Rate Equation Analysis of the Effect of Damage Distribution on Defect Evolution in Self-Ion Irradiated Fe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents rate theory calculation of defect cluster concentrations at two different temperatures for uniform and non-uniform damage rates. The work is sound and may be published, provided the following questions are addressed:

 - why is the implantation peak called a "Bragg" peak? I have never heard the peak referred to this way. Bragg peaks are a term from the theory of diffraction, so they do not seem relevant to this paper.

 - the abstract should give a clearer summary of the conclusions.

 - introduction: what is meant by a "real system"? I suggest replacing this term with something more precise.

 - introduction: to better motivate the work, it would be helpful to propose some idea as to why damage in a peaked profile might be different from a more flat one.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

I appreciate your review of my paper. The paper’s quality is improved by your comments, suggestions, and corrections. Based on your review reports, I revised the manuscript. The changed parts are shown in red in the manuscript. A few words were altered to enhance the sentences. They are also displayed in red.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents kinetic data of damage, comparing ion irradiation with neutron irradiation, and compares to temperatures and two different ion energies. The paper is good and I only have minor comments.

1.  In results, it would be good to changes the headings, not starting with a number. For example, 3.2. 2 MeV..., looks strange. Better to write 3.2. Self-ion irradiated iron at 2 MeV. This goes for many headings, also with temperature.
2. In figure 3 it says inmobile. Should be immobile.
3. In the figure 3 caption, please add the energy (100 MeV). Although it says in the heading, it is good if the figure is clear in itself.
4.  In figure 5 it says "Homogeneous I" two times. One should be "Homogeneous V".

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

I appreciate your review of my paper. The paper’s quality is improved by your comments, suggestions, and corrections. Based on your review reports, I revised the manuscript. The changed parts are shown in red in the manuscript. A few words were altered to enhance the sentences. They are also displayed in red.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf