URSA-PQ: A Mobile and Flexible Pump-Probe Instrument for Gas Phase Samples at the FLASH Free Electron Laser
, Dennis Mayer 1, Richard James Squibb 2, Matthew S. Robinson 1, Mario Niebuhr 1, Raimund Feifel 2, Stefan Düsterer 3 and Markus Gühr 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
16 CAMP standard: seems that the CAMP chamber is a standard
19 integrating operative mode
21 instruments -> instrumental
27 rephrase
34 “Using small and isolated chromophores is advantageous for
35 this effort, as theory does not then need to include the influence of a solvent or substrate”
I don’t understand the information of this sentence, and its link to the work. Is it because the
technique is used in gas-phase experiments?
35 rephrase
54 fashion -> way
73 seems that the CAMP is a standard, of course is a standard de facto at FLASH but is not "technically speaking" a standard
96 why a holed mirror and NON collinear beams? Usually for non-collinear beams a D-shaped mirror is used, on the contrary, drilled mirrors are used for collinear propagation. I don't understand.
96 containing -> having
101 fashion -> way, rephrase
104 Fig. 2
126 "standard"
144 the focus POSITION?? …can be adjusted ..
150 same consideration ad in 96
241 eV?
242 eV?
248 rephrase
262 has been
293 later
298-300 rephrase, to me is not clear
317 what is monitored? how the signal in the photodiode is produced?
318 the fact is that 100 ps are not sufficient to perform experiments…
328 3/2 and 1/2 with same style
364 “standard” is misleading
372 Instrumental realization or realization of the instrument
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer very much for their time and thoughtful remarks to the manuscript. The suggested edits make the manuscript more readable.
Best regards,
Markus Guehr
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes and characterizes portable instrument to perform pump-probe spectroscopy with an optical and an x-ray pulse in the gas phase called URSA-PQ
Line 81, page 3, I suggest shortening the description of Figure 1 and fill in the extensive description of Figure 1 to the text.
Line 106, page 4, I suggest shortening the description of Figure 2 and fill in the extensive description of Figure 2 to the text.
Line 177, page 5, please explain the shortcut:SMA
Line 187, page 6, please explain the shortcut: LCLS
Line 194, page 6, please explain the shortcut: FWHM
Line 197, page 6, I suggest shortening the description of Figure 3 and fill in the extensive description of Figure 3 to the text.
Line 365, page 10. I suggest add more conclusions. The conclusions are very general. The manuscript presents detailed test results.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the time and the throughtful remarks to the manuscript. The suggested edits make the manuscript much better.
Best regards,
Markus Guehr
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
