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 11.9
- 散金: 262
- 帖子: 218
- 在线: 163.3小时
- 虫号: 594284
- 注册: 2008-09-06
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 可再生与替代能源利用中的
2楼2011-01-03 17:20:33
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
3楼2011-01-03 17:31:34
longzai
铜虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 11.9
- 散金: 262
- 帖子: 218
- 在线: 163.3小时
- 虫号: 594284
- 注册: 2008-09-06
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 可再生与替代能源利用中的
4楼2011-01-03 17:36:32
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
5楼2011-01-03 17:43:37
