Experimental Study on the Influence of Wind Speed on the Start-Up Characteristics and Thermoelectric Generation Characteristics of Gravity Heat Pipe in Gangue Dump
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript a simulation for gravity heat pipe is presented to control gangue dumping and thermoelectric generation. The influence of wind speed on the starting performance of gravity heat pipes and isothermal performance is analyzed.
The manuscript presents an adequate state of the art, but it is necessary to describe the experimentation in more detail. Although the results are quite detailed, the discussion section is not presented, and the conclusion repeats the results shown.
In particular, I consider that the following should be reviewed or reconsidered:
-Place the source of Figure 1
-Complete Fig. (d)
-The results of the experimentation are quite detailed, but they should be accompanied by the detailed description of the experiment. In this sense, after figure 2, please avoid placing etc, and describe all the components of the experiment. Accompany the photograph a scheme.
-I request that after the results the discussion be included. In this section, the results obtained with other investigations should be contrasted. This is fundamental in a scientific article, and more in this detailed work.
-The discussion section practically repeats the results of the previous section. Please reformulate the conclusion, so that it includes the practical implications of the study, the drawbacks presented and what would be the applications, among others.
For this reason, I consider that this version of the manuscript does not meet the conditions to be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
This letter accompanies our revised manuscript “Experimental Study on the Influence of Wind Speed on the Start-up Characteristics and Thermoelectric Generation Characteristics of Gravity Heat Pipe in Gangue Dump”.
We’re grateful for the reviewers’ helpful comments, and hope our revision addresses them all.
In particular, we have rectified some errors, provided a detailed description of the experimental setup, and reorganized the language in the Results and Discussion section. Redundant descriptions have been eliminated, and a comparative analysis has been conducted between the experimental results and previous research findings. While those suggestions led us to add some new material, in response to your request for reduction in length we’ve reviewed the relevance of all the references to this manuscript and made appropriate deletions for any redundant ones. The modified content has been highlighted in the manuscript.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the revised manuscript. The summary of corrections and the reviewer’s comments are listed in the Revision Report.
Sincerely,
Bailin Zhang
School of Electrical Engineering, Southeast University
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
11. Reasonable number of references
22. Need a schematic diagram to show what is T_0.65, T_0.85, HT, heating height.
33. What is heating temperature? Is it the maximum temperature at the bottom at a given location?
44. Figures 3 and 4 shows duplicate data? All plots are the same, only one additional line of R2. Can this be cleaned up like only R2 plotted for the three height variations in the same plot and then discuss why?
55. Figures 6, 7 and 8, what fluid height? Mention that in figure caption. Are figures 3 and 4 without wind? If so, mention that in those figure captions.
66. Conclusion 1 has not been shown. Schematic diagrams for heating height and working fluid height are needed. Add relevant results to show 600 is optimal.
77. Conclusion 3- is the direction of wind and alignment of thermoelectric generator not important? The alignment should be clearly shown so that results can be reproduced.
Presented work is not well organized. The variables and parameters are not clear from the description and conclusions are drawn without proper results.
Reasonable for technical document.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
This letter accompanies our revised manuscript “Experimental Study on the Influence of Wind Speed on the Start-up Characteristics and Thermoelectric Generation Characteristics of Gravity Heat Pipe in Gangue Dump”.
We’re grateful for the reviewers’ helpful comments, and hope our revision addresses them all.
In particular, we have rectified some errors, provided a detailed description of the experimental setup. We have conducted a thorough review of the relevance of the references to this manuscript and made appropriate deletions. We have clarified the meanings of parameters and symbols in the text and specified the experimental conditions, including the limitations imposed by wind speed and direction. Lastly, we have employed professional language editing to refine the entire manuscript. While those suggestions led us to add some new material, in response to your request for reduction in length we’ve reviewed the relevance of all the references to this manuscript and made appropriate deletions for any redundant ones. The modified content has been highlighted in the manuscript.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the revised manuscript. The summary of corrections and the reviewer’s comments are listed in the Revision Report.
Sincerely,
Bailin Zhang
School of Electrical Engineering, Southeast University
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This study establishes an experimental platform to analyse the influence of wind speed, along with the impact of wind speed on its thermoelectric generation performance.
The paper has a theoretical content, which is based on previous detailed research. The methodology section clearly explains the methods and tools used, compared to the previous version.
The results are detailed both in text and graphs, and these results have been included or contrasted with other research. I would have liked to separate the results section from the discussion.
Likewise, the conclusion repeats the results presented previously.
