Improved General Correlation for Condensation in Channels
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations. Since the Author is an well recognized expert in the field of condensation heat transfer coefficient, frankly speaking I have no other comments or questions.
Author Response
There are no comments requiring a response.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this work the author shows an improved correlation to predict the condensation in mini and macro channels, verified with new data at quality close to 1.
Thank you to the author for this interesting paper. However, I consider it is necessary to improve some sections.
Abstract
Please, re-edit the abstract. Because the problem definition and the significance are not appreciated.
Introduction
This section is too short. There is a large paragraph in section 3.1, where you start with “Lee et al…” and finish with “Longo et al”, that I consider must be in the Introduction. It would be desirable to read about the important characteristics of the databases used, their sources, etc.
The introduction lacks a critical review of works by other authors in which there are studies related to the topics covered in the paper and, that with this it is possible to appreciate the relevance of the improvements made to the new correlation. The question remains about what results of the recent applications caused the previous correlation (Shah 2022) to be improved?
Both in the introduction and in other sections of the paper it is very repetitive to read that the data to be included are those with qualities greater than or equal to 0.99.
Section 2 (Shah correlation)
I consider the last paragraph is short, you must describe the improved details in the correlations of 2022 at least.
When you talk about Regimes, why in Regime III you only consider the flow pattern stratified and not the ‘slug’ and ‘plug’ too?
Section 3 (Present research)
I fail to appreciate the contribution of this paragraph.
Please, Explain how was deduced the new correlation. I consider it is really important to
Section 3.1
In equation 5, the variables hSAT and hFC, are not defined in nomenclature.
I consider these descriptions of existing correlations must be in Introduction, not here.
Section 3.2
Due to the interest in working with qualities greater than or equal to 0.99, does it make sense to work with flow patterns in which there is little steam, such as wavy and stratified?
Section 3.3
I would really appreciate being able to know what is the improved Shah correlation, because I don't know which equation it is. And, how was obtained the new correlation?
Section 4 (Data analysis)
The first line is repetitive.
In equations 23, 24 and 25, hc, hGS, GxD, are not in nomenclature.
Last sentence: “For these correlations, DHYD was used as the diameter in all calculations because that was specified by these authors.” Why do you think this is correct? Did you verified this?
Table 2. You have two Table 2 (the table caption is wrong in the first table, it must be Table 1).
Table 2. The real Table 2 (Range of new data analyzed and deviations) it is difficult to understand how the comparisons were made.
I suggest that the cited databases be included in the supplementary material.
Section 5.1 (Data showing large deviations), please correct because it says 4.1 instead 5.1
Second paragraph. When you say “… all their data at all qualities are similarly under-predicted by almost all correlations. It indicates that these data are unusually high.” Why can you assert this?
Section 5.4
I consider each paper must have its own personality and identity. When you say in second paragraph, first and second lines “The conclusions that can be drawn from them are the same as were stated in Shah (2022)”, you must delete this sentence and to write something new for your new paper.
Line 2. Reduced pressures lack of units.
First paragraph. This entire paragraph (4 lines) is the same as in the conclusions (point 3).
Section 6 (Conclusions)
I consider the 4 points are Results, not conclusions. I expect you write very particular conclusions that would be different from the previous paper (Shah 2022).
The conclusions should be based on the potential shown by the new correlation. For example, the fact that it predicts well for all geometries.
Point 3 must be eliminated (is exactly the same that in section 5.4 and it is described a result, not conclusion).
Please could you write in conclusions, Over what range does the heat transfer coefficient vary with a MAD of 22.1 % and how do you intend to associate it with a flow pattern?
It is really important to clarify how the new correlation differs from others applied, for example, to superheated steam?
Author Response
Response to Comments by Reviewer #2
Reviewers number 1 and 3 have found the paper satisfactory. This reviewer wants me to essentially re-write the whole paper. His views about how to write a paper are drastically different from mine and of the other reviewers. Many of his comments are incorrect or have already been addressed in the paper. For example, he comments “why in Regime III you only consider the flow pattern stratified and not the ‘slug’ and ‘plug’ too?” It is already stated in the second paragraph of Section 3.2 that Shah (2014) had determined that Regime III corresponds to stratified flow pattern.
I am replying only to those comments which are worth replying to.
Comment
There are two Table 2.
Response
Table number has been changed for the first table.
Comment
Section 5.1 (Data showing large deviations), please correct because it says 4.1 instead 5.1
Response
Section number has been changed to 5.1. Numbers of subsequent sections have also been changed accordingly.
Comment
In equation 5, the variables hSAT and hFC, are not defined in nomenclature.
Response
These definitions have been added to the Nomenclature.
Comment
In equations 23, 24 and 25, hc, hGS, GxD, are not in nomenclature.
Response
GxD is not a new symbol. It is G times x times D. The other two symbols have been explained directly below the equation in which they are used. They are not used any where else in the paper. Hence inclusion in the Nomnclature is not needed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this work, the author demonstrated an improved heat transfer coefficient correlation of two-phase flow condensation of refrigerants in both microchannels and microchannels. The present correlation improves the prediction at the quality regime larger than 0.99 and is essential for calculating the heat transfer coefficient near superheat regime. This work is qualified to publish in this journal. Some typos and the format of this manuscript should be checked.
Author Response
Reviewer has asked to check for typos and format. This has been done, Some corrections have been made to the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors and editors,
We, the reviewers, researchers, as well as the author and the editors, voluntarily dedicate time to review in the greatest possible detail the works that the authors send to the journal with the same dedication, within an atmosphere of mutual respect. Knowing and tacitly agreeing that the Journal has as a policy that the works received will be subject to this peer review.
With all due respect to the author, I comment that it is the first time in which the author decides what is good and what is bad, which is worrying, since it eliminates the possibility of enriching the work presented.
I still believe that the mission of each one of the reviewers is to maintain the highest quality standards of the Journal, where the contribution of each paper is clearly observed with sufficient information to justify said contribution.
The author responded to some of the observations, which shows that we seek the same goal, to achieve the best product. But I do not have enough information nor do I observe an adequate structure to clearly see what the contribution of the work is.
