Steady and Unsteady Flow Characteristics inside Short Jet Self-Priming Pump
and Shanshan Li 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 105: Please specify more about what features of the internal flow is studied in this paper in the introduction section.
Line 113: what is rated head H? Can it be refelcted in Figure 2?
Line 165: Is CFL number available for this simulation? If so, please indicate it in the manuscript.
Line 169: Should be "resolution" here, the term "sparsity" is confusing here.
Section 2.5: In this section, please indicate the maximum and minimum relative error in percentage for the range of Q selected in the manuscript.
Figure 8: The color table range for Q=5 m3/h is different from the other 2, please fix that.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The novelty and originality shall be justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective in addition to focusing on the issues of one country/region. The knowledge gap needs to be clearly addressed.
2. Literature review is insufficient to present the most updated status for further justification of the originality of the manuscript. The authors should carry out a thorough literature review of papers published in a range of top energy and resource journals in the last three/four years so as to fully appreciate the latest findings and key challenges relating to the topic addressed in the manuscript and to allow the authors to more clearly present their contributions to the pool of existing knowledge.
3. The discussion should be specific and detailed based on results found in this paper. The discussion usually contains a synthesis of the findings, the practical implications, the theoretical implications, the strengths and limitations of the research, and the future research directions. However, present discussion is really poor, and many contents are missing in this paper.
4. The implications are really general and have little guiding significance. The authors should improve this part.
Other minor revisions:
1.DOI is essential ,please added it;
2.Abstract: some quantitative results are needed
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors Yu et. al discussed influence of front injector structure on the internal flow properties of jet self-priming pump. This work is meaningful and difficult. However, in the reviewer opinion the paper needs minor revisions to be recommendable for publication.
1. In abstract, the description of the model and experiment method should be illustrated.
2. The keywords should be expanded, and improve five keywords.
3. In introduction, the research background of fluid-induced vibration and vortex flow pumping in the self-priming pump topics in recent years should be added. The following papers can provide some reference. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108376. 10.7498/aps.72.20221991. 10.3390/pr11020561
4. In section 2.2, the scale of the mesh division should be illustrated, and the total mesh number should be provided.
5. Why did the authors choose the standard turbulence model?
6. The boundary condition of the numerical model is missed, and which algorithm is used to solve the pressure and velocity of flow field.
7. What is the limitation of the proposed method.
No
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors present an interesting example of combining modeling results with experimental research. After reading the article, the reviewer proposes to consider and explain the following questions:
1. In the introduction, the purpose of the research should be explained precisely, not in general terms, i.e. how the research will affect the development of cognitive and applied knowledge. What parameters, according to the authors, can be optimized? What is the novelty of this research and the contribution of the authors to the improvement of the tested pump.
2. Justify why a specific type of JET1100 pump was selected?
3. Figure 4. What information does the reader receive from this drawing?
4. Provide the assumptions of the considered model along with justification.
5. Equations (1, 2, 3) - provide the exact source of the equation or accurately describe the physical basis for the author's equations. Why no epsilon time derivative (2).
6. Figure 5. Please correct kw to kW.
7. Figure 7. Why the pressure scales a, b, c are different. This makes comparison difficult. In addition, the drawings in individual moments are very close, what is the point of this?
8. Figure 11. The plots at different points are very close. I suggest rethinking the way of presenting the results in a more readable.
9. The conclusions are very general and somewhat obvious. Research results, their novelty and expected impact on application progress should be precisely described.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
No more sugestion. Article can be published as it is.
