A Similarity Model of the Cooling Process of Fluids during Transportation†
, René Pyszko 2 and Natália Jasminská 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
your work tries to generalize the relationship between some important physical properties that are affected by the transportation of the fluids, managing to simulate the underlying complex, and not easy to describe, mathematical equations that govern this phenomenon. Your approach achieves great results, while its complexity is much looser than this of the actual problem. I have some minor issues, that i describe here:
- your work seems easy to follow, but there are some presentation and syntax defects. More specifically, the Section 1 needs to close with a paragraph that summarizes what follows in the next Sections, rather than the current closing. Please also capitalize the word Section, when you refer to manuscript's Sections.
- some related works along with their modeling approaches, or some further comments should be added in Section 2,
- System (10) cannot be presented through a matrix, but with a bracket that included the corresponding equations. Please re-write this part,
- in lines 139-141 you define some arguments and entities that are mentioned previously, in formula (6), where you do not describe them, and it is really difficult for the reader to understand it easily.
- Moreover, formulas (11) and (20) have a double notation: besides the aforementioned ordering, they also have another one, mentioned as (1) and (2). Please be more careful with such mistakes.
- The figures 3,4, and 5 also seem too simplistic. You could either provide more curves from additional simulations, or provide curves that come from different models or similar assumptions, either more simplified or less ones.
- Finally, during the regression task that you solved, how was actually used the mentioned number of recordings (972) ? Did you make any train/test split for getting these metrics? Please provide some further comments, and discuss or mention in the conclusions that other regression models could also be exploited. Since this model seems to be captured easily by a few labeled data, some semi-supervised regression methods could be exploited: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2019.07.022.
Author Response
The comments to the reviewer questions are in attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a detailed and well-qualified study. I suggest accepting the paper as it is.
Author Response
Review – no comments to present.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the reviewer's opinion, the paper cannot be accepted as it is for publication. Strong improvements are required from the authors. Please find in the following the reasons of this harsh suggestion.
- Innovation from the present paper is not clear at all; the authors are presenting a problem which is rather simple to be solved from both equations and numerical predictions point of views,
- Please provide details about governing equations, and rearrange also boundary conditions and numerical solution description referred to the problem here investigated (section 4). This is mandatory to let the paper considered for publication,
- For a cylinder, Eq. (1) should not be 4*d? Are the authors considering layer thickness too?
- How did the authors model the upper part of the tank in Fig. 1? Are they neglecting interpenetration (i.e., evaporation then air humidity change) between the two fluids?
- Please describe to which fluids (or, equivalently, temperature ranges) are the viscosity investigated making references (see Fig. 3)
Author Response
The comments to the reviewer questions are in attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper can be accepted for publication
