Research on Local Heating Regeneration Method for Air-Conditioning Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that the authors' topic is engaging. The experiments are well designed, and the results are applied to a practical solution, such as observing the evolution of the COP under different situations. I recommend major revisions to the paper.

The introduction is presented in only two paragraphs with many lines. It is not readable this way neither is possible to end with a clear idea of the research gap.

Multiple citations must be avoided.

I am not sure about the processes format, but I think that nomenclature must be before the introduction or at the end of the paper.

A connection between the papers cited in the introduction must be made, to see the idea evolving or contrasting the previous findings. Right now, there is only an accumulation of previous conclusions with no relation.

Figure 1 and 2 can be condensed in one, adding the difference (pipe with a valve) with a discontinuous or coloured, or pointed line.

Information provided in 2.2 is too long. In this section, you must present your idea with short justification, but not discussing the whole background. Same is applicable in parts of 2.3 and others.

Use an appropriate symbol for degrees Celsius °C instead of ºC

As information provided in Figure 6 is not important, you can delete it and go directly to Figure 7

In Figure 8 and 9, you have points out of the trend, why is this caused? Can you explain it or filter it? Same for the rest of Figures, including mass change.

Avoid rhetorical questions in a scientific paper such as on page 12, line 297.

COP Figures must contain propagated uncertainty bars

Author Response

All the revisions related to Reviewer’s comments have been marked with cyan color in my article: e.g. L.

Reviewer #1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that the authors' topic is engaging. The experiments are well designed, and the results are applied to a practical solution, such as observing the evolution of the COP under different situations. I recommend major revisions to the paper.

 

1. The introduction is presented in only two paragraphs with many lines. It is not readable this way neither is possible to end with a clear idea of the research gap.

Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript.

 

2. Multiple citations must be avoided.

Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript.

 

3. I am not sure about the processes format, but I think that nomenclature must be before the introduction or at the end of the paper.

Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript.

 

4. A connection between the papers cited in the introduction must be made, to see the idea evolving or contrasting the previous findings. Right now, there is only an accumulation of previous conclusions with no relation.

Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript.

 

1. Figure 1 and 2 can be condensed in one, adding the difference (pipe with a valve) with a discontinuous or coloured, or pointed line.
2. Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript. 

 

6. Information provided in 2.2 is too long. In this section, you must present your idea with short justification, but not discussing the whole background. Same is applicable in parts of 2.3 and others.

Revision: It has been shortened in the new manuscript.

 

7. Use an appropriate symbol for degrees Celsius °C instead of ºC

Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript. 

 

1. As information provided in Figure 6 is not important, you can delete it and go directly to Figure 7 In Figure 8 and 9, you have points out of the trend, why is this caused? Can you explain it or filter it? Same for the rest of Figures, including mass change. Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript. COP Figures must contain propagated uncertainty bars 
2. Thank you!
3. Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript. 
4.  
5. Avoid rhetorical questions in a scientific paper such as on page 12, line 297.
6. Revision: The reason is that when the solution becomes stronger, it enlarges its capability of absorbing water vapor, and thus impedes the evaporation process. It has been revised in the new manuscript. 
7.  
8. Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interested and practical topic to express the s results that expose the influence of different 16 parameters, like liquid amount and solution concentration, on the regeneration process. The local 17 heating method improved the regeneration efficiency by 40% in the no solar steam mode and the 18 performance tripled in the solar steam mode. The COP of the absorption system with the solar 19 steam mode is more than 2 times of that with the traditional regeneration mode. It also shows the local 20 heating regeneration method has a good potential in the future petition.

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript: "Research on local heating regeneration method for air-conditioning system" presents the current issue of sorption air-conditioning systems. The solution discussed in the article is part of the issues of energy-efficient use of energy and heat storage. I believe that the manuscript may be released for further processing with the changes and corrections listed below.

