Testing Scale Models of Hydro-Reactor Profiled Ducts That Create Notable Net Head to Promote Hydroelectric Power from Currents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, four duct scale models with different profiles to create a net-head and promote hydroelectric power from currents were experimentally tested and numerically analyzed by finite element analysis. Tests on free flow to compare the difference in kinetic heads were performed. Also, three loads obstructing different percentages of the channels narrower section were inserted to analyze the duct channel obstruction limits.

In my opinion, the present work is meaningful and interesting in somewhat. I recommend the paper can be considered after major revision for publication in inventions. However, there are some comments needed to be considered by the authors to improve the quality of this paper.

[1]       The authors need emphasize clearly what are new in this paper, and explain the purpose of this study. It should be improved including the main novel of the manuscript.

[2]       Some references should be discussed not only enumerated (e.g., line 37-39) There are more references, which should be discussed by authors.

[3]       FEA is a good technique to analyze the behavior of duct models. Different studies were used in the literature to analyze the behavior of the duct. It is hoped that the authors will discuss some relevant research advances.

[4]       Variables in articles should be italicized.

[5]       Why does the author use the Ratio ??⁄?? for comparison? Does this value have any particular physical significance?

[6]       There are too few descriptions of the details of the experimental measurements, especially the parameter measurements and error analysis.

[7]       More necessary descriptions should be given to highlight the superiorities of your proposed duct scale models according to the test and FEA results.

[8]       The main contribution of this work should be clearly explained in both theory and practice.

[9]       There are many grammatical errors in the article. The authors should polish the paper suitably. Ie. line 9-11; line 212-213;line 203-206, …

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented a well-structured and interesting paper about models of hydro-reactor profiled ducts. 

 

The paper is well organized and clear. Only the introduction section is the part of the manuscript that should be improved. The reference to the patents is included in section 6. Therefore, I suggest moving the whole information about them to the section 6 and enhance the state of art (publication and or patents) to emphasize the novelty of the work.

Finally, in line 35 a point is missing at the end of the sentence. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Testing scale models of hydro-reactor profiled ducts that create  notable net-head to promote hydroelectric power from currents

 

The manuscript  is an interesting contribution to the new  technologies for the extraction of  hydroelectric power from water currents by using  hydro-reactor  ducts able to provide more opportunities to be applied  in an increasing  number of  potential sites.

The manuscript  is well written and well structured. However, some comments  have to be made, as follows:

-          Procedure and instrumentation  used  in the experimental measurements of  velocities and pressure  are not sufficiently described.

-          Results  in terms of  net-head calculated by eq. 16  and reported in Table 1  do not seem to take in account  the  high  variability   of  pressure  which appears, for the same Vc, in the order  of 100% (Fig. 19). How this variation  can be considered  in terms of  applicability of the proposed  technology?

-          The  considered  resistance R1, R2, R3  affect the net-head as well the discharge  flowing through  the  hydro-reactor  ducts. Since  the aim of this  work is  the  extraction of  power,  which is  related to the product of  net-head and discharge,  some explanation  on this  point  is  necessary. 

 

Some minor comments  are  in yellow notes  in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been improved according the reviewer suggestions.