Power-Efficient Design of Large-Aperture Magnets for High-Energy Physics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject is very interesting, the design of such magnets could lead to reduce the carbon footprint and to improve the energy efficiency. for different applications.

I really appreciate the authors work since it comprises all: electromagnetics, simulation and optimization techniques. 

Does authors try to design such a magnet, not only to simulate?

I recommend to include as future work the building of such a magnet and to introduce in their study some KPI's energy efficiency calculations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Presented paper “Power Efficient Design of Large Aperture Magnets for High Energy Physics” presents research and analysis of detectors magnets. The authors describe in the paper an approach which follows and improves the one proposed for the Scattering and Neutrino Detector magnet for the CERN SHiP experiment.

They refer, as test case, to the magnet under design for the upgrade of the CERN

SND@LHC experiment, proposing and evaluating two possible solutions.

The manuscript is design in 6 sections. References cited in the manuscript are good enough and present deep analysis of the problem.

All data in the figures and tables is clear and well visible.

Despite of the above I have the following remarks to the authors reviewing this article:

1. The abstract of the manuscript doesn’t follow regular scientific article requirements. The abstract aims to present briefly the content and author’s idea for this research and main goal of the article.

2. All statements in the article have to be in impersonal form of the verb (whole abstract). Such stile is used in the text body of the manuscript.

3. The abstract need to be rewritten.

4. All acronyms have to be translated or the authors have to give brief explanation of their meaning at least (acronyms in section 4 and down).

5. The text from L220 to L243 refers to figures 6 to 10. The figures are fare from this text and there is no connection between text and figures. The authors have to reorder figures and text in this part of the manuscript.

6. The authors announce optimization procedure in the beginning of second section of the manuscript. Down the section no optimization method is found and discussed. Only variables and other optimization elements are shown in table 1. The results appear in section 3 but it is difficult to find connection. As long as the optimization is the core part of the research a detail description is needed in this respect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the presented article, the authors attempted to design a magnet with the method of refining and finishing the material used, giving it better features that increase the functional properties from the perspective of energy efficiency related to the concept of sustainable development. After getting acquainted with the content of the study, I suggest the authors, improve the study, and supplement the content in the subsections. Below are detailed comments on the article:

1. The introduction should be supplemented with an explanation of the properties of the magnets developed so far during the CERN SHiP experiment and the modernization of the CERN 80 SND@LHC magnet.

2. The article should be supplemented with a review of selected magnets used so far.

3. I suggest supplementing the article with a discussion in which the difference between the magnet proposed by the authors and the state-of-the-art magnet developed by Fermilab in 2020 with the strongest magnetic field generated for particle accelerators during the Mion g-2 experiment should be demonstrated.

4. Following the aim of the article, it should be indicated how the proposed magnet will contribute to the implementation of the sustainable development strategy.

Check the spelling

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf