Penetration of a Pulsed Gas Jet through a Package of Heat Exchange Tubes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper titled “Penetration of a pulsed gas jet through a package of heat exchange tubes” has a potential to accepted in Aerospace journal. However, some minor issues should fix or modify before positive action is taken. Here are some of those issues:
1- English must be reviewed, and the text should be proofread in the whole manuscript. For example, there are some articles like (The, a, and an) should be added or removed depending on their place.
2- The abstract should be elaborate with containing the goal, the methods, and the main results of this study.
3- I am missing that they did not give a critical summary at the end of the literature overview that would have more specifically indicated those relevant scientific areas, which research has been missed or has not sufficiently elaborated yet. This could have given a basis to explain the reasonableness and scientific importance of this topic with complete precision. Also, the assessment in the first part is very weak, I suggest reading and using recent new papers related to this topic.
4- The main goal of conducting this work should be highlighted well at the end of the introduction section. The author also must write a paragraph justifying the potential application of this work.
5- Figures have to modifying because the accuracy not high for the readers especially, the values the represent the color bars.
6- Most of the discussions are qualitative so this section should elaborate well to be more clear for the audience.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript analyses a pulsed gas jet through a package of heat exchange tubes using different configurations. Before acceptance, several proposals are presented below to be considered by the authors, but first, I would like to congratulate the authors for their work.
Suggestions to be considered:
1. Regarding the values shown in lines 51 and 52 (250 kJ and 1 MPa), can you cite any reference or justify them anyway.
2. Please review the acronyms list carefully. In line 95, CFD is used without any previous definition.
3. Figure 2 appears before being cited in line 106. Maybe, it would be better to include it after the paragraph.
4. Table un line 137 should be numbered. Also, please, review the format for numbers (decimal point especially and thousands separator for more than 4 digits).
5. In the title of Figure 4, No1 and No2 are abbreviated but these expressions are not very standard in my opinion, please review it.
6. The quality of figures 4-11 should be increased so that the axis can be read. Also, the horizontal axis could have a name so that it helps the reader understand what they are watching. It is not clear if aver to images represent the same case from above and from the side or what is being represented. Finally, units should be stated with the numbers of the figures.
7. In line 170, the table should be numbered.
8. Figure 12 is missing axis titles and units. Also, a legend could be useful to avoid losing information (the chart seems to be split from 4 to 5 and from 12 to 13). In addition, quantities of 10 thousand and greater should have a comma separator: 10,000.
9. In line 183, the degree symbol should be used instead of º.
10. Line 187 shows No 11, which seems confusing. I recommend to avoid shortening the word number.
11. Line 188 repeats increasing and increases very close together. I encourage the authors to find a different expression.
12. It is not clear how “The results obtained show the necessity and possibility of using numerical simulation”. Some extra discussion would be helpful.
13. Line 212 seems to be the acknowledgement that should be included separately.
14. Review the nomenclature table and the units of each symbol.
15. Finally, the introduction needs to analyse thoroughly the developed works in the literature, identify the research gaps and state the goals and contributions. So, more references and clearer ideas should be included in my opinion.
The conclusions should clearly show the novelty identified in the introduction and the quantitative comparison to existing methods/studies. Also, the limitations of the proposed solution should be analysed and eventually suggested for future research. In its present form, it is not clear the novelty and contribution of the study.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor/Author,
Greetings! This paper analysed the Penetration of a pulsed gas jet through a package of heat ex- 2 change tubes. some of the comments are given below.
* Researcher just added the heat exchange tubes in different orientation. what basis tubes are added in this research?
* Please mention the benefits of adding heat exchange tubes.
* Why there is no comparison for jet Mach Number ?
* Objective of the work is not clearly explained.
* Results and discussion can be improved
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the manuscript has been substantialy improved and the author has followed my recommendations. Congratulations for the detailed work carried out.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor/ Author,
Greetings! The researcher addressed all the comments suggested by the reviewers in the revised manuscript. The recommendation is to accept this paper for publication.
Best Regards
