Frequency Specificity of Liquid-Fountain Swinging with Mist Generation: Effects of Ultrasonic Irradiation Angle
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study investigates the hydrodynamics of liquid fountain during ultrasonic atomization. The manuscript is well orgainzed and clearly presents the influence of the incline angle on the process. The model proposed also predicts the experimental results in a reasonably good manner. I would like to suggest accepting for publication without further revison.
Author Response
Outlined response to Reviewer 1:
... The manuscript is well organized and clearly presents ... The model proposed also predicts … in a reasonably good manner. … suggest accepting for publication without further revision.
Thank you for your positive comments. Though being suggested with no further revision(s) necessary, some revisions have been made as requested by the other reviewers; please refer to the red parts in the revised MS.
Note: For the sake of clarity, (three) different types of underlines (all in pale blue) have been added in the text (though NOT particularly revised parts) to indicate the [categorized] points to be stressed. Yellow highlight is added just for editorial reminder—indicating what to appear differently, depending on the MS-Word version used—mainly.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper refers to ultrasonic atomization, especially influence of ultrasonic irradiation angle. The article is written correctly, the text clear and easy to read, but I think that the topic isn't original. The English language is correct.
The form of article is is inconsistent with the publisher's guidelines.
The introduction must be improved, because in my opinion is too general. The Authors describe studies, which concern other parameters than analysis present in this paper (except of influence angle of ultrasonic irradiation).
The aim of the studies and benefits of this construction must be add.
The scientific novelty must be underlined.
At least general information about the size and distribution of droplets is missing in the paper. The droplet size plays a key role in the atomization process. The authors don't analyze the diameter of the droplets depending on the change in operating conditions.
The conclusions must be improved, because in this part only describe of the results.
Author Response
Outlined response to Reviewer 2:
... The article is written correctly, the text clear and easy to read, but … the topic [itself] isn't original. The English language is correct.
Thank you for your positive comments. Regarding the concern over the paper’s originality, we presume that it could be related to the following two points. Influence of ultrasound irradiation angle: Some researchers, e.g., Kawase et al. (2006) and Yasuda (2011) cited in our paper, did report limited aspects influenced by this parameter; no studies—to our best knowledge, however— systematically elucidated it as we have done. Mechanistic analysis of liquid-fountain oscillations (pendulum model): While we followed the general concept with a rather simplified approach reported by Tsuchiya and Fan (1988) as well as a more elaborated approach proposed by Huat et al. (2004), we believe that our model developed, specifically to the UsA acoustic fountain, in Section 3.4 along with Appendix should be systematic and thorough enough to provide new insight(s).
0) The form of article is inconsistent with the publisher's guidelines.
Up to this stage (prior to acceptance) we stick to the free-format submission acceptable. Once—hopefully—accepted, we will try to make our MS consistent with the guidelines (with the help of the publisher).
1) The introduction must be improved, … too general. … studies, which concern other parameters than [those for the] analysis present[ed] in this paper (except [for the] influenc[ing] angle of ultrasonic irradiation).
We appreciate your constructive advice. As requested by the reviewer, we have removed the parts irrelevant to the parameters (or characteristics) dealt with in the present analyses. Please note, however, some (useful literature findings or necessary technical terms relevant in the discussion of the present results) are retained as introductory info in this section. The revised parts are indicated in red in the text.
2) The aim of the studies and benefits of this construction must be add[ed]. The scientific novelty must be underlined.
Thank you for your pointing out our MS presentation. The aim of our study has now been clearly stated—we hope—together with expected scientific significance and novelty; the construction (brief summary of each section) of the paper has also been added. The revised parts are indicated in red in the text.
3) … information about the size and distribution of droplets is missing ... The droplet size plays a key role in the atomization process. The authors don't analyze the diameter of the droplets depending on the change in operating conditions.
As critically pointed out above, any piece(s) of information regarding the sizes (of droplets constituting the UsA mist) and their distribution should indeed play quite valuable roles in the UsA. While being aware of this primary aspect of the UsA process, the present authors must admit that the present paper lacks in it. Due to the experimental (i.e., visualization) limitations (especially in its resolution), however, we decided NOT to pursue this aspect in the paper. We hope the reviewer would understand that we instead have mainly focused on the dynamics of the UsA fountain and the associated mist triggering, which are requisite for the realization of atomization, thus further characterization of the mist droplets.
4) The conclusions must be improved, because in this part only describe[s] of the results[, i.e., the results being merely repeated].
As pointed out by this reviewer, Section 4 (Concluding Remarks) is essentially repetition of the results; [As suggested by also Reviewer 3] this section has been rewritten, laying stress on the “itemized” findings. We now hope that this change—marked in red—will make the concluding section more amenable to the readers.
Note: For the sake of clarity, (three) different types of underlines (all in pale blue) have been added in the text (though NOT particularly revised parts) to indicate the [categorized] points to be stressed. Yellow highlight is added just for editorial reminder—indicating what to appear differently, depending on the MS-Word version used—mainly.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript, the authors have applied high-speed image processing to investigate the dynamics of the acoustic fountain by changing the angle of ultrasonic irradiation. Moreover, from the analysis, stability exhibited by such fountain dynamics involving a sequence of oscillating and irregular intervals of time could be obtained. Further, the axial growth, breakup and lateral swinging and the related dynamics of mist formation and spreading are analyzed. From the experimental rig and analysis, an optimum setting of the transducer installation angle is determined.
The manuscript is well written and well organized, a small suggestion to include the conclusions section (if possible) to summarized findings.
Author Response
Outlined response to Reviewer 3:
The manuscript is well written and well organized, a small suggestion to include [in] the conclusions section (if possible) to summarized findings.
As suggested by this reviewer—as well as pointed out also by Reviewer 2, Section 4 (Concluding Remarks) is essentially repetition of the results; this section has been rewritten, laying stress on the “itemized” findings. We now hope that this change—marked in red—will make the concluding section more amenable to the readers.
Note: For the sake of clarity, (three) different types of underlines (all in pale blue) have been added in the text (though NOT particularly revised parts) to indicate the [categorized] points to be stressed. Yellow highlight is added just for editorial reminder—indicating what to appear differently, depending on the MS-Word version used—mainly.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors responded to most of my comments the article has been improved. I accept this article for publication.
