Swinging-Pulse Sprinkling Head for Rain Simulators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Notes for the article are included in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for interesting suggestions which help quality of the manuscript. All of the suggestions were implemented and they are descibed in the answers below. The typo in text has been corrected.

1. Chapter 3 should be entitled “Results and Discussion”.
   
   The structure of the article has been modified. Results and Discussion are merged. Conclusion is presented separately.

2.The results of the research should be described (Figure 3 and Table 2) and the results
obtained should be discussed against the background of other authors' research.

The figures and tables are more linked to the text. The discussion part has been improverd more to recent work of other research (Chapter 3).

3. Chapter 4 should be entitled “Conclusions”.

The chapter has been renamed.

4.Figure 1 - In Figure 1, the moving parts are marked in bold. This is invisible in the drawing. Maybe moving parts can be marked with a different font color?

The moving parts in the image have been marked with the red color.

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

In the manuscript, a rainfall simulator with a swinging-pulse sprinkling head is presented. The novelty of the manuscript is clear as well as objectives and contribution to the science. The main objective is to present innovative rainfall simulator, combining two most common nozzles used in rainfall simulators, namely swinging and pulse jet nozzle. Moreover, a box for collecting excess of water, which is then returned to the “source”, has an added value. The structure of the paper should be slightly adjusted (see specific comments below). Moreover, the discussion is poor but it has the potential for improvements.

Specific comments:

1. Figure 1 is very informative. However, it is hard for the reader to jump from the figure to the figure caption and vice versa. Therefore, I suggest adding a list of simulator parts (numbers 1–20) in the figure (on the right-hand side). Moreover, I think that number 19 is missing. Besides, text from the caption of Figure 1 describing parts and their functions should be part of the main text.
2. Add cross-referencing to Figure 1 in some relevant place in the chapter where the figure is presented.
3. I would suggest a slightly different structure of chapter 2 Materials and methods. Just below the title 2 Material and methods should be a general description of the rainfall simulator including Figure 1. Chapter title 2.1–3 are fine. I would add another chapter 2.4 with a description of the experiment which is now very generally presented in chapter 3 Results (first paragraph).
4. Improve description of the experiment, especially criteria how you selected “suitable nozzles for further use” should be added.
5. L 143: Did you mean boxes instead of vessels (as shown also in the legend of Figure 3)?
6. Figure 2 and Figure 3 should be mentioned in the text.
7. I would suggest a more contrasting choice of color scale to show differences in intensities in Figure 3. Blue colors for 50 and 150 mm/h are too similar.
8. Add to the caption of Figure 3 what do numbers in the figure mean – the intensity of rainfall.
9. I would suggest using the same font for “Rainfall intensity” in the legend of Figure 3 as it is used for “Disdrometer position”, “boxes”, and “1x1 and 2x2 m areas”.
10. If you do not want to have a separate chapter “Discussion”, then join it with results (chapter 3 Results and discussion). Actually, the discussion is missing. Please add some comparison of your results with other studies (rainfall simulators), where the benefits of your rainfall simulator show up compared with others etc.
11. Give in Conclusions the most important findings (i.e., the added value of the simulator, shortcomings/uncertainties of the simulator found by experiments, future work, possibilities for improvements, etc.). 

Author Response

Thank you for interesting suggestions which help quality of the manuscript. All of the suggestions were implemented and they are descibed in the answers below.

General comments:

In the manuscript, a rainfall simulator with a swinging-pulse sprinkling head is presented. The novelty of the manuscript is clear as well as objectives and contribution to the science. The main objective is to present innovative rainfall simulator, combining two most common nozzles used in rainfall simulators, namely swinging and pulse jet nozzle. Moreover, a box for collecting excess of water, which is then returned to the “source”, has an added value. The structure of the paper should be slightly adjusted (see specific comments below). Moreover, the discussion is poor but it has the potential for improvements.

Specific comments:

1. Figure 1 is very informative. However, it is hard for the reader to jump from the figure to the figure caption and vice versa. Therefore, I suggest adding a list of simulator parts (numbers 1–20) in the figure (on the right-hand side). Moreover, I think that number 19 is missing. Besides, text from the caption of Figure 1 describing parts and their functions should be part of the main text.
   
