Experimental Investigation on the DLC Film Coating Technology in Scroll Compressors of Automobile Air Conditioning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and it is adapt to this journal. The collaboration among several faculties is useful and I think that there is a great work behind the presentation of this work. However, while the presentation is nice in shape, there are few comments and/or suggestions to improve the manuscript.

-According to scientific standards, abbreviations cannot be used in the abstract, please correct it in the manuscript.

-Clarify better the innovation of this work in the abstract and in the main text.

-Read articles to understand the structure of Energies. Why didn't you use the energies Microsoft Word template document for the article? For this reason, the editing is not good because it does not follow the MDPI proposal.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies/instructions

-Please add more references because the number of scientific references are low. Please provide more general information on the importance of this topic in the introduction. At least 30 scientific manuscript need to use because this is a Q2 Journal!

-The manuscript must be at least 15-20 pages long (with MDPI style).

-Extend the conclusion with more general usability. What are the benefits of the results in a global context? Please explain this better in the manuscript.

-At the end of the study need to create a nomenclature / abbreviation table with units.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you so much for your reading and giving suggestions carefully. I modified all the parts you asked including the innovation points, abstract, longth and the number of the references, etc. Hope you will be satisfied with my revision. Best regards, Lantian Ji

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

-The format is not correct for Energies. 

-In Section 1, the authors firstly explained the works relating to the problems and so on. Section 1 is not well written, and it did not address the major issue that is imperative to be solved. As a reviewer’s point of view, the literature survey of this section is very weak, unfocused and insufficient. What is the essential problem of this work? The authors should really explain the drawback of approaches in related works especially instead of simply stating what they have done. The authors should discuss the mentioned references in the introduction part. 

-What is the major novel/contribution of this paper? In my view, there are many techniques adopted in the recent past for this problem. So, the authors should improve the section with the references. Please explain the main contribution related to previous approaches, and provide a list of paper’s contributions at the end of the introduction. 

-The abstract is not properly representative of the entire paper. Please make sure that your abstract is properly structured. In some places, the text should be revised to be more clear. 

-The results can be accepted as the conference scope, but not in the journal. Thus, further investigation and comparisons can be conducted to identify the validation of the proposed method.  Hence, unless the author can clearly conduct, this paper should not be accepted. I suggest a comparison with the literature, in order to prove the efficiency of the proposed method? It can be seen from the result section that mostly results are not compared with the latest published papers. 

-The authors are encouraged to provide a greater depth of discussion (more details), and modify the discussion and conclusion as well.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your reading and giving suggestions carefully. I modified all the content you asked like abstract, conlusion, discussion and innovation points, etc. I responded to all your replies. Hope you are satisfied with my modification.

 

Best regards,

 Lantian Ji

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents the coating of orbiting scrolls with a DLC film by unbalanced magnetron sputtering. The thickness of the film, the hardness, wear, morphology, its adhesion and structure were analysed. The properties of DLC coatings were compared to those of anodic oxide films. The paper presents interesting results. It has a good structure and can be read easily. Therefore, I think is can be accepted for publication after some minor changes.

 

1. It is not clear for me what “P1, P2, and P3” in Fig 1 mean.
2. Experimental Method, second sentence: maybe delete the “and” at the beginning of this sentence. Same remark on page 4, second sentence and on page 8, line 5. Maybe delete the “but" on page 8, line 7, in the beginning of the sentence.
3. Page 5, section 2.2.4, line 6: maybe replace “who” by “which”
4. Page 8, the sentence “the friction coefficient…”: Maybe reformulate the last part of this sentence to something like: “..with the anodic oxide film is not, showing an increasing trend”
5. Second paragraph on page 8: which “better” property of DLC film when compared to the anodic oxide ones is meant here?
6. Maybe the authors could add a bigger scale bar for the images in Fig. 7? Now it is very hard to see it in my copy.
7. Page 11, line 8. Maybe replace “from many researchers” to something like: “many researchers showed that the film thickness should be 2.5- 5 µm”
8. Conclusion, line 17: a typo occurred here. The sentence should start with “it…”
9. Maybe the authors could comment a bit more why the thickness of DLC film should be between 3 and 4 µm. What happens if the thickness of the film is more than 5 µm or below 3 µm?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your reading and giving suggestions carefully. I modified all the content you asked like some words and sentences, etc. I responded to all your replies. Hope you are satisfied with my modification.

 

Best regards,

 Lantian Ji

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for revising the paper.