Experimental Study of the Performance of a Novel Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responses are satisfactory and now it is acceptable for pubishing.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper reads well, especially after the revision. I do not have further comments and therefore recommend it for publishing.

Reviewer 3 Report

I still can not accept the response of additional experiments not being

able to be conducted.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I send comments / suggestions  to revise the paper.

 

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her careful review of the paper and for his/her helpful comments. Please see the responses to your review comments below:

The research aims and its necessity have been specified in the abstract as recommended. See lines 27-29 of the revised manuscript. A brief description highlighting the difference between the AVAWT has been added to the introductory section of the manuscript. See lines 43-45 of the revised manuscript. The sections of the manuscript have been numbered correctly as required. Section 4.0 in the original manuscript has been merged with section 5.0 and this section is now section 3.0 of the revised manuscript. Figure 2. Has been corrected to make the dimensions more visible. The manuscript has been proof-read and all spacing issues have been corrected. All the words underlined as misspelled words are not standard English words. They are mostly names which may not be English names. The manuscript has been already formatted by the Journal and all revisions made are in keeping with the Journal’s format. All the quotation marks on references have been discarded as recommended. Each author’s contribution to the paper has been included as recommended. Please, be informed that, the entire paper has been reviewed plate numbers have been replaced with figure numbers. All you review comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my comments in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her careful review of the paper and for his/her helpful comments. Please see the responses to your review comments below:

 

The spacing issue on line 12 of the original manuscript has been corrected. See line 13 of the revised manuscript. The statement on line 32 of the original manuscript which read, “In their bid to demonstrate………..;” has been rephrased to read, “ In order to investigate the…………”. See lines 45- 46 or the revised manuscript. The full stop or period at the end of et al. on line 119 of the original manuscript has been inserted as required. See line 120 of the revised manuscript. The missing space between the full stop or period and Scheurich on line 123 of the original manuscript has been provided in the revised manuscript. See line 124 of the revised manuscript. The full stop of period at the end of et al. on line 129 of the original manuscript has been inserted as required. See line 128 of the revised manuscript. The missing space between the full stop or period and There on line 132 of the original manuscript has been provided in the revised manuscript. See line 131 of the revised manuscript. All equation numbers have been aligned as required see the revised manuscript for the corrections. All fig. and eqns in the original manuscript have been capitalized. See the revised manuscript for the corrections. All instrument precisions have been formatted to font size 10 by the Journal. See the revised manuscript for the corrections made. All equations have been formatted to font size 10. See the revised manuscript for the corrections. The missing space between the full stop or period and 7 on line 327 of the original manuscript has been provide in the revised manuscript. See line 308 of the revised manuscript. The font size of lines 364-365 on the original manuscript have been changed to font size 10. See the revised manuscript for the corrections. The missing space between the full stop or period and 9 on line 373 of the original manuscript has been provide in the revised manuscript. See line 355 of the revised manuscript. The missing spaces between .30 and [3], ,42 and [4] and .3385 and [8] on lines 397, 398 and 399 of the original manuscript have been provided in the revised manuscript. See lines 395, 396 and 397 of the revised manuscript. The missing spaces on lines 451 and 453 of the original manuscript have been inserted. See lines 441 and 442 of the revised manuscript for the corrections. The statement between lines 468 and 472 of the original manuscript which read, “While it is difficult to make a good………..;” has been replaced with, “ The AVAWT model used in this experiment…………”. See lines 457 to 458 of the revised manuscript. Please, be informed that, the entire paper has been reviewed plate numbers have been replaced with figure numbers.   All the reviewer’s comments have been addressed accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

1.Format of equations should be improved.

2. Test conditions of wind speed profile should be shown in the section of experimental procedures.

3.Some  more experimental test conditions of tip speed ratio near 0.4~ 0.45 are suggested to be investigated. And experimental datas of the Reynolds Number around 1.1~1.3 should be further considered in the analysis.  

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her careful review of the paper and for his/her helpful comments. Please see the responses to your review comments below:

All equations have been formatted to font size 10 as required by the journal. No test condition of wind profile is shown because this experiment was purposely carried out to investigate the technical feasibility of the newly invented vertical axis wind turbine, so that, the inventor could demonstrate to potential investors that it could be scaled up to a commercial vertical axis wind turbine. Besides, the wind tunnel used in carrying out the experiment did not have such capabilities. No addition tests are possible at this time because, the model has been scrapped and the wind tunnel does not exist anymore. The fan motor could not produce wind speeds corresponding to tip speed ratios of 0.4 – 0.45 and Reynolds numbers 1.1 – 1.3. Please, be informed that, the entire paper has been reviewed plate numbers have been replaced with figure numbers.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Experimental test conditions should be well controlled. Detail calibration

of current profiles are sggested to be conducted in the experiment. I still

have no further information about that in the revised version. Additional

experiments are needed.