Study on the Performance of Collaborative Production Mode for Gas Wave Ejector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presented the combined study of Performance of Collaborative Production Mode 2 for Gas Wave Ejector By numerical simulation and experimental test. This study is interesting and deep analysis. Below are my comments:
Abstract
Please specify what the performance parameters are.
Please modify the sentence "stable-pressure region average pressure" to give the reader more understanding.
Introduction
For each figure in the introduction, please emphasize what the critical component is as mentioned in the paragraph.
Methodology
Why the ideal gas was assumed?
Why the transient simulation was employed?
Results
As mentioned in the manuscript the collaborative mode can improve the device utilization while 444 having almost no effect on the total energy transfer efficiency of GWE. However, to give a more analysis, it is suggested that the authors elaborate what are the mechanism leading to this phenomena
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the manuscript is of great interested. I believe that the paper is well structured covering not only the numerical aspects but also the numerical ones thus giving higher value to the research.
However, I think there some points should be clarified.
1) More specifically, I do not think that the abstract and the conclusion perfectly matches. Conclusion should be arranged in such a way to first giving a clear explanation to what reported in the abstract and then it can include the additional information (like the one reported in the actual form).
2) I quote the abstract: “In conclusion, the collaborative mode improves the utilization of equipment while maintaining total efficiency, which can promote the popularization and application of GWE.” If I look at figure 9, the efficiency in the collaborative mode is not always higher than in single mode and the difference is not even negligible (see figure 9c). Could you explain better?
3) Figure 9. The letter in each box are not ordered. The figures in the middle row are labelled (e) and (f) but they should be actually labelled (c) and (d)
4) Figure 5a and 5b. Could you please comment the behavior of the curve at around 0.015m (minimum on fig a) and at around 0.05m (fig b). Do you have an explanation for this effect?
5) Fig 6b. I cannot understand the meaning of 0.5mm and 1mm in the legend of the figure. Please clarify.
6) Add minor grid in figures 5 and 6
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
