A Liquid Nitrogen Cooling Circulation Unit: Its Design and a Performance Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is an applied design paper that is not appropriate for publication in the present form. It needs improvement before it can be considered for publication.

The manuscript should not be the results of an applied design problem. Perhaps this could be rewritten where this could be a case study within a more general manuscript.

--Improve English grammar and paper organization (i.e. better sentence structure, better word choice, avoid using the same word to start consecutive sentences , avoid long disjointed paragraphs, avoid one sentence paragraphs,  etc)

--avoid lumping references - discuss each individually.

--improve the background discussion of the problem 

--define all variables

--required improvement of figure and table titles - they need to be more descriptive

--Make sure the novel aspects of the problem are discussed.

--provide an uncertainty analysis

--proper reference for ANSYS, FLUENT

--Proper caps for ANSYS

--discuss grid dependence

--are point to point lines in figures appropriate or should they be a best fit

--improve references - use more current references that are relevant

Comments on the Quality of English Language

--Improve English grammar and paper organization (i.e. better sentence structure, better word choice, avoid using the same word to start consecutive sentences , avoid long disjointed paragraphs, avoid one sentence paragraphs,  etc)

Author Response

Comments 1: [Improve English grammar and paper organization (i.e. better sentence structure, better word choice, avoid using the same word to start consecutive sentences, avoid long disjointed paragraphs, avoid one sentence paragraphs,  etc).]
Response 1: [Touched up the language and grammar of the article]

Comments 2: [avoid lumping references - discuss each individually.]
Response 2: [Aggregate references were removed and each reference was discussed individually]

Comments 3: [improve the background discussion of the problem]
Response 3: [Reorganized the introductory section to include a background discussion. Page1 line27]

Comments 4: [define all variables]
Response 4: [All variables are defined]

Comments 5: required improvement of figure and table titles - they need to be more descriptive]
Response 5: [Revised titles of figures and tables. Line92,97,125,238,302,320,331]

Comments 6: [proper reference for ANSYS, FLUENT]
Response 6: [Added 2.3.3 Model building and meshing.Line221; 2.3.4. FLUENT parameter settings. Line241]

Comments 7: [Proper caps for ANSYS]
Response 7: [Capitalized all ANSYS.]

Comments 8: [-discuss grid dependence]
Response 8: [The mesh dependencies are in section 2.3.3, along with a new Figure 4 computational mesh.Page7 line221]

Comments 9: [are point to point lines in figures appropriate or should they be a best fit]
Response 9: [The images were modified as in Figures 9 and 10. Line320 and line 331.]

Comments 10: [improve references - use more current references that are relevant]
Response 10: [Comprehensive revision of references.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors demonstrated a liquid nitrogen circulation unit designed for the cooling of monochromators. The paper is in good shape including the design, simulation, fabrication, and performance test of the LN circulation unit. Also, the research falls into the scope of this journal. The referee recommends for publication after the following minor issues are addressed:

1. In the introduction part, when listing previous research works, the authors’ names are mentioned in different ways, some are mentioned by their full name (e.g. Liu Lijun), and some look like with initials (e.g. Xiang Z). Please be consistent.

2. The font size of the legend in Figure 1 is too small, and unreadable.

3. Page 4/12 line 121, ‘The physical properties of liquid nitrogen can be obtained from the table as follows:’, which table? Provide reference here.

4. Fewer table lines don’t always make the table look clean. For example, table 2, it’s hard to follow. Consider adding table lines properly.

5. Figures 3, 4, and 5 they’re relevant and it is better to put them together (combine them into a single plot with subplots (a), (b), and (c)). For example, figure 4 is just a screen copy of the model in ANSYS software, it doesn’t give any useful information unless put next to Figure 5.

6. Figure 6, why put the y-axis on the right side of the plot since there is only one y-axis? It’s not forbidden but just not the usual way people do it.

Author Response

Comments 1: [In the introduction part, when listing previous research works, the authors’ names are mentioned in different ways, some are mentioned by their full name (e.g. Liu Lijun), and some look like with initials (e.g. Xiang Z). Please be consistent.]

Response 1: [The introduction has been revised to harmonize references to authors' names, e.g., Liu L, Xiang Z.]

Comments 2: [The font size of the legend in Figure 1 is too small, and unreadable.]

Response 2: [Redrawing of Figure 1 with enlarged fonts. Page 3/13 line92]

Comments 3: [Page 4/12 line 121, ‘The physical properties of liquid nitrogen can be obtained from the table as follows:’, which table? Provide reference here.]

