Design and Fabrication of a Thermopile-Based Thin Film Heat Flux Sensor, Using a Lead—Substrate Integration Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

   This research work is valuable and the manuscript is well-written.

Design and Fabrication of a Fast Response Thermopile-Based Thin Film Heat Flux Sensor Using Leads-
Substrate Integration Method
The authors provided with clear explanation of the objective of the study, considered model, and
highlights of the model. The obtained results are validated with statistical importance. Future
studies as well as limitation and scope of this investigation clearly provided. Overall study is
interesting it can be accepted for publication, but before that the authors must answer the
following queries.
1. The Abstract should contain answers to the following questions: What problem was
studied and why is it important? What methods were used? What are the important results? What
conclusions can be drawn from the results? What is the novelty of the work and where does it go
beyond previous efforts in the literature?
2. Why the range of values considered?
3. There are various mistakes in writing and defining the symbols used in the manuscript.
Please rectify these mistakes.
4. More computational details are required
5. The result and discussion section is the main weakness of your study and needs to be
improved a lot. The physical justification behind the results must be provided for each and every
graph. The authors have mentioned only the increasing/decreasing trend of the curves.
6. Please cite below articles also which is related to your study
• Hafeez, Muhammad Bilal, et al. "Simulation of hybridized nanofluids flowing and heat transfer
enhancement via 3-D vertical heated plate using finite element technique." Scientific reports 12.1
(2022): 1-15.
• Hafeez, M. B., Krawczuk, M., Nisar, K. S., Jamshed, W., & Pasha, A. A. (2022). A finite element
analysis of thermal energy inclination based on ternary hybrid nanoparticles influenced by
induced magnetic field. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 135, 106074.
• Hafeez, M. B., Krawczuk, M., & Shahzad, H. (2022). An overview of heat transfer enhancement
based upon nanoparticles influenced by induced magnetic field with slip condition via finite
element strategy. acta mechanica et automatica, 16(3)..
.
7. Validated your results with previous methods/results
8. Why such methods are used what is the advantage, include details.
9. The references are not in uniform format. Authors should prepare the manuscript as per
the journal's format. Introduction section can be improved

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I have made changes and replied to your questions point-to-point. Please see the attachmen.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript Number: coatings-1979693-peer-review-v1

Submitted to: MDPI coatings

Title:  Design and Fabrication of a Fast Response Thermopile-Based Thin Film Heat Flux Sensor Using Leads-Substrate Integration Method

 

Report of Review

 

In this paper, a novel thin film heat flux sensor is designed, fabricated and calibrated, which is according to authors  is capable of simultaneously measuring surface heat flux and temperature.  

Please address all the shortcoming and queries in a rebuttal and show clearly how the answers are reflected in the paper text and show clearly how corrections were made to facilitate our verifications.

 

Shortcoming:

 

1.         The paper has many ambiguous and unclear sentences which made this paper difficult to read.

2.         The standards used for the measurement techniques and errors evaluations must be clearly stated.

 

Queries:

3.    The Title is too long, it needs shortening and to being more significant

4.    Check thoroughly the paper for numerous syntax and grammatical errors and typos. Have your paper proof-edited by a language service and show this certificate next.

5.    The abstract should present the real contribution in view of similar works. The Abstract should contain answers to the following questions: What problem was studied and why is it important? What methods were used? What are the important results? What conclusions can be drawn from the results? What is the novelty of the work and where does it go beyond previous efforts in the literature? Please include specific and quantitative results in your Abstract, while ensuring that it is suitable for a broad audience.

6.    Check here:  Nagaiah NRError! Refer-ence source not found. designs and developments a thin film heat flux sensor.

7.     After a full stop never start with And: PDC material. And the lead wire.

8.    For the past event usually use the simple past not the present.

9.    Authors must be cited with family names only.

10. Please do not cite trademarks of equipment for commercial reasons.

11. Revise: The heat flux would can be is written as follows:

12.  Drawing in fig.1 part (b) is unclear and confusing, please improve it.3

13.  Revise the whole paragraph in section 2.3.1 and shorten it to the strict necessary information.

14.  Improve fig .2 and check legend inside

15.  Revise the whole text in page 6.

16.  Equation not necessary y=Sx+B (4) ;   give only exact fitting curves

17.  Fig. 10 must show true measured points

18. Please check the meaning: Scholars who from both at home and abroad have also tested the response time of the thin-film heat flux sensor, and the response time as shown in Table 4.