   Figure 1 has been improved, simulator part list is now part of the image as legend. Numbers are reordered, and describing and mutual links are now part of the main text.
   
   
2. Add cross-referencing to Figure 1 in some relevant place in the chapter where the figure is presented.
   The cross-reference and linking Figure 1 to text has been implemented.
   
   
3. I would suggest a slightly different structure of chapter 2 Materials and methods. Just below the title 2 Material and methods should be a general description of the rainfall simulator including Figure 1. Chapter title 2.1–3 are fine. I would add another chapter 2.4 with a description of the experiment which is now very generally presented in chapter 3 Results (first paragraph).
   
   

The structure of this technical note has been modified. Results and Discussion are merged. Conclusion is presented separately. Description of experiment with methodology of jet selection is now implemented as a subchapter 2.4.

1. Improve description of the experiment, especially criteria how you selected “suitable nozzles for further use” should be added.
   
   Description of experiment has been described with more details.
   
   
2. L 143: Did you mean boxes instead of vessels (as shown also in the legend of Figure 3)?
   
   Yes, we meant the same thing with boxes and vessels. In the whole article it has been renamed as buckets. These buckets (15x15 cm) are too big to be called as vessels.
   
   
3. Figure 2 and Figure 3 should be mentioned in the text.
   
   All figures and table are now mentioned in the text.
   
   
4. I would suggest a more contrasting choice of color scale to show differences in intensities in Figure 3. Blue colors for 50 and 150 mm/h are too similar.
   
   The continuous colors palette have been replaced by categories. The legend is also improved.
   
   
5. Add to the caption of Figure 3 what do numbers in the figure mean – the intensity of rainfall.
   
   Thank you, information has been added into the image captation.
   
   
6. I would suggest using the same font for “Rainfall intensity” in the legend of Figure 3 as it is used for “Disdrometer position”, “boxes”, and “1x1 and 2x2 m areas”.
   
   Unified font has been used for the image.
   
   
7. If you do not want to have a separate chapter “Discussion”, then join it with results (chapter 3 Results and discussion). Actually, the discussion is missing. Please add some comparison of your results with other studies (rainfall simulators), where the benefits of your rainfall simulator show up compared with others etc.
   
   Thank you, we merged the discussion with the Results. We also included the comparison with other similar rainfall simulators.
   
   
8. Give in Conclusions the most important findings (i.e., the added value of the simulator, shortcomings/uncertainties of the simulator found by experiments, future work, possibilities for improvements, etc.).
   
   Thank you for suggestion, at the end of the chapter Conclusion we wrote these important findings.   

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors provided a detailed technical note on designing a Swinging-pulse sprinkling Head and validating its applicability to simulating spatial distribution of rain and rainfall kinetic energy of natural rainfall. A detailed description on the disdrometer can be added. The topic is interesting but it did not address any scientific questions which cannot be acceptable as a scientific paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your perspective on this topics. The motivation of this technical note is to share an innovative solution of possibilities of artificial rainfall generation with scientific community. Description of the device can be useful for other teams that utilize rainfall simulations as an experimental scientific method. We hope that sharing the innovative tools can help achieve better and more easily comparable results. In our experience, the operation of the simulator is financially and personally demanding and the results from field measurements are irreplaceable. The designed was developed together with the manufacturer of mechanical parts to create a device that can provide new possibilities in artificial rainfall experiments.

We think that “technical note” form is appropriate for presented information about innovative device design solution. The scientific results are about to come and will be part of an individual paper.

Information about used disdrometer used are improved in Chapter 2.4.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments made in the first review were taken into account. I have no objections. The discussion of the research results in relation to bibliographic data significantly increases the substantive importance of the article. Few comments are included in the attached file. I believe that after taking into account the comments submitted, the article can be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for detail suggestions. All of spaces etc are rewrite. We attached to you manuscript with article with revisions running, before we approve it, if you would like to check it.
We rewrote the whole sentence in link to last comment, for a better understanding. New sentence is "Two meters height is enough for the square nozzle WSQ 40 with adequate characteristics of the rainfall".

Reviewer 2 Report

No further comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for approving our manuscript for publication

Reviewer 3 Report

It is a good technical report.