Definition and Determination of Fin Substitution Factors Accelerating Thermal Simulations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Here are the comments for the manuscript:
- The word “we” should not be used in a scientific paper. In this manuscript, the frequency of using “we” is too high. The authors should refer to other publications.
- The authors should follow exactly the organization of the manuscript in the Word template. There is not appropriate in the current form.
- Quality of figures 1 and 2 is low.
- Page 1, line 24, the authors should not present citations like that. [1] and [2] should come with the name of the authors. Idem for other places.
- The literature review is very poor.
- The quality of English is not up to standard.
- Page 5, line 172: denoted by FSFA. Idem for other places.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
first of all, we would like to thank you for your feedback. We have implemented all of your comments. Please see the attachment. We hope that our revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Applied Science journal.
Yours sincerely,
Matthias Roppel, Frank Rieg and Stephan Tremmel
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a simplifying model for the treatment of finned arrays structures in CFD simulations for natural convection.
The structure of the paper corresponds to what is expected from a scientific article. The English of the paper is good, there are essentially no spelling mistakes or typos, I found one. The presentation of the research background is satisfactory and clear, the amount and range of references is adequate.
The description of the methodology is easy to follow and understand, and its level of detail allows expert readers to implement the procedure, which is an important quality indicator for a scientific publication. However, there is one part in this section that needs explanation:
164 "We do not consider radiation-related heat transfer, so that heat is dissipated from the finite array only via natural convection."
=> According to Table 6, e.g. in [23] T∞=293 and Tfb=314.5, 339, 360. If we calculate the approximate value of the radiation-induced HTC based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law, we obtain 0.44, 0.98 and 1.48 W/m2K. These values are between 10 and 25% of the 4.37, 5.34 and 5.86 W/m2K due to convection, which is a meaningful parallel heat path.
Please justify why, despite this, the heat transfer from radiation can still be neglected.
The case study presented demonstrates the usefulness of the method, it is very detailed and a useful resource for the reader.
The conclusion is supported by the paper. (If the above question is answered satisfactorily by the authors.)
A grammatical error:
163 because this are one of the best studied cases. => this is
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
first of all, we would like to thank you for your positiv feedback. We have answered your question about thermal radiation. Please see the attachment. We hope that our revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Applied Science journal.
Yours sincerely,
Matthias Roppel, Frank Rieg and Stephan Tremmel
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
How are you doing?
This is a good paper. For improvement some comments are given in the attached paper.
Best regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
first of all, we would like to thank you for your positiv feedback.We have implemented all of your comments. Please see the attachment. We hope that our revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Applied Science journal.
Yours sincerely,
Matthias Roppel, Frank Rieg and Stephan Tremmel
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript.
Minor point: for the next manuscripts, the authors must highlight ALL CHANGES in the manuscript (by colored text, ...).
