Demand Law of Fabric Weight on the Airflow Velocity of a Gas-Assisted Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction of the study is sufficient, but the system in the study should also be supported by technical drawing. In this way, the first glance of the person reading the article will be easier to understand.

The discussion section should include a comparison chart. In this way, the superior dimension of the article is emphasized.

The table in the article should be carefully checked. There is a typo in the third column of the third row in Table 2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a study on sizing an air driven convey belt.
The discussion is rich and the amount of results is enough to substantiate the objective of the manuscript.
However, I recommend a deep check of the text structure because I feel there are some missing sentences.

I also have some detailed comments that should be addressed before publication

1.       Figures 1a and 1b are too small and not clear.
First of all the size should be increased. Secondly, it is not clear what is represented in the picture and if the representation is in a prospective view or in a projected view.
I suggest the authors to rethink about these two pictures, and possibly add some additional text with some arrows to clearly state what the elements in the picture are.

2.       Line 92. I think that the Bernulli principle is not properly presented. The Bernulli principle states that in a fluid that it is steady, incompressible and where the viscous forces are negligible, and neglecting the effect of gravity, the sum of dynamic and static pressure (i.e. the total pressure) remains constant.

3.       Line 95 V or Vx. Be consistent with the equation

4.       Line 97-103, the is an error in the paragraph syntax. Something is missing.

5.       Eq.4. What is S?

6.       Eq.5 Where does this equation come from? I suggest to better link the equation with the pictures in fig.1 to ease the understanding of the reader

7.       Line 135. Is it a paper or a pallet? I strongly encourage the authors to clearly state the problem and be consistent with the used names.

8.       Line 144. How is the critical Re number determined?

9.       Line 221. Sentence structure is wrong

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer Comments

The followings should be carefully addressed in the revision to be published in Applied Sciences.

1-      The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings and highlight novelty, (compare your work with existing research findings and highlight novelty).

2-      The authors should be followed the instruction of the journal in all parts and sections in this manuscript. Also, similarity index must be reduced to not more than 20% with not more than 3% from a source.

3-      Complete mathematic calculation model with all nomenclature missing

4-      The abstract needs more quantitative results. The abstract section is an important and powerful representation of the research. It is better that the results should be presented with the support of specified data.

5-      The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section,

6-      Introduction section must be written on more quality way, i.e. more up-to-date references addressed. Research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work,

7-      The authors should indicate this technique to enhance system performance. Also, the author should add more references that discuss the effect of using this technique. It is recommended that the authors carry out wide analysis and comparison with the state-of-the-art studies.

8-      Most tables and figures are needed improve the quality of all tables and figures.

9-      Add references for all equations.

10-  I would also expect to validate with two more experimental works available in the literature.

11-  The literature review must be improved. Please highlight in the literature review the differences between previous papers and your paper. Please clearly indicate the knowledge gap and prove that it is a really not analyzed area of the field. Please indicate new approach / new methods in a comparison to the existing investigations (literature review should be extended and add below references). Numerical Investigations of Transient Flow Characteristic in Axial Flow Pump and Pressure Fluctuation Analysis Based on the CFD Technique..Numerical investigation of flow field behaviour and pressure fluctuations within an axial flow pump under transient flow pattern based on CFD analysis method. Experimental investigation of the effect of air injection on performance and detection of cavitation in the centrifugal pump based on vibration technique.

12-  Description of the Algorithms analysis should be improved.

13-  You need to add error analysis of your results and add the error bars in your graphs to indicate your accuracy measurements.

14-  Improve work justification. Also, add more analysis about velocity and pressure contours.

15-  More quantitative conclusions should be presented. Please prepare additional comparisons, some percentage differences. There is a lack of quantitative conclusions which should contain main findings from the paper and highlight the new and high novelty and contribution of your work to the field.

16-  Present the mathematical equation of the boundary conditions and initial condition.

17-  Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify main research findings.

18-  The conclusion section on lacks in summative conclusions. The main results, novelty and academic contributions should be emphasized in this section. Moreover, are the results obtained in this paper really applicable in other similar researches?

19-  In the discussion development, it is very important to emphasize points of agreement or disagreement between results in this work and others cited in references part of manuscript.

20-  Authors should discuss limitations of the current study and possible improvements for future directions/research works.

21-  English language should be carefully checked and carefully check paper for language typos.

22-  Any authorship changes will need to have a specific, valid reason for the update that will be evaluated by the Editor according to journal defining authorship guidelines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors successfully addressed my comments.