CFD Performance Analysis of a Dish-Stirling System for Microgeneration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 150: “Figures 5 and 6 show that the higher encumbrance” - it should be 9 and 10?
Line 180: “The results are presented in figures 12 and show AISI 310 and Inconel 625 and their temperature profile at a constant time value of 28 minutes” – constant time is somehow confusing, what the authors mean?
The authors briefly treated the problem of the total efficiency of the engine in the calculations using the Schmidt analysis, which was adopted at the level of 30%. It was recommended to estimate the efficiency of this engine on the basis of operational data from other documents.
Author Response
See the document attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
At the conclusion, the first paragraph "haa" must be replace with "has"
Author Response
See the document attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors report the development of a microgeneration energy system that uses α-Stirling engine fed by solar dish concentrator. Simulations are carried out to determine the temperature reached by the air inside the engine, and the corresponding heat power produced. Electrical power output is also simulated assuming the system is coupled with a permanent magnet generator. The step by step model establishment and simulations are introduced clearly. I would suggest the following revision before it is published.
- A critical review of the current research in the field of solar dish-Stirling engine for power generation is necessary in the Introduction.
- Since no experimental data to support the simulation results, detailed comparations with the results from published literatures are necessary (e.g. a table to list the parameters and results used for this work and those from the literatures) to draw conclusions. (current comparations from lines 275-281 are too brief).
- Please double check the notes listed below:
- Line 138: “with a surface roughness of 1.75 mrad,…”, double check the unit for surface roughness.
- The top views of Figure 9 and Figure 10 seem same. Are both of them for Figure 10?
- Line 150: Should “Figures 5 and 6…” be “Figures 9 and 10…”?
- Line 243: Figure 14 needs reference.
- Line 289: “haa a…” should be “has a…”?
Author Response
See the document attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors work on an interesting topic, but nevertheless the quality of the manuscript is far from what can be accepted in a scientific journal of this level, so my decision to reject the manuscript. I attach some possible improvements:
• line 19 watch out for the units.
• The introduction is very poor, recent research works are not explained and the objectives are not very clear.
• Figure 1 is not in format, it is the typical graph that Excel produces by default.
• The quality of Figures 2 and 4 are very bad, and some of them do not have the letter in format.
• There is a great lack in the references used in the Introduction, it must be improved.
• Table 1 on page 4 should have a title and a heading
• The parameters of the equations should be described below.
• Line 93, 157, 180 watch out for the units
• Line 97 add software version, in addition, be careful with using abbreviations without having previously described them.
• Table 1, unit of measure of degrees
• Table 3, watch out for the units
• Table 4, do not use special characters
• Equations 3, 4 and 5 are well known, if indicated indicate what each parameter is and give an explanation
• Lines 231 to 235, can be written as a paragraph and speed up reading
• In general the results are very poor and weakly disputed
• Findings need to be expanded and significantly improved
• There are missing sections in the document that are included in the Template
• The bibliography is not in format, correct
Author Response
see the attachement
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have made all the proposed corrections, however, there is still a large number of pixelated images in the document and of very low quality, if this section is corrected, the article is suitable.
