The Effect of a Three-Blade Tube on the Pneumatic Transport of Pebble Particles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article can be considered for the publication if the following queries have been answered. 

1. How does the flow field distribution change after loading pebble particles into the three-blade spiral tube, and what impact does this have on the maximum velocity of the flow field?

 

2. What is the relationship between conveying distance and swirl intensity in the pneumatic transport of pebble particles, and how does the initial air velocity affect swirl variation?

 

3. What is the significance of the pitch in relation to the initial swirl intensity, and how does the swirling flow impact the fluidization of particles and energy loss?

 

4. How does increasing the swirl affect the degree of particle dispersion, and what is the optimal tangential airflow velocity for conveying 3 mm particles while maximizing energy efficiency?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing is needed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting, and covers a challenging field. HOwever, there are some improvement needed before publication. My comments are the following:

All abbreviation should be described on first occurence.

Please avoid lumped references. All the mentioned articles should be described with at least half a sentence. Please use spaces after the brackets.

Page 2 LIne 68 The authors state the swirling flow induced explosive growth of turbulent kinetic energy - compared to what?

Page 3 Line 120 What is model B? Please describe in detail.

Section 4.1 Model validation The model results should be continuous line, and the experimental should be markers. The legend of the figure is not correct.
What software have you used, is it an original, or a commercial one.

Mesh independence study should also be included beside the model validation.

Figure 6, the resolution of the surface plots is poor, the mesh resolution should be increased at least to produce acceptable plots.

It is not clear, where the swirling parts are. Some cross section of the geometry should also be added. It is just a wall, or there are some kind of baffles inside also? Please describe it in detail.

What is the pressure of the system? What is the colours means in Figure 11.

Page 14 line 378 How high this value is compared to the minimum fluidization velocity (or pressure).

It is not clear how the particle energy is calculated. Please refer to the equations even it is a simple one.

Page 16 LIne 421 Where were those extreme points, where the tangential velocities was measured.

The novelty, and the contribution to the Energies Journal should be highlighted. It is not clear how this topic relates to the Energies Journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully replied to the queries raised so I recommend acceptance of the following article. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition of our paper. Your comments have played a vital role in improving our article. We will continue to work hard and wish you smooth work and a happy life!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made excellent work to answer my questions. Only 1 thing remains in the validation figure the experimental word is still mispelled, please correct that.

Good work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx