An Uncertainties Simulation Model Applied to an Automated Laminar Flowmeter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The weaknesses of the article is introduction. It is not clear what is already known about Data Acquisition System for Automated Laminar Flowmeter.
The rest of the paper looks interesting for the readers and describe a case study for Microelectromechanical System calibration and verification. Research question clearly outlined and conclusions supported by results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors appreciate the suggestion of improving the introduction.
With the changes made in the introduction, it became more explicit what is scientifically innovative in this work.
Best regards.
The authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents the results of the simulation of automated Laminar flow meter.
Overall, the structure of the paper is more like a report than an actual paper. The academic merit is rather low. Without a significant improvement of the simulation model, it is hard to see it is able to fit into publication in this Journal.
The main method as reflected in eq 1 -4 does not reflect any proper scientific contribution. A significant innovation is needed to be considered as appropriate for publication.
Author Response
Dear Review,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
This paper was submitted to the special issue entitled “Experimental Mechanics, Instrumentation and Metrology”. The theme of this work is included in Metrology in Flow Measurement/ Analysis and assessment of uncertainties/ Development and performance of flow metering technology.
This work does not present, only, a numerical approach or a simulation model. The main purpose of this work was developed a new experimental solution to perform tests to the aircraft oxygen regulators. These tests must simulate the work conditions. In this new experimental solution MEMS were used. And, this kind of sensors used in this specific application is scientifically innovative.
But, for this experimental solution be accepted in metrological terms, the accuracy must be calculated, and a model of uncertainties must be developed and stablished. And this is scientifically important and innovative.
The equations 1 (Pressure Drop) and 2 (Volumetric Flowrate) are the fundamental to calculate the Actual Volumetric Flowrate (equation 3) and the Standard Volumetric Flowrate (equation 4). The MEMS capture pressure and temperature and drop pressure and the experimental solution developed, stabilize signal from the sensors and convert them if it is necessary. And the software developed for this solution generates three outputs (Volumetric Flowrate, Actual Volumetric Flowrate and Standard Volumetric Flowrate). Then the accuracy and the calculation of the uncertainties are made for these 3 outputs. So, the equations 1-4 are very important for explain this work.
Then, an uncertainties simulation model was developed to study and guarantee the quality of the measurements. The 3 outputs accuracies and the uncertainties were calculated and stablished. And, this solution is innovative and scientifically very important.
Sincerely.
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors of the reviewed paper ”An uncertainties simulation model applied to an automated laminar flowmeter” were studied a way to automate laminar flowmeters used on oxygen regulator test benches. The paper is too short, in my opinion all of its sections should be expanded. The experimental part should be explained in more details. The work is generally prepared at the good level, however, some weak points mentioned below that should be clarified and improved by the authors before publication:
Affiliations: please complete the affiliation with the city and country. Page: 2, Line: 45: Please eliminate the conjunction hanging at the end of the line – move "a" to the next line. Page: 2, Line: 81: Should be ”Figure 1” rather than ”figure 1”. All presented figures should have a higher resolution. Page: 3, Line: 95/101: Should be ”Equation 2, Equation 3” rather than ”equation 2, equation 3”. Page: 3, Line: 96: Value and unit must be on the same line. Page 4: The experimental setup is poorly described and need improve. Please pay attention to the names of the components used and their manufacturers (including software) - these are, contrary to appearances, important information. Page: 4, Line: 139: Should be ”Table 2” rather than ”table 2”. The all presented tables should be made as editable, not pasted as an graphics. In English, a dot is used as an separator, to express tenths, hundredths and thousandths (e.g. 2.5), whereas a comma or space is used to express values in hundreds, thousands and millions (e.g. 1,000 or 1 000). Please check and correct in the tables. Page: 5, Line: 149: Should be ”Table 3” rather than ”table 3”. Page: 8, Line: 166: Should be ”(Tab. 4)” rather than ”(Table 4)”. The authors use many symbols and acronyms. I suggest consider inserting their explanation in the Nomenclature at the end of the work (after the Conflicts of Interest). Please carefully check English language and grammar.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your improvement suggestions. All the correction suggestions that you proposed have been made and the experimental part was improved with more experimental details.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The theoretical contribution of the paper is rather limited. The simulation part is still not significant or described clearly in details which need to be improved (section 4).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank all the improvement suggestions and corrections.
Best regards.
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
