Acoustic and Flow Aspects of Synthetic Jet Actuators with Chevron Orifices
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents the results of some experiments to study the acoustic and flow aspect of synthetic jet actuator with chevron orifice. The paper is interesting but, since it only shows experimental results, it should be published as a TECHNICAL NOTE. Nevertheless, some aspects of the paper should be revised and improved.
BROAD COMMENTS
- The authors should clarify the significant novelty that justifies its publication as a research paper in a prestigious journal. If there are novelty elements, they have to be clearly identified in the abstract, objectives, and conclusions.
- Most of the paper is devoted to presenting experimental results. In my opinion, the authors should justify and/or explain all the experimental results they have obtained.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
- The authors should better explain in the abstract the novel contribution of the paper and the usefulness of the study.
- The authors should better explain in the introduction the novel contribution of the paper and the objectives of the study. The authors should better justify the utility of their work.
- In addition to Figure 2 (scheme of measurement stand with all the used equipment), it would be very interesting to add a photo with all the used equipment.
- Line 116: “The velocity is one of the most important parameter of SJ”. The authors should justify this assumption.
- In Section 3 “Results and discussion”, the authors present the experimental results and describe the obtained results. In my opinion, the authors should justify and/or explain all the experimental results presented in the paper.
- In particular, the results presented in Figure 6 should be justified and/or explained much better.
- The same for the results presented in Figure 7. In a scientific paper, the authors should not limit themselves to describing the experimental results.
- Line 249: “The highest value of SPL(A) has been obtained in Case 3. The noise generated in Case 1 has been always than in Case 0. The SPL(A) in Case 2 has been bigger than in Case 0…”. Why? The authors should try to explain these results.
- The author should better explain in the conclusions the novel contribution of the paper and the usefulness of the study.
- Section 7 “Conclusions” is a summary of the paper, but they are not the conclusions of the work carried out. The authors should complete the conclusions of the paper.
To conclude, in my opinion, the paper can be accepted as a TECHNICAL NOTE with modifications, mainly related to explain much better the novel aspects presented in their investigation and related to complete and clarify some issues. The authors must also complete the abstract and conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thanks for the feedback on our paper. Below we present the answers to the objections and doubts that arose while reading the manuscript.
Reviewer: The authors should clarify the significant novelty that justifies its publication as a research paper in a prestigious journal. If there are novelty elements, they have to be clearly identified in the abstract, objectives, and conclusions.
Authors response: The main scope and the novelty of the paper were underline in the abstract (line 18-19), introduction (line 77-78), conclusion (line 300-301).
Reviewer: Most of the paper is devoted to presenting experimental results. In my opinion, the authors should justify and/or explain all the experimental results they have obtained.
Authors response: The results were compared and complied with another result from papers of other authors. The results were explained there where it was possible in our opinion. The research carried out was quite simple (velocity measurement in axis) and some explanations were rejected by our co-workers during the consultation of the paper as unfounded and not based on the results. Probably, we do not see some dependencies. If You know an article or have any advice that would help us expand the description, we are open to suggestions.
Reviewer: The authors should better explain in the abstract the novel contribution of the paper and the usefulness of the study.
Authors response: The appropriate sentences have been added to the abstract (line 18-21).
Reviewer: The authors should better explain in the introduction the novel contribution of the paper and the objectives of the study. The authors should better justify the utility of their work.
Authors response: The appropriate sentences have been added to the introduction (line 77-83).
Reviewer: In addition to Figure 2 (scheme of measurement stand with all the used equipment), it would be very interesting to add a photo with all the used equipment.
Authors response: Unfortunately, due to the changes during the Christmas and New Year period, it is not possible now.
Reviewer: Line 116: “The velocity is one of the most important parameter of SJ”. The authors should justify this assumption..
Authors response: Velocity is used in the definition of almost all parameters investigated in SJ. Therefore, it is the most important and basic parameter. The sentence has been changed (line 125).
