Parametric Numerical Analysis of β-Type Stirling Engine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

2. The conclusion can be improved by giving the primary findings with necessary statistical results.

3. More discussions should be added rather than the description of the figures.

4. The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section.

5. Introduction section must be written on more quality way, i.e. more up-to-date references addressed. Research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment "Reviewer 1 Response.pdf"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the nomenclature is missing some of the variables used like : r, a and b

the mesh analysis it is not satisfactory, there has to be data regarding the cell sizes , y+ near the wall and refinements 

how many cycles you did before reach converges because the 5000 rpm does not seem to be converged

figures 6 and 7 have to have to same scale for all the speeds

figure 10 does not have the 5000 rpm case

how did you choose the coefficients for Nusselt number calculation

Author Response

Please see attachment "Reviewer 2 Response.pdf"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Lack of mesh number validation. Lack of control equations. Lack of experimental validation or model validation.

2. Explain whether the temperature can maintain a cyclic variation under high rotational speed (i.e., greater than 1000 rpm) conditions in Figure 2.

3. adjust the legends for Figures 2, 3, and 5

4. In conclusion 3, it is stated that the decline is small and it is suggested that a new form of evaluation be proposed to assess its overall efficiency.

5. The engine studied in the text shows more pronounced fluctuations in a number of data under high RPM conditions, please add the impact on the operation of the front as well as rear equipment.

6. is the format of the numerical expression in Table2 correct and should it be changed to a multiplication sign (✖)

7. Figure 1 is not very clear.

8. why the second order format is used to achieve discrete unit pressures

9. the explanations of Figures 3 and 4 do not go far enough.

10. There are also some details that need to be fixed:

(1) In the formulas, there is a question about '*' and '.' were used interchangeably;

(2) Non-variable subscripts should be in 'block' and variable symbols in figures should be in 'italics';

(3) In figure2 and figure5, the legend should be rearranged.

(4) In figure3, the legend in (a) should be placed outside in order to share the legend;

(5) in figure6 and figure7, the legends should be rearranged to make the pictures easier to read.

Author Response

Please see attachment "Reviewer 3 Response.pdf"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

no comments