19.  I think from figure 14 the response time is higher than 2 s to stabilize. Same  in fig .15

20.  In table 5 explain how the repeatability is assessed give an equation.

21.  Please check the meaning: Therefore, it can simplify the measurement of the thermal conductivity of thin film, after suring the heat flux value, the thickness of thermal insulator of the film, and the cold and hot-junction temperature difference.

22.  From fig. 17 it is necessary to present voltage measurement to see sensitivity clearly.

23.  For time use t and for temperature use T

24. Conclusion should focus briefly on the methodology, main findings and its practical feasibility and also gives the perspectives.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I have made changes and replied to your questions point-to-point. Please see the attachmen.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

For me it was a pleasure to review your manuscript.

However, I have some questions and comments. 

1. In the abstract you mentioned that your novel sensor has a sensitivity about 0.06 mV/(kW/m2). Using the word "about" here is not good to my mind, because you are presenting the measuring device you propose for using. It is better to use here a value with uncertainty, for example.

2. In the Introduction there is an error in the link to the reference.

3. It is unclear, what type of "standard" sensor did you use. Why did you not mention it's technical data and other details?

4. From fig.12 it is unclear, did you measure convective or thermal radiation or mixed heat flux. What was the emissivity factor for both sensors involved? Did you take it into account and why?

5. The response time calibration procedure is still unclear to me. Did you use any mechanical diaphragm? Did you calibrate the sensor with thermal radiation here?

6. How did you measure applied heat flux during response time calibration (3.2)?

7. Why you did not calculate the uncertainty according to the modern methodology?

8. Any sensor installed on the surface disturb the temperature field on the place and a measured value (heat flux in your case). Did you estimate said disturbances and why?

9. In your paper (in the title) you are claiming that you made a fast response sensor. The mentioned 475ms is a short time, but the other sensors, called "gradient heat flux sensors", have a response time 10 ns. From that point of view, your sensor is slow. To my mind, it will be nice to have a short paragraph in your introduction about existing heat flux sensors with explanation, why your design is better.

Best regards,

Reviewer.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I have made changes and replied to your questions point-to-point. Please see the attachmen.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have presented study on Thermopile-Based Thin Film Heat Flux Sensor Using Leads-Substrate Integration Method. Paper is well structured and has authentic results. However, paper need to be improved before the publication, In this regards, My comments are given below.

·         Introduction is not up-to-date, gaps should be identified, novelty should be discussed based on the gaps.

·         Objective of the papers are missing.

·         Text in the figs 1 are not visible.

·         Pls discuss about he seebek effect

·         Picture 4 do not show the processes . It should be in flowchart manner

·         Text is not visible in fig. 7.

·         Data are overlapping in Fig. 16. Small portion (which have large deviation in data) should be shown separately in enlarge view .

·         The conclusion are obvious. Pls add quantitative conclusion.

·         Direction of the future research should be given.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I have made changes and replied to your questions point-to-point. Please see the attachmen.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Submitted to: MDPI coatings 

Title:  Design and Fabrication of a Fast Response Thermopile-Based Thin Film Heat Flux Sensor Using Leads-Substrate Integration Method

 

Report of Review

 

There are noticeable improvements.  But there are many language deficiencies and some of the past queries are not satisfied

 

Queries:

1. There are plenty of errors and typos and two short sentences (of two words only). Check again the amended and added paragraphs in red as they were not checked by a professional service. I recommend to  send again to this service

2. Revise: The heat flux can be is written as follows: change to The heat flux is written as follows

3. The standards names used for the measurement techniques and the errors evaluations must be clearly stated in the paper.

The repeatability must be assessed through an equation which should be derived.

Reviewer 4 Report

All comments have been implemented. I recommend this paper to accept.