Reviewer: In Section 3 “Results and discussion”, the authors present the experimental results and describe the obtained results. In my opinion, the authors should justify and/or explain all the experimental results presented in the paper.
In particular, the results presented in Figure 6 should be justified and/or explained much better.
The same for the results presented in Figure 7. In a scientific paper, the authors should not limit themselves to describing the experimental results.
Authors response: This problem is dealt with in the second point. It is difficult for us to address such a general objection. However, we understand what is going on. In our opinion, a broader interpretation of the results would be unjustified.
The additional explains was written in lines 206-209.
Reviewer: Line 249: “The highest value of SPL(A) has been obtained in Case 3. The noise generated in Case 1 has been always than in Case 0. The SPL(A) in Case 2 has been bigger than in Case 0…”. Why? The authors should try to explain these results.
Authors response: The additional explains was written in lines 266-273.
Reviewer: The author should better explain in the conclusions the novel contribution of the paper and the usefulness of the study.
Section 7 “Conclusions” is a summary of the paper, but they are not the conclusions of the work carried out. The authors should complete the conclusions of the paper.
Authors response: The additional explains was written in lines 300-306.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled Acoustic and flow aspect of synthetic jet actuator with chevron orifice written by Emil Smyk and Marek Markiewicz is within the scope of Applied Sciences Journal . In the paper they used chevron nozzle/orifice to improve heat transfer enhancement and noise reduction. The literature search is weak and the choose of geometries for study is ambigious. As well the way of writing and definition of parameter is not interesting.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thanks for the feedback on our paper. Below we present the answers to the objections and doubts that arose while reading our article.
Reviewer: The paper entitled Acoustic and flow aspect of synthetic jet actuator with chevron orifice written by Emil Smyk and Marek Markiewicz is within the scope of Applied Sciences Journal .
Authors response: The synthetic jet is the phenomenon, which has practical use in industry (SynJet Coolers) and was used in prototypes for example by Renault (Renault Altica 2006), General Electric (to LED bulb cooling). The research presented in the work is carried out within the project “Development of an innovative device for cooling industrial LED luminaires using synthetic jets” (https://www.researchgate.net/project/Development-of-an-innovative-device-for-cooling-industrial-LED-luminaires-using-synthetic-jets). Our research group conducts research for industry. In our opinion, synthetic jet research fits very well with the scope of Applied Sciences Journal.
Reviewer: In the paper they used chevron nozzle/orifice to improve heat transfer enhancement and noise reduction. The literature search is weak and the choose of geometries for study is ambigious.
Authors response: We have presented all the literature on the field of the synthetic jet actuator with a chevron nozzle, which we found. The chosen geometries were very simple. However, they showed that the simple assumption that the chevron nozzle/orifice reduces noise is incorrect.
Reviewer: As well the way of writing and definition of parameter is not interesting.
Authors response: We are very young scientists (25 and 29) and we still learn how to write articles better and better. We appreciate all your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After this last review, the authors have made changes and the paper has been improved significantly. However, a few minor revisions are necessary:
- The authors have added some sentences in the text. However, I would have liked some more detailed explanation on some topics.
- Line 81: “The orifice is much cheaper and easier to produce than the orifice”. “Orifice” twice? The text must be carefully checked.
- It is a shame not being able to add any photos. Is it completely impossible?
This paper can be accepted with minor modifications, mainly related to checking the text.
Author Response
Thank you for your positive assessment. Below we present our response to the review:
Reviewer: Line 81: “The orifice is much cheaper and easier to produce than the orifice”. “Orifice” twice? The text must be carefully checked.
Authors: Of course there was a mistake. The sentence has been corrected. The text has been checked.
Reviewer: It is a shame not being able to add any photos. Is it completely impossible?
Authors: We found and added a photo of other measurements that used the same test stand. The photo was added.
Reviewer 2 Report
Now the paper can publish in applied Sciences
Author Response
Thank You for your positive assessment.
