Experimental Comparison of the Single-Event Effects of Single-Photon and Two-Photon Absorption under a Pulsed Laser
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of the article “Experimental Comparison on Single Event Effect of Single Photon and Two-Photon absorption under Pulsed Laser “, The topic is interesting and within the scope of the journal.
- In this paper, the authors have presented single event transient of operational amplifier is analysed with pulse laser single photon and two photon test, furtherly verify the feasibility of two-photon absorption of single event effect test technology.
- There is an extensive discussion of the presented idea, and authors have offered the required mathematical background behind it.
- The paper is well-organized and easy-to-read and to follow.
However, the following issues have to be addressed
1-Abstract is well, but should be included some numbers of the optimum achieved results in this work. Also, definition of abbreviations and terms such as ( SPA ,TPA, SPA SEE….. ) must be remember for the first time in anywhere.
2-Introduction needs more explains the novelty or objective of this work at the end paragraph.
3- Should be separated the mathematical models of pulse propagation and carrier generation and expansion, from the introduction and supported with simple sketch for this model .
4-Put references for each fig. such as (fig.1,2,…) not beyond to the authors (should be removed unnecessary images of devices ).
5-All equations along the manuscript needs references such as eq.4, except in the case of this empirical equation and researcher concluded from the practical results.
6-Repeated equation 4 and need ref.
7-Should be refer to fig. number such as (As can be seen from the figure??) anywhere is remember .
8-Discussion should be expansion and refer into previous researches for agreement and compares and summarized the specifications (wavelength, pulsed duration, mode structure and beam spot size…..) for each one and output results .
9-The language of the manuscript should be slightly checked one more time.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is quite interesting, initially. The abstract is well written, and the introduction gives a good context and theoretical background on the subject under investigation. However, as the text advances, many issues can be identified. The amount of typos is way too big, and the text is confusing at some points (language issues, I suppose). Besides these issues, despite presenting some interesting experimental results, they are poorly explored / discussed. While most of the conclusion addresses general, introductory points (related to the relevance of using the investigated techniques), a very brief and superficial discussion is presented at the end of this section. Therefore, the whole document should be reviewed / rewritten, in order to have it published in this journal. Please see below some of the specific points that should be addressed.
[lines 9-20] Avoid using not-yet defined acronyms in the abstract, and ensure that all acronyms used along the document are defined at their first use (for example, I could not find the definition of SET).
[lines 79-91] Please fix the multiple typos (the beta, gamma, and sigma indexes should be written with subscript font style; in line 86, it seems that chi is multiplying sigma_EX; in line 87, there is a subscript "33" after a period; in the same line you used hw -- rather than h omega, as written in Eq. 3 -- to denote the photon energy; in line 90, there is no space after the period; etc.). The equation numbers 1, 2, and 3 are vertically misaligned as well. There should be spaces between the values and their units (for example, 1200 nm, rather than 1200nm). Please check other typos all along the document (such as, for example, the use of lower case j instead of J, among others).
[lines 97-99] Figure 1 is not referenced in the text (no paragraph calls it). Every figure presented in a scientific article should be discussed along its text. In addition, the font size of the texts and labels in Figure 1 is too small / hard to read.
[lines 103-104] Figure 2 seems to be taken from an external source. If yes, please provide the reference.
[line 130] c (lower case) -- and not C (upper case) -- is the speed of light.
[lines 157-162] Please rewrite this paragraph (the English is not good here). It is not possible to understand it as it is written now.
[lines 164-171] When you mention micron, do you mean micrometer? If the focusing process is done manually, and visually inspected, the error might be much higher than micrometer level. Since you cannot quantify changes in the laser spot size, you cannot state that you have errors in the order of micrometers (unless you measure it and provide some statistical data).
[line 181] Please correct 1.0 um to 1.0 "mu"m.
[lines 198-200] Since you have two distinct panels in Figure 4, you should label them (a and b, just as you did in Figure 1).
[lines 209, 211, 246-251,] At first I was confused to understand the meaning of "variation trend". However, when reading the discussion on Figure 8, in my understanding, when you use such an expression, you are referring to the declivity or slope of the curve representing the voltage as time advances. Is this correct? if yes, I would strongly recommend you to use "slope", rather than "variation trend" in the text.
[lines 212-214] Please choose the color of the Q and R labels in figure 5. Using a black font over a dark greyscale figure does not provide a good readability. You mention that you tested these transistors. However, you only provided measurements for Q9 and Q20. Why there is no data for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q16, Q18 and Q19? How did the measurements for such transistors performed, in comparison to the ones presented for Q9 and Q20?
[lines 218, 260, 273] Why in Figures 6, 9 and 10, the origin of the time axis is not zero microseconds? In particular, why in Figure 6 it starts at -60 microseconds?
[lines 279-300] The whole conclusion is very vague. While most of its text (from line 280 to 293) sounds like a general introduction, a short and superficial discussion on the results is written within a few lines (from 293 to 300). I was expecting to find a discussion on the distinct slopes observed for the two investigated cases. In addition, I would like to see some discussion on the distinct slopes observed for the same laser wavelength (as seen in, for example, Figure 7 for 1064 nm), for the curves depicting negative voltages if compared to the slopes of the curves related to the positive voltages. Indeed, I also would like to read some discussion on why for lower laser-pulse energies the voltages are negative (and why it becomes positive as the laser-pulse energy is increased).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors studied the single event effect (SEE) of single photon absorption (SPA) and two photon absorption (TPA) by using pulsed lasers. The experiment demonsted that the test results of TPA SEE were basically consistent with those of SPA SEE. The method is reasonable and the result is credible. But I have the following questions.
In the introduction on Page 2, the authors said that there was no carriers generated by weak pulse lasers with the peak-power wavelength in sub-band gap, while exciton pairs were generated through TPA by focused pulse lasers. I thought the author discussed the inter-band transition. Is there inter-subband transition if the weak pulse lasers were used to drive semiconductor devices.
After Eq.(3), the authors introduced \beta_2 which was proportional to the imaginary part of Kerr nonlinearity x, while \beta_1 was proportional to the real part of x. I wonder the effect of linear optical susceptibility (real part) on the phase during the pulse propagation.
there are also some mistakes in expression, for example,
Line 216 and Line 218, "slopeslopeslope";
Line 255 and Line 257, "slopeslope".
From Line 309 to Line 316, the highlighted part;
In references, the reference information should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you to authors ,we are doing all our comments .
regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The conclusion is one of the most important sections of a scientific paper. I spent my time reading and analyzing the