除了我自己的疏忽外~~~ 這個reviewer真的覺得我的文章寫得粉爛吧~~~~ JPP我也已經上了兩篇了~~沒想到第3篇打擊這麼大~~~~~ 再找別篇期刊吧~~~~~ Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author Written English needs vast improvement. At present the grammar/language is of an unacceptably low quality. References. Ref 2: Herman, K. should by Krier, H. - you've got the names backwards. Ref 3: you have a problem with the quotations. Refs 4-8 are completely unrelated to the present work; they are just FEM papers in different thermal stress applications. Reference work relevant to your manuscript. Previous work on FEM/thermal calculations and stress/thermal measurements in rocket motors, insulators, and propellant grains. Value. What is the value or novelty of this work? The authors have applied a heat transfer condition to the inside of an annulus and performed a black box ANSYS FEM calculation for the stress distribution in the annulus. In my opinion, this is not a publishable result but rather an undergraduate student project. The results are not generalized for non-specific materials, variation in motor case thickness, etc. I see very little value in this work. The limited results are specific to the chosen parameters and this can be easily done by nearly anyone with ANSYS and a BS in mechanical engineering. Technical. What is the applied pressure on the insulator? I assume zero. This is purely a thermal stress calculation? Why vary insulator thickness but not also motor case thickness? Won't this influence the 0.6 cm thickness criteria for insulator thickness? Why the sharp changes in stress in the first 4 seconds? You should show a thermal loading (temperature, heat flux, other) graph to explain. But my biggest problem is that this work lacks value for nearly all readers. This is simple black box FEM analysis on a thermally loaded annulus. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author (There are no comments.) --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 219.70.5.61 ※ cjws80293:轉錄至某隱形看板 11/05 23:41