Modelling of Water Drop Movement and Distribution in No Wind and Windy Conditions for Different Nozzle Sizes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Line 83 and 84: 250 kPa is doubled, correct the last to 300 kPa.
- Line 181: “A minimum of 10,0000 drops were produced….. “ it is ten thousand or one hundred thousand?
- Is the sprinkler traveler gun type or rotate type?? In case it is a rotate type, the study must be done with overlap consideration where the collision of the droplets affects the diameter, and therefore the data in this study are not representative of reality.
- On the experimental procedure, the authors did not explain how they produced wind with deferent speeds on lab, the wind instrument position and wind directions.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript titled ‘Modelling of Water Drop Movement and Distribution in No Wind and Windy Conditions for Different Nozzle Sizes(Manuscript ID: water-1392654). The comments are highly valuable and very helpful for improving our manuscript, as well as guiding the significance of our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made grammatical/sentence structure corrections in highlighted text based on the reviewer’s comments which we hope to meet your approval. The main responses to the reviewer’s comments can also be found in the Table below:
Comments reviewer I |
Author’s response |
|
1. - Line 83 and 84: 250 kPa is doubled, correct the last to 300 kPa. .
|
Thank you for this comment. We have changed it to 300kPa. |
|
2- Line 181: “A minimum of 10,0000 drops were produced….. “ it is ten thousand or one hundred thousand?
|
Thank you for this good observation. We used a minimum of 10,000 drops for the study. |
|
3- Is the sprinkler traveler gun type or rotate type?? In case it is a rotate type, the study must be done with overlap consideration where the collision of the droplets affects the diameter, and therefore the data in this study are not representative of reality.
|
Thank you for this good observation: Although the sprinkler is rotaing type but it was fixed in position during the experimental procedure. |
|
4. - On the experimental procedure, the authors did not explain how they produced wind with deferent speeds on lab, the wind instrument position and wind directions. .
|
Thank you for this comment: Wind with different speeds and direction were measured using 2D video distrometer. |
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript, and a great deal of changes in the manuscript according to the Reviewers’ good comments has been made. We appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ suggestions and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments, time and consideration. We look forward to the information about our revised paper.
Yours sincerely,
Alexander Fordjour
Research Center of Fluid Machinery Engineering and Technology
Jiangsu University, #301 Xuefu Road, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, China.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
|
Sl .no |
Page no |
Line number |
Suggestion |
Change to |
|
1. |
1 |
55 |
4.0mm, 3.2mm (leave the space between the decimal and unit ) |
4.0 mm, 3.2 mm |
|
2. |
9 |
259 |
by drag and gravity. [10], (remove the full stop before the reference number |
by drag and gravity [10], |
|
3. |
|
|
In table 3. O.841 (it looks like English text O) or check it the font size |
Make it as NUMNERICAL zero 0.841 |
|
4. |
10 |
268,269,270-271 |
Reference number 7 mentioned repeatedly in every lines between 268 to 278, Is there any particular reason. |
If you want to mention one reference for the whole paragraph just put it at the end, or use different references.
|
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript titled ‘Modelling of Water Drop Movement and Distribution in No Wind and Windy Conditions for Different Nozzle Sizes(Manuscript ID: water-1392654). The comments are highly valuable and very helpful for improving our manuscript, as well as guiding the significance of our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made grammatical/sentence structure corrections in highlighted text based on the reviewer’s comments which we hope to meet your approval. The main responses to the reviewer’s comments can also be found in the Table below:
|
Comments reviewer II |
Author’s response |
|||
|
Thank you for this comment. We have revised it as follows; The model was validated by 4.0 mm, 3.2 mm circular, and 3.5 mm square nozzles. |
|||
|
2.Line 259 by drag and gravity.[10], (remove the full stop before the reference number.
|
|
|||
|
3. In table 3. 0.841(it looks like English text O) or check it the front size. Make it as NUMERICAL zero 0.841 check it the front size
|
Thank you for this good observation: We have changed to 0.841. |
|||
|
4. Line 268,269,270-271 reference number 7 mentioned repeatedly in every line between 268 to 278, is there any particular reason. If you want to mention one reference for the whole paragraph, just put it at the end, or use different references.
|
Thank you for this good observation: We have moved it at the end of the paragraph. |
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript, and a great deal of changes in the manuscript according to the Reviewers’ good comments has been made. We appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ suggestions and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments, time and consideration. We look forward to the information about our revised paper.
Yours sincerely,
Alexander Fordjour
Research Center of Fluid Machinery Engineering and Technology
Jiangsu University, #301 Xuefu Road, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, China.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
