Room Air-Conditioning Operating as a Filling Box
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a study on the application of an integral model in the simulation of the transitory phenomenon that occurs when a room with air at high temperature (not comfortable for users but well insulated) is conditioned by recirculation of air with a certain flow rate, at a more comfortable temperature (for example, 27ºC). Although in principle the study follows acceptable guidelines, however, there are several issues that need to be addressed in order for the job to be more suitable. Thus, regarding the summary, although it describes the issue, it is understood that it should be clearer in its wording, specifying unequivocally the objective, the methodology, the results and the conclusions with the maximum possible clarity. Regarding the introduction, although it is basically correct, it is also understood that it could be clearer in its writing, lacking some references and revisions, which we believe are important in relation to the state of science and which have not been named. Regarding the methodology and mathematical model used, although in principle it is quite developed, it is very convenient to perfectly define its limitations, possible alternatives, comparison between them and justification based on the above. Another issue to be expanded is the description of the space in which the simulation is carried out, since we are talking about sensors and a space or box and it would be necessary to specify the technical characteristics of the first and provide an image of the second, as well as a further diagram operation of said system. Regarding the results, although they are adequate to the initial approach, they should be reviewed where appropriate, based on the aforementioned suggestions. Regarding the conclusions, the statement that the EMA integral model equipped with the conservation of the tracer (relative concentration or relative temperature) was finally appropriate must be qualified. This must also be referenced with respect to the proposed technique to treat the transient phenomenon as a quasi-stationary state together with the novel bottom-up approach method to produce layers by the floating jet formed by the cold air leaving the air device conditioned.
On the other hand, it must be said that several of the points included in the consults are summary results rather than conclusions (especially points 2 to 6). Regarding point 7 in which it is stated that the model could be used for the evaluation of air conditioning systems that work in rooms, there is agreement but some of the conditions and limitations in this regard should be reversed.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the reviewer for his/her useful suggestions regarding the present paper. The comments were addressed in the revised manuscript, along with some modifications, corrections, and improvements made by the authors. The changes are shown by yellow colour in the annotated revised manuscript, which accompanies the present response letter.
Specific response to the comments of reviewer #1:
Comment: “Thus, regarding the summary, although it describes the issue, it is understood that it should be clearer in its wording, specifying unequivocally the objective, the methodology, the results and the conclusions with the maximum possible clarity.”
Reply: The Abstract is appropriately modified to be clearer and at the same time not to exceed 200 words. The first three lines describe the objective of the study. The next seven lines describe the methodology, while the rest lines describe the application, the results, and conclusions.
Comment: “Regarding the introduction, although it is basically correct, it is also understood that it could be clearer in its writing, lacking some references and revisions, which we believe are important in relation to the state of science and which have not been named.”
Reply: The introduction is revised, and its clarity is improved. It is also enriched by fifteen additional references, which are considered important in relation to the state of science.
Comment: “Regarding the methodology and mathematical model used, although in principle it is quite developed, it is very convenient to perfectly define its limitations, possible alternatives, comparison between them and justification based on the above.”
Reply: The limitations of the methodology and the mathematical model concern in the two-dimensionality. A related description is given in lines 356-364.
Comment: “Another issue to be expanded is the description of the space in which the simulation is carried out, since we are talking about sensors and a space or box and it would be necessary to specify the technical characteristics of the first and provide an image of the second, as well as a further diagram operation of said system.”
Reply: The space description is adapted in the needs of the present simulation, including only information, which is considered necessary for the present case study. The space is demarcated in Fig.1 of the revised manuscript. The experimental details regarding the temperature measurements are described by He et al. (2021), who do not however provide the technical characteristics of the sensors used. A further diagram regarding the operation of the said system is provided in Fig. 3 of the revised manuscript.
Comment: “Regarding the results, although they are adequate to the initial approach, they should be reviewed where appropriate, based on the aforementioned suggestions.”
Reply: In the results section, several revisions and improvements have been made.
Comment: “Regarding the conclusions, the statement that the EMA integral model equipped with the conservation of the tracer (relative concentration or relative temperature) was finally appropriate must be qualified. This must also be referenced with respect to the proposed technique to treat the transient phenomenon as a quasistationary state together with the novel bottom-up approach method to produce layers by the floating jet formed by the cold air leaving the air device conditioned. On the other hand, it must be said that several of the points included in the consults are summary results rather than conclusions (especially points 2 to 6). Regarding point 7 in which it is stated that the model could be used for the evaluation of air conditioning systems that work in rooms, there is agreement but some of the conditions and limitations in this regard should be reversed.”
Reply: The EMA integral model equipped with the conservation of the tracer (relative concentration or relative temperature) has been qualified by comparing model predictions with experimental measurements available in the literature regarding both vertical and inclined plane buoyant jet cases in stratified environments. This additional material is given in Appendix A of the revised manuscript. In addition, appropriate modifications have been made in the conclusions.
Please, also see the attachment of the annotated revised version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Respons.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have presented a very interesting research work. The paper is optimal for publication in the journal and can be useful for the scientific community. Only a few minor comments are highlighted:
The summary should specify more that has been achieved in this research, since it only mentions that the results are encouraging, but without affecting it.
The introduction develops some works very well, although others are cited only in passing, little described. In addition, it would be convenient to add the main objective of this research at the end.
In section 3, the peculiarities of this case study should be further highlighted and why it was chosen for study in this research. The mathematical development presented, although correct, is somewhat cumbersome for readers.
There is a jump on page 11
It would be convenient to carry out a better discussion of the results based on other similar previous studies. Especially the section where the Values of the Brunt – Väisälä frequency are explained
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the reviewer for his/her useful suggestions regarding the present paper. The comments were addressed in the revised manuscript, along with some modifications, corrections, and improvements made by the authors. The changes are shown by yellow colour in the annotated revised manuscript, which accompanies the present response letter.
Specific response to the comments of reviewer #2:
Comment: “The summary should specify more that has been achieved in this research, since it only mentions that the results are encouraging, but without affecting it.”
Reply: The Abstract is appropriately modified to be clearer and at the same time not to exceed 200 words. The first three lines describe the objective of the study. The next seven lines describe the methodology, while the rest lines describe the application, the results, and conclusions.
Comment: “The introduction develops some works very well, although others are cited only in passing, little described. In addition, it would be convenient to add the main objective of this research at the end.”
Reply: The introduction is revised according to the reviewers’ suggestions, and its clarity is improved. It is also enriched by fifteen additional references, which are considered important in relation to the state of science. The main objective of the research is clearly described at the end of introduction.
Comment: “In section 3, the peculiarities of this case study should be further highlighted and why it was chosen for study in this research. The mathematical development presented, although correct, is somewhat cumbersome for readers.”
Reply: The case study peculiarities and the objective of the methodology are described in sections 2 and 3. A description of the methodology limitations is given in lines 356-364. The description of the mathematical model is supplemented by the more extended publications of the authors to help for better understanding by the readers.
Comment: “There is a jump on page 11.”
Reply: Sorry, but the authors cannot see any jump on page 11.
Comment: “It would be convenient to carry out a better discussion of the results based on other similar previous studies. Especially the section where the Values of the Brunt – Väisälä frequency are explained”.
Reply: In the results section, several revisions and improvements have been made. An additional discussion has been made for explaining the Brunt – Väisälä frequency.
Please, also see the attachment of the annotated revised version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
