Analysis and Optimization of the Opening Dynamic Characteristics of Molten Salt Check Valves for Concentrating Solar Power

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Analysis and optimization of the opening dynamic characteristics of molten salt check valves for concentrating solar power” is an interesting work. It does fit in the scope of the journal. It needs following modification before further consideration:

 

1.      The first sentence of the abstract is confusing. It should be reworded.

2.      Shorter keywords bring better results in search engine, thus enhanced searchability.

3.      First paragraph of the introduction should be aligned with sustainable development goals.

4.      The introduction should have a section describing the optimization and its necessity.

5.      Ensure all elements are labelled in Figure 1.

6.      Did you conducted optimal mesh topology analysis.

7.      How you reduced uncertainty in the test?  

8.      Used equation in section 2 and 3 should be cited properly, if adopted.

9.      What is the relevance of figure 13.

10.  The novelty of the study should be highlighted.

11.  What can be impact of this study on future research?

12.  Check the numbering of the conclusion. You may used bullets.

13.  The addition of latest and relevant studies will improve the visibility and impact of the study. You may refer and include https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118633, https://doi.org/10.3390/app112311308

14.  Include latest studies from host journal on this topic.

15.  Conclusion should be made more process. 

 

Overall, this study is within the scope of the journal. It is well written and compact study. It may be considered after major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The review

The paper is interesting and contains very up-to-date content related to energy efficiency and saving. Despite this, the paper contains some imperfections that need to be clarified.

1.       Why do the authors assume that slurry is a mixture of MPCM with a liquid other than water - with better heat transfer performance? There are few fluids that have such a good ratio of thermal and flow properties as water.

2.       There are some typos and errors in the paper. It is suggested to check the entire paper.

3.       Whether the change in the density of the working medium as a function of temperature has been taken into account, if so, the range of temperature and density changes should be presented

4.       Why were the results of the simulation not compared with the results of the physical experiment? If the authors did not carry out a physical experiment, I suggest comparing the results of the simulation with the data available in the literature (if it is possible).

 

I propose to accept the paper and publish it after taking into account all the comments indicated in the review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors proposed a type of check valve. Their results show that the mass of the valve motion component is reduced by 57.76% after optimization while meeting the requirements of strength and stiffness. The optimized molten salt check valve achieves a larger angle and faster opening, the full opening angle is increased by 6°, the pressure difference between the valve disc at rest is reduced by 5kPa, the minimum opening pressure difference is reduced by 8.9kPa, the optimized flow characteristics are smoother, and the valve disc oscillation problem is avoided. The study provides a method to optimize the design of a molten salt swing check valve and its dynamic characteristics for concentrating solar power. The study is interesting. In the introduction,  I think the authors should mention other types of check valves, like cantilevers or membranes. e.g., A micro vertically-allocated SU-8 check valve and its characteristics or a Study on the fabrication of a SU-8 cantilever vertically-allocated in a closed fluidic microchannel. Their stimulation methods are instructive,it is better to mention the boundary in a more specific way. A small question, did they consider the fluid-structure interaction? or they only consider the exerting force of the flow on the swing. finally, the diodicity of the valve should be investigated. Overall, this study is interesting. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

the authors made a significant revision.