Design Options to Improve the Dynamic Behavior and the Control of Small H-Darrieus VAWTs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A good paper on H-VAWT optimization for acceleration is presented.

The paper abstract needs to be oriented to the method, result and outcome of the paper. Currently the abstract is more of an introduction to the field.  Keep a short motivation of the study.

The introduction is too long and unstructured. Write the introduction to cover areas required to understand the remaining paper. 

Additional small comments are found under the highlighted text in the attached copy of the paper. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The author would like to thank the reviewer for his valuable proofreading work. Since the undersigned is the sole author, and in the impossibility of comparing himself with other co-authors, this intervention was fundamental to arrive at clear drafting and, I hope, and relevant contribution for the wind sector.

Here the detailed comments to the review:

The paper abstract has been better focussed, introducing results and outcome.

The motivation of the study has been added.

The introduction has been halved, cutting not relevant parts. At the end of the section, the chapters have been listed and described to better guide the reader through the paper.

All highlighted items have been corrected, according to reviewer suggestions.

Best Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposed a rational design procedure based on the well-known Ashby approach, aiming to improve the performance of small H-VAWTs that can be easily extended to other VAWT architectures. Below are the detailed comments:

1. In sections of “Introduction” and “Background”, too much description about the development history and well-known theory foundation of H-VAWT technology, but little about the existing disadvantages. Therefore, the new contribution and the innovation of this manuscript is not clear.

2. The specific conclusions cannot be found in section of “Conclusion”.

3. It is suggested to modify the structure of this manuscript. The present structure is not friendly for readers. It is hard to understand what has done, what is the significance, what is the new contribution in this manuscript.

4. It is suggested to simplify the “Abstract”, focusing on the inadequacies of the contemporary generation of small H-VAWTs, the proposed solutions, and the expected effects.

5. In Figure 1, what do the X and Y axes represent?

6. In section of “BACKGROUND”, it is suggested to explain clearly the meaning of each symbol in formulas (1)-(3).

7. It’s suggested to number each small picture when several pictures are placed in one figure, such as Figure 2.

8. The English writing should be improved.

Author Response

The author would like to thank the reviewer for his valuable proofreading work. Since the undersigned is the sole author, and in the impossibility of comparing himself with other co-authors, this intervention was fundamental to arrive at clear drafting and, I hope, and relevant contribution for the wind sector.

Here, the detailed answer point by point to the comments:

1. The introduction has been better focussed, introducing results and outcomes. The motivation of the study has been added. The introduction has been halved, cutting not relevant parts. At the end of the section, the chapters have been listed and described to better guide the reader through the paper.
2. The conclusions have been more detailed and quantitative data have been indicated.
3. The structure of the manuscript has been reorganized inside the background section to give more basis to the method and to provide more progressivity to the arguments for the reader.
4. The paper abstract has been better focussed, introducing results and outcomes.
5. The figure is suppressed as too general and not fully relevant for the paper content, as suggested.
6. Formulas have been explained in detail.
7. Done
8. The actual version of the article has been corrected, after your suggestion, by the linguistic center of the University of Trento.

Best Regards

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Most comments were addressed.

Author Response

Minor spelling have been fixed. Thank you.

Best Regards

Lorenzo Battisti