Boiling Heat Transfer Performance of Parallel Porous Microchannels
, Haiyang Xu 1, Yi Chen 1, Leiqing Wang 1, Jian Qu 2, Mingfa Wu 1 and Zhiping Zhou 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
TITLE: Boiling heat transfer performance of parallel porous microchannels
The paper deal with a comparison of heat exchange efficiency of porous microchannels and copper-based microchannel.Several type of prous microchannels are investigated.
The paper is well written and the content is clear. The introduction cover relevant aspect of the problem and references are appropriated. The material and method section need to be completed with a description of the copper based heat exchanger, that was used as reference. Symbols on the picture must be described in the picture caption. The abstract must be re-writed as it not introduce the problem. For this reason I ask for a Major revision.
Detailed comments
L.10: the abstract start in a very abrupt way. Please introduce the problem and then start to describe your study.
L10: if you give material properties for the copper based microchannels , please specify the material of the porous microchannel device too.
L20 what is CHF?
L21: what is the thickness-to-particle ratio? Which thickness and which particle?
L50 what are the general channels?
L60 HFC and CHF are acronyms not explained
L61 HTC?
L115: move figure 1 in the chapter 2
L121 deionized: miss water
L160 figure 2: what is T, Pin, pout? Please specify in the caption
Author Response
Point 1: the abstract start in a very abrupt way. Please introduce the problem and then start to describe your study.
Response 1:I have added the introduction part in the abstract. (L10)
Point 2: L10: if you give material properties for the copper based microchannels , please specify the material of the porous microchannel device too.
Response 2: The structural parameters of both kinds of microchannels are listed in Table 2.(L233)
Point 3: what is CHF? L20
Response 3: As shown in Nomenclature（L38）, CHF is defines as Critical Heat Flux in boiling curve.
Point 4: L21, what is the thickness-to-particle ratio? Which thickness and which particle?
Response 4: In L99 of the revised manuscript, the definition of thickness and particle is given.
Point 5:L50, what are the general channels?
Response 5: In L50 of the revised manuscript, the general channel has been substituted by the macro channel.
Point 6:L60 HFC and CHF are acronyms not explained
Response 6: The explanation of CHF and HFC has been presented in the revised copy.
Point 7:L61 HTC?
Response 7: Reply: Same as above
Point 8:L115: move figure 1 in the chapter 2
Response 8:Reply:That’s OK.
Point 9:L121 deionized: miss water
Response 9: It has been corrected.
Point 10:L160 figure 2: what is T, Pin, Pout? Please specify in the caption
Response 10: These variables have been specified in the revised copy.
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the subject of the paper is appropriate to the Energies. In general, the paper was performed at a good level, but there are a few comments.
1. The paper does not show the verification of the methodology for adequacy. It seems to me that it is necessary to present a comparison with classical results for simple problems.
2. The text of the paper does not indicate how the error is calculated for the heat transfer coefficient. What does it consist of?
3. You need to fix the text and photo in Figures 4, 6, 7.
4. What is the value at the x-axis Figure 5 b.
5. You need to fix the text in references.
Author Response
Point 1: The paper does not show the verification of the methodology for adequacy. It seems to me that it is necessary to present a comparison with classical results for simple problems.
Response1: In the revised manuscript(L258 and L259), the heat transfer coefficients of the copper- based microchannel are found to be on the same order of magnitude of the Literature[17] and [19].More exact comparison is difficulty due to different experimental conditions.
Point 2:The text of the paper does not indicate how the error is calculated for the heat transfer coefficient. What does it consist of?
Response2:Reply:In the revised paper, we make a careful analysis on experimental uncertainties and assess almost all inluencing factors,including heat loss, input heat power, thermalcouple, flow rate et al.We find the relative error of h is almost 40% at low heat flux after boiling due to very low surface superheat and reduce to 13% at high heat flux.
Point 3: You need to fix the text and photo in Figures 4, 6, 7.
Response 3:Reply:In the generated file of Energies system, we find there was a confusion in the layout of Figures 4, 6, 7. We have corrected this problem.
Point 4: What is the value at the x-axis Figure 5 b.
Response 4: The value at the x-axis of Figure 5b represents the vapor quality in midpoint of microchannal.
Point 5:You need to fix the text in references.
Response 5: Reply: OK, we have check the references again.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is novel and original by construction. It constructs a conventional set of microchannels from PEEK to be submitted to heat transfer operations. The novelty is the comparison of heat transfer mechanisms between copper coating and a microporous coating, both nominally to enhance heat transfer rates by greater nucleation of boiling. The construction allowed for conventional calculation of heat transfer coefficients. Figure 10 illustrates the novelty that microporous coatings dampen fluctuations in heat transfer. Greater uniformity of heat transfer is important in the durability of materials, as fluctuations stress the structure and will degrade the materials more rapidly.
The paper is within the scope of the journal Energies. Heat transfer in this configuration is important for classes of microelectronic devices.
The paper is essentially correct in its engineering science, but poorly grammatically composed.
Author Response
Point 1: The paper is essentially correct in its engineering science, but poorly grammatically composed.
Response1: We have looked through the whole paper carefully again and corrected some mistakes. Modified places are marked in red. We also deleted or corrected some words.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors fully replied to the Reviewer's request.
There are some minor corrections:
Every acronym used in the text must be given in an extended form in each first-time use. Furthermore, the abstract must be considered as separated from the text. So, for example, CHF in the abstract must be given in the extended form without the acronym, it is used just one time. In the text, it must be again given in the extended form and then with the acronym. This rule must be applied for all the acronyms used in the manuscript even if you give the nomenclature table at the beginning of the manuscript.
Author Response
Point 1: Every acronym used in the text must be given in an extended form in each first-time use. Furthermore, the abstract must be considered as separated from the text. So, for example, CHF in the abstract must be given in the extended form without the acronym, it is used just one time. In the text, it must be again given in the extended form and then with the acronym. This rule must be applied for all the acronyms used in the manuscript even if you give the nomenclature table at the beginning of the manuscript.
Response1: Thanks for your kind reminding. We have corrected such kind of mistakes in the new revised paper.