Response 3: [Change the content to: The physical properties of liquid nitrogen are as follows. Page4 line137]

Comments 4: [Fewer table lines don’t always make the table look clean. For example, table 2, it’s hard to follow. Consider adding table lines properly.]

Response 4: [Table 2 was amended. Page6 line193]

Comments 5: [Figures 3, 4, and 5 they’re relevant and it is better to put them together (combine them into a single plot with subplots (a), (b), and (c)). For example, figure 4 is just a screen copy of the model in ANSYS software, it doesn’t give any useful information unless put next to Figure 5.]

Response 5: [Changes have been made to the images and new images have been added]

Comments 6: [Figure 6, why put the y-axis on the right side of the plot since there is only one y-axis? It’s not forbidden but just not the usual way people do it.]

Response 6: [ Figure 6 has been modified. Page11 line274]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After a thorough review of your manuscript, I kindly request major revisions to address the comments for further improvement of the manuscript:

- Keywords need to be improved.

- The introduction is relatively short and lacks a comprehensive literature review to establish the research gap, originality, and novelty of the work. To improve it, more studies needed to be reviewed and added to the introduction by mentioning their main studied parameter 

- Lumped and grouped references such as [2-9] should be removed.

- Authors should enhance the novelty of the work at the end of the introduction to emphasize the significance of their work.

- The language and grammar are generally clear; however, conducting thorough proofreading for grammatical errors, scientific writing, and punctuation is necessary for publishing the manuscript—for example, space after the "," and ":" in Table 2.

- The analysis of results is poor.

- The conclusion section needs to be improved by adding your findings and results

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- The language and grammar are generally clear; however, conducting thorough proofreading for grammatical errors, scientific writing, and punctuation is necessary for publishing the manuscript—for example, space after the "," and ":" in Table 2.

Author Response

Comments 1: [Keywords need to be improved.]

Response 1: [Modify keywords to Cryogenic oscillators; subcooled liquid nitrogen; coiled heat exchangers; nitrogen exhaust heaters]

Comments 2: [The introduction is relatively short and lacks a comprehensive literature review to establish the research gap, originality, and novelty of the work. To improve it, more studies needed to be reviewed and added to the introduction by mentioning their main studied parameter .]

Response 2: [Revised introduction, on page 1/13 of the article, lines 27 through 66]

Comments 3: [Lumped and grouped references such as [2-9] should be removed.]

Response 3: [The aggregate and grouping quotes have been removed and [1,2,3,4,5] in line 34 and [8,9,10] in line 47 have been added]

Comments 4: [Authors should enhance the novelty of the work at the end of the introduction to emphasize the significance of their work.]

Response 4: [Revised the introduction and emphasized the importance of the work in it.The introduction is on pages 27 through 66]

Comments 5: [The language and grammar are generally clear; however, conducting thorough proofreading for grammatical errors, scientific writing, and punctuation is necessary for publishing the manuscript—for example, space after the "," and ":" in Table 2.]

Response 5: [Language and grammar have been touched up, and punctuation has been proofread，For example, add spaces after the symbols in table 2]

Comments 6: [The analysis of results is poor]

Response 6: [Changes were made to the analysis of results, from page 11/13, line 313 to line 330]

Comments 7: [The conclusion section needs to be improved by adding your findings and results]

Response 7: [Added results to the conclusion, e.g., page 12/13, lines 333 to 355]

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:The language and grammar are generally clear; however, conducting thorough proofreading for grammatical errors, scientific writing, and punctuation is necessary for publishing the manuscript—for example, space after the "," and ":" in Table 2.

Response 1:Language and grammar have been touched up, and punctuation has been proofread，For example, add spaces after the symbols in table 2

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised manuscript has addressed most concerns.  English grammar still can use some minor improvements 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This revised manuscript has addressed most concerns.  English grammar still can use some minor improvements 

Author Response

Comments 1: [This revised manuscript has addressed most concerns.  English grammar still can use some minor improvements ]
Response 1: [Roughened the article's statements]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All issues mentioned in the previous round of review have been properly addressed. Can be considered for publication.

Author Response

Response 1: [Roughened the article's statements]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for considering my comments and revising your manuscript accordingly. I believe the paper is now ready for publication. Thanks!

Author Response

Response 1: [Roughened the article's statements]