1.  "Nomenclature" should be placed at the end of the article
2. The results should be presented more clearly in Figs. 7-9, 11, 13, 14.
3. In point 2. "Material and Method", information on the test equipment used and its accuracy should be provided. Additionally, the information on materials and substances used in the course of experimental tests as well as the names of producers and their purities should be completed.
4. The manuscript does not contain calculations related to the measurement accuracy of empirical studies, which are important in this case.
5. Additionally, the obtained empirical results should be compared with the proposed calculation model in terms of the adequacy of the adopted model, eg through the Snedecor-Fisher statistical test and the subsequent analysis of the empirical to theoretical value matching with the Newton's method.
6. The list of literature should be extended to include the items of prominent journals on heat storage and phase change.
7. I believe that it will be interesting for the readers of the journal to compare the obtained results with the works of other researchers on the issues of Experimental analysis phase change heat accumulator .

Author Response

All the revisions related to Reviewer #3’s comments have been marked with magenta color in my article: e.g. L.

The manuscript: "Research on local heating regeneration method for air-conditioning system" presents the current issue of sorption air-conditioning systems. The solution discussed in the article is part of the issues of energy-efficient use of energy and heat storage. I believe that the manuscript may be released for further processing with the changes and corrections listed below.

 

1. "Nomenclature" should be placed at the end of the article

Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript.

 

1. The results should be presented more clearly in Figs. 7-9, 11, 13, 14.

Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript.

 

1. In point 2. "Material and Method", information on the test equipment used and its accuracy should be provided. Additionally, the information on materials and substances used in the course of experimental tests as well as the names of producers and their purities should be completed.

Revision: It has been added in the new manuscript.

 

1. The manuscript does not contain calculations related to the measurement accuracy of empirical studies, which are important in this case.

Revision: It has been added in the new manuscript.

 

1. Additionally, the obtained empirical results should be compared with the proposed calculation model in terms of the adequacy of the adopted model, eg through the Snedecor-Fisher statistical test and the subsequent analysis of the empirical to theoretical value matching with the Newton's method.

Revision: Thank you for your advice, but actually our models (Eq. (15), Eq. (16)) have been developed on the purpose of making further analysis of the system performance based on the experimental results. The experimental results are mainly about the water evaporation rate, the equations provide a method to calculate the COP with the experimental data, and thus reveal how the efficiency can be improved.

 

1. The list of literature should be extended to include the items of prominent journals on heat storage and phase change. Revision: It has been added in the conclusion part of the new manuscript.
2. 7.I believe that it will be interesting for the readers of the journal to compare the obtained results with the works of other researchers on the issues of Experimental analysis phase change heat accumulator .
3. Revision: It has been added in the new manuscript.

 

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am disappointed with the revised version of the manuscript. They claimed for all questions "Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript. " The authors have not applied the modifications as specified, or they have not applied consciously despite their said they did. I think the authors have not invested enough time to consider our comments. For example:

Multiple citations, e.g., [11-15] and others still present. This need to be modified.

Figure 1 does not include the valve in dashed line (as they say in the text), the dashed line is used for water. Why happened this mistake?

Please, answer this question: In figure 8 and 9, you have points out the trend, why is this caused? Can you explain it or filter it? Same for the rest of Figures, including mass change.

Please, if you have not applied a proper modification to comments asked by other reviewers, do it in this stage. I will revise in the next submission other reviewers' comments and if any of them (or mine) not properly applied or at least, consciously tried, I will recommend reject.

 

Author Response

All the revisions related to Reviewer#1’s second round comments have been marked with green color in my article: e.g. L.

Reviewer #1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am disappointed with the revised version of the manuscript. They claimed for all questions "Revision: It has been revised in the new manuscript. " The authors have not applied the modifications as specified, or they have not applied consciously despite their said they did. I think the authors have not invested enough time to consider our comments. For example:

 

1. Multiple citations, e.g., [11-15] and others still present. This need to be modified.

Revision: They have been changed to single citations in the new manuscript. 

 

2. Figure 1 does not include the valve in dashed line (as they say in the text), the dashed line is used for water. Why happened this mistake?

Revision: It has been presented with red line in the new manuscript. 

 

3. Please, answer this question: In figure 8 and 9, you have points out the trend, why is this caused? Can you explain it or filter it? Same for the rest of Figures, including mass change.

Revision: The points out the trend have been filtered in the new manuscript. 

 

Please, if you have not applied a proper modification to comments asked by other reviewers, do it in this stage. I will revise in the next submission other reviewers' comments and if any of them (or mine) not properly applied or at least, consciously tried, I will recommend reject.

 

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for sending the answer.  I accept the revised version of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Thank you