Comparison of the Axial Fan and Synthetic Jet Cooling Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comparison of the axial fan and synthetic jet cooling systems it is very well modeled. Theoretic and experimental work is well done. Results are explained correctly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It appears that the manuscript is not currently set out in a style or at the appropriate level for publication in AS. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, a comparison of the two different cooling devices: one with a standard axial fan and the other with a synthetic jet actuator is presented. The main components of present paper are:
- Heat sink
- Thermal resistance
- Natural convection
- Coefficient of performance
Two distinct sets of operating conditions of the fan and two different loudspeakers for the synthetic jet actuator are also used. I am happy to accept it for clarification as follows.
- Add nomenclature with units.
- There is no major finding/highlight in abstract.
- Introduction part must be improved by citing new research papers related to heat sink.
- Conclusions section should be improved by considering possible future works.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors have processed with the comparisons between two active cooling methods: synthetic jet and axial fan are investigated. Both devices were used to cool the radial heat sink and were operated at the same input power. The results are a form of thermal resistance, dissipated thermal power, coefficient of performance is presented. DOE of this study is extremely poor and reflects a lot pf flaws throughout the manuscript including objectives, methodology and results. Quality of presentation is low and results are not supported/justified scientifically. Novelty/originality is extremely poor and this contribution is not acceptable and might not benefit the scientific knowledge body. Therefore, substantial changes along with improvement of manuscript are required as well as more experimental study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript presents a performance comparison of fan-cooled heat sinks. The current form is lack of scientific content and key findings that can contribute for readers. Details are follows:
- Research methodology should be mentioned in Abstract.
- Please cite this statement: “Where the optimization of their shape does not give adequate results”. The author's opinion is not convinced.
- This sentence is hard to understand: “All of the aforementioned papers that investigated the heat sink with an integrated SJA [20–23] compared this device to the heat sink operating under natural convection.” Please rewrite.
- Please indicate clearly cylindrical housing, a heat sink, and a loudspeaker in Figure 1a.
- Model description is ambiguous and difficult to image (lines 96-101).
- Why does heat transfer coefficient increase with heat flux (figure 3)? Please explain physical phenomena. The authors study forced convection using a fan. But the validation is carried out natural convection mode.
- Sections 3.2 and 3.3 presented results of the work. Unfortunately, the comments are very weak, i.e., just increase, decrease, high, low. The authors should do a better job on commenting the results. A reasonable physical explanation should be provided for the observed trends, not only report what is graphically seen in the figures. More physical insight of the Discussion section is needed.
- Uncertainty propagation wasn’t performed. Terminologies “fan intake” and “fan exhaust” are informal.
- In short, the manuscript doesn’t obtain the standards of a scholar paper. It is like a technical report. I cannot recommend it for a possible publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is an improved version of what was earlier on submitted. The comments raised by reviewers in the previous review have been adequately addressed.
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript does not deserved to be published since it has still got serious issues and the revised version does not reflect any significant improvement.
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors revised and clarified all issues as per my suggestions. Therefore, the manuscript is now accepted.
