Analytical Assessment of (Al2O3–Ag/H2O) Hybrid Nanofluid Influenced by Induced Magnetic Field for Second Law Analysis with Mixed Convection, Viscous Dissipation and Heat Generation
, Nabeela Parveen 2, Aamir Ali 2, Saeed Ehsan Awan 3, Muhammad Yousaf Malik 4 and Yigang He 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Some parts of the pdf are not recognizable. Page 2 the equation has a strange symbol. Probably the same error may apply elsewhere.
Table 1 (beta) parameter row is not ok in terms of units. Also, the same table values for beta is not in agreement (or at least not certain what it is) with the author's report in Alexandria Engineering Journal (2016) 55, 2107.
You need to include details for the homotopy code. Also, please you need to give a clear help to your readers about what is really different in this work wrt to previous similar works.
The authors in other publications had released much more information about homotopy codes. They have also used very much similar models, and need to explain to the readers what is new in this work (but really new) and why some of the tables values provided here are not in agreement with their other previously published data.
Author Response
Referee 1:
Question 1: Some parts of the pdf are not recognizable. Page 2 the equation has a strange symbol. Probably the same error may apply elsewhere.
Answer 1: Pdf version of manuscript is checked and corrected. All such typo errors throughout the manuscript are removed. Please see the revised version.
Question 2: Table 1 (beta) parameter row is not ok in terms of units. Also, the same table values for beta is not in agreement (or at least not certain what it is) with the author's report in Alexandria Engineering Journal (2016) 55, 2107.
Answer 2: According to your suggestion, unit of parameters is rewritten. Please check Table 2. Moreover, values of thermophysical parameters are rechecked carefully. All typo error are removed.
Question 3: You need to include details for the homotopy code. Also, please you need to give a clear help to your readers about what is really different in this work wrt to previous similar works.
Answer 3: As recommended, details of homotopy code are included in the manuscript. A convergence table is included as well in order to ensure accuracy of results. In the abstract of revised version, aim of our work is clearly represented.
Question 4: The authors in other publications had released much more information about homotopy codes. They have also used very much similar models, and need to explain to the readers what is new in this work (but really new) and why some of the tables values provided here are not in agreement with their other previously published data.
Answer 4: Details about homotopy code are now provided in revised version. Methodology with initial operators and initial approximations have been presented in the revised version. Moreover, in the literature review, previously published work is clearly explained and deficiencies are marked on the basis of which present study is carried out. Moreover, the values of thermophysical parameters presented in this work are taken literature. We have incorporate the accurate values in this manuscript whereas some author use the round off figure. As per our knowledge one can consider the round off figure for simplicity.
Reviewer 2 Report
-The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. The authors should rewrite the abstract for these standards.
-Define all abbreviation “ODEs” even the chemical formula "Al2O3-Ag" when you use it as first time.
-Page10 Table 2 and 3 correct the chemical formula of H2O. correct the letter "O".
-There is mistake in question number 1. there is unknown symbol.
-define every symbol after each equation one by one.
-In the section of introduction; present some details about Al2O3 as in "DOI: 10.1017/S1431927615015780 and DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.02.076" and Ag as in "DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.05.079"
Author Response
Referee 2
Question 1: -The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. The authors should rewrite the abstract for these standards.
Answer 1: The abstract of work in revised version is rewritten according these standards. Purpose of study is clearly explained and major conclusions are included as well. Please see abstract.
Question 2: Define all abbreviation “ODEs” even the chemical formula "Al2O3-Ag" when you use it as first time.
Answer 2: As suggested ne the referee all suggested abbreviations are defined throughout the manuscript.
Question 3: Page10 Table 2 and 3 correct the chemical formula of H2O. correct the letter "O".
Answer 3: As suggested, chemical formula of water is corrected. See Tables 3 and 4 on page 16 in the revised version of manuscript.
Question 4: There is mistake in equation number 1. there is unknown symbol.
Answer 4: Equation 1 is corrected in revised pdf version. Please check equation 8 on page number 6.
Question 5: Define every symbol after each equation one by one.
Answer 5: In section 2 of the manuscript, each symbol is defined within the mathematical expressions and equations.
Question 6: In the section of introduction; present some details about Al2O3 as in "DOI: 10.1017/S1431927615015780 and DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.02.076" and Ag as in "DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.05.079".
Answer 6: In the introduction section, reasons for preference of Al2O3 and Ag are explained. See first paragraph in introduction section on page number 2 and 3.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Many thanks for your work. You did a great job; however, it is very far to be accepted in coatings. Please find below comments on your work:
1- The title is very general there are plenty works in different geometries which represents similar data. Please make it more specific!
2- The Abstract is very strange! In your abstract you started to report how you present your results! It is good for a report not for a scientific paper!
3- The introduction is presented very weak! It is not defined well.
4- Where is your novelty? I can not see that! It is a kind of report? What was the purpose of the authors to present the work as such!
5- There is no connection between some sentences! No connections between the titles!
6- The figures are presented with the minimum quality and not enough description provided!
7- Many terms and definitions are not described in the text and not in a nomenclature table.
8- The Concluding remarks are obvious! Nothing new in this field!
Author Response
Referee 3
Question 1: The title is very general there are plenty works in different geometries which represents similar data. Please make it more specific!
Answer 1: As recommended, the title of manuscript is revised as suggested by the referee in revised version in order to make it more clearly for the reader to get the insight of the considered analysis.
Question 2: The Abstract is very strange! In your abstract you started to report how you present your results! It is good for a report not for a scientific paper.
Answer 2: As suggested, the abstract of the paper is revised and written properly to make it more appropriate for the readers.
Question 3: The introduction is presented very weak! It is not defined well
Answer 3: As suggested, the introduction is revised properly according to the factors of new work of this study. Please check the introduction on page 1-4.
Question 4: Where is your novelty? I cannot see that! It is a kind of report? What was the purpose of the authors to present the work as such!
Answer 4: In the revised version of paper, novelty of our work is clearly presented in abstract, aim, analysis and conclusions.
Question 5: There is no connection between some sentences! No connections between the titles!
Answer 5: Manuscript is carefully revised and grammatical errors are removed in sentences.
Question 6: The figures are presented with the minimum quality and not enough description provided!
Answer 6: In the revised manuscript, the presentation of figures is revised with clear behaviors. Furthermore, physical description of each graphical result is explained more deeply. Please check figures and results and discussion section in revised version.
Question 7: Many terms and definitions are not described in the text and not in a nomenclature table.
Answer 7: As suggested, all terms and symbols used in text equations of problem are carefully defined. Please check in Problem development section 2 of revised manuscript.
Question 8: The Concluding remarks are obvious! Nothing new in this field!
Answer 8: In this manuscript, conclusions of work are carefully noticed regarding effects of new parameters. The whole section is revised properly. Please check section 5 “concluding remarks”
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Many thanks for the revised version. I can see that the paper has been improved a lot and all my comments/concerns have been properly addressed.
