应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 交流 » 悲剧 一篇文章被拒
51/1返回列表
查看: 1674  |  回复: 4
只看楼主@他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
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] 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 (omega)? Although I agree that may be a better metric than COP when exhaust gas is the sole heat source, everyone reading the paper will also want to know what is the COP.  Since some of the liquid refrigerant is being consumed by the HPE, I expect the COP will be lower than the conventional single effect cycle. On the other hand, some metrics such as flow ratio are probably improved by this cycle - I'm very curious about the COP issue. It would be helpful to have some additional discussion comparing this cycle with the conventional single effect cycle.
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

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
1楼2011-01-03 17:16:04
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

faming

禁言 (著名写手)
★
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
 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 5 个回答

longzai

铜虫 (小有名气)
第二个审稿人直接据搞，第的个审稿人的意见也比较负面。第一个审稿人泛泛说了下，第三个审稿人最认真。
可能是两个据稿，两个大修，
唉，我和我导师都认为很好的东西居然得到这种评价，话说我们这里在这块在世界范围内也算不错的了。果然审稿人太多就众口难调。。。。
赞一下 回复此楼
2楼2011-01-03 17:20:33
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

faming

禁言 (著名写手)
★
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
 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)
楼上怎么猜出来的？也投过这个杂志？ 娘的，去年中了好几篇国外的SCI。这个杂志的影响因子也不高，把我们认为创新性最好的文章投到这个杂志居然还是悲剧，以后不投他了，审稿人太多，理论性的文章总会碰到个别对理论不感兴趣的。

[ Last edited by longzai on 2011-1-3 at 17:37 ]
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2011-01-03 17:36:32
 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 5 个回答
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