Numerical and Analytical Investigation of an Unsteady Thin Film Nanofluid Flow over an Angular Surface

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors.

Quantification of results need to be shown in the abstract and conclusion of the manuscript

The experimental conditions assumed to obtain the HAM and numerical values need to be included in the manuscript.

In fig 9-12, the unsteadiness factor S in axial and radial velocity in drainage and induced flow is explained. In results and discussion section, lines 144-151 the authors are primarily explaining the  plots but the scientific reasoning for change in the curve is not explained.

Though this manuscript is primarily intended to explain the numerical study, still comparing the results with the experimental results (published by others) will enhance the quality of the manuscript. 

The quality of figures (plots) need to be improved significantly.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Reviewer Comments Required)

Quantification of results need to be shown in the abstract and conclusion of the manuscript

Reply: It is done accordingly in the revised manuscript.

Thank you for this notice

The experimental conditions assumed to obtain the HAM and numerical values need to be included in the manuscript.

Reply: Homotopy Asymptotic Method (HAM) is semi-numerical technique through which the problem has been solve while for the accuracy a numerical method is implemented.

Thank you for this notice

In fig 9-12, the unsteadiness factor S in axial and radial velocity in drainage and induced flow is explained. In results and discussion section, lines 144-151 the authors are primarily explaining the plots but the scientific reasoning for change in the curve is not explained.

Reply: In fig.9-1, we have shown only analytically the impact of S on axial and radial velocity in the case of drainage and induced flow through graphs.

Though this manuscript is primarily intended to explain the numerical study, still comparing the results with the experimental results (published by others) will enhance the quality of the manuscript. 

Reply: The comparison of the HAM results with numerical method is for the sake of accuracy purpose

Thank you for this notice

The quality of figures (plots) need to be improved significantly.

Reply: The quality of the figures in the revised manuscript has been improved accordingly.

Thank you for this notice

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer regrets that the document in its current form cannot be published. Although the topic is interesting, the document has not been structured in scientific form. It is not clear what the added value of work is compared to the scientific literature. The references are not enough and not recent. So, the reviewer suggests to revise it completely before submitting it to a Journal.

Author Response

Reviewer #2
The reviewer regrets that the document in its current form cannot be published. Although the topic is interesting, the document has not been structured in scientific form. It is not clear what the added value of work is compared to the scientific literature. The references are not enough and not recent. So, the reviewer suggests to revise it completely before submitting it to a Journal.

Reply: The whole manuscript has been revised and some new references are also, added in manuscript.

Thank you for this notice

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper focuses on the numerical investigation of unsteady thin film nanofluid flow over an
angular surface. My main concerns for this paper are:

1. There is not much novelty presented. What is the real application of this study to real problems?

2. Comparison of results are made between numerical and analytical approaches focused on an idealistic problem. The paper can have a bigger impact if the model is assessed against real experimental data. 

3. The paper certainly requires major revisions in order to reach the required publication of Points 1 and 2 above.

Author Response

Reviewer #3

This paper focuses on the numerical investigation of unsteady thin film nanofluid flow over an
angular surface. My main concerns for this paper are:

1.       There is not much novelty presented. What is the real application of this study to real problems?

Reply: The problem concerning the liquid condensate from a cool, saturated vapour has a vital role in the field of chemical and applied sciences. This phenomenon has been tackled by many researchers in a variety of different conditions Miladinova et al. [1]

     Thank you for this notice

2.       Comparison of results are made between numerical and analytical approaches focused on an idealistic problem. The paper can have a bigger impact if the model is assessed against real experimental data. 

Reply: The comparison of the HAM results with numerical method is for the sake of accuracy purpose through graphs and tables.

Thank you for this notice

3.       The paper certainly requires major revisions in order to reach the required publication of Points 1 and 2 above.

Reply: Point 1 and point 2 has been addressed accordingly in the revised manuscript.

Thank you for this notice

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your edits on your manuscript. The manuscript still needs some improvement in English writing.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have reviewed the paper according to the reviewer suggestions. I would like recommend this paper for publication.