Numerical Simulation of Passive Cooling Beam and Its Optimization to Increase the Cooling Power
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The following corrections should be done before further processing;
1- Abstract section should be rewritten more scientifically by presenting results in more detail.
2- The following references are recommended to cite in section 1
- CFD design and simulation of ethylene dichloride (EDC) thermal cracking reactor
- Velocity prediction of Cu/water nanofluid convective flow in a circular tube: Learning CFD data by differential evolution algorithm based fuzzy inference system (DEFIS)
- Impeller shape-optimization of stirred-tank reactor: CFD and fluid structure interaction analyses
3- Literature review is really poor and should be compared to the novelty of your work one by one. For example, say ...et al... did this and we present this. why is different and what are the novelties. It is not acceptable to say just the novel points without any comparison.
4- Don't use abbreviations in the title and abstract for the first time
5- Limitations of the work should be added and discussed.
6- The nomenclature section should be added to define each parameter and its units?
7- There is no discussion with previous literature in section 3?
8- please change section 1.1 as Governing equations and separate it from Introduction
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for this complex review.
I edited the manuscript according to the requirements of the review. I believe it's okay.
1-abstract repaired
2-references added
3-i add more literature for compare
4-abbreviations was change
5-add
6-nomenclature added
7-added
8-separate
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with passive cooling beam in order to increase its cooling capacity, selecting a passive cooling beam with four tubes, and developing the mathematical model using the corresponding criterion equations to determine and analyze the behavior of passive cooling beam, as well as to optimize geometrical parameters (distance ribs, rib height and thickness, diameter and number of tubes) to increase the cooling performance. The work includes a mathematical model to calculate the boundary layer, which has a significant influence on the cooling performance, and CFD simulation of the entire device and CFD simulation of flow in the intercostal space are developed to better understand the behavior of passive cooling beam in a confined space.
The research is interesting, as well as the results obtained by the simulation and the analysis.
However the standard of scientific English is so poor that the paper needs a complete review by a native or a specialist in scientific English in order to do it readable; jus as some examples, since the entire text have similar problems:
- Some sentences are not grammatically correct, as for instance “Result of simulations, which compared the percentage change in cooling power with variations in the flow of temperature gradient and flow rate at which the investigated cooling power convector and the percentage change in cooling capacity based on maximum power at a flow rate 0.06 kg/s”.
- Other ones present grammar mistakes, although the meaning of the sentence can be deduced, such as “The resulting simulations was be compared” or “The Gambit program was modeled cooling beam” or “The simulation results clearly show that by changing the spacing of the ribs to reach the biggest change of cooling power”
- And the punctuation must also be reviewed in detail
Finally, the state of the art is not complete. The last reference is of 2010. Recent references are needed in order to determine the most current advances in the field or in similar fields.
I think that for that reasons the paper is far from be candidate to be published, in its current state, but as the scientific and technical content are right and interesting, a good paper, worthy of publication, could be obtained by attending the recommendations and correcting the mistakes.
Author Response
Thanks and maunscript was send to english correction to MDPI for english editing.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It can be accepted in the current version
