Evaporative Mist Cooling as Heat Dissipation Technique: Experimental Assessment and Modelling
, Servando Álvarez Domínguez 1, Francisco Toral Ulloa 3 and José Antonio Tenorio Ríos 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article interestingly describes an experiment with water cooling techniques used in an evaporative system in which water was considered as a bioclimatic vehicle to air condition spaces. The presented results are described in a clear and comprehensible way, which can guarantee its significant discussion and readability.
In terms of content and expertise, the article is made at a very good level, and therefore I present only a few observations that could help improve the article.
1. In the chapter "Results" in Experiment 3, you also refer to other studies. I, therefore, recommend calling the chapter "Results and discussion"
2. In chapter conclusion, I do not fully understand the sentence ?: "The most prominent conclusions drawn from this study are listed below." Should it be an item?
3. The most important thing in the conclusions. It would be appropriate to describe in a few sentences your other visions and assumptions of using such technologies in practice. This means how much energy these systems could save globally. Alternatively, describe the most dominant use of these techniques and systems and the prospects of use. The advantages and disadvantages can also be briefly summarized. For example, if these systems will be too large and occupy considerable areas? Issues such as location, performance and efficiency, and the like.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
An intersting and well conducted study. The research questions are clear, the methodology appropriate. THe experiments provide data that supports the findings and conclusions. A worthwhile contribution to the knowledge on the subject.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General conlusion: in this form the article is not recommended for publication. Revision is required for the cooments made and re-reviewing
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
See attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
For the article to be uderstandable to readers, it is necessary to take into account the above remarks and only then recommend it for publication
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have addressed all our comments, and I have no further objection to its publication.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Correct these comments and, without re-reviewing, the article can be recommended for publication
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and your constructive remarks. Sorry us for these inconveniences.
- As it turned out, the authors use the expression of the resistance force in the form
But this is not an expression of the resistance force in the Stokes form, as the authors state on line 234, but it is in the Newtonian form.
Response: Sorry for the inconvenience. It was a mistake when transcribing the notes on paper.
- On line 254, the authors give with an error the unit of measurement of the kinetic energy per unit volume . Should be so. It is not a good designation , better .
Response: Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for your suggestion. We are very sorry for this error along with the previous one.
- On line 272, the authors retained the old designation, although above on line 270 they use the new designation.
Response: Sorry us. We forgot it.
- The authors did not explain the formula (4), well, okay. Not a good designation , it is better to remove it. The authors give the unit of measurement of this value incorrectly. It should be like this: . +
Response: Thanks you for your revision. We have forgotten that the modeling is done per m2 of drop surface. We are sorry for the failure. We have corrected it.
- General conclusion:
Correct these comments and, without re-reviewing, the article can be recommended for publication.
Response: Thank you very much. Your review has helped us a lot and has also taught us how to improve our next publication in the future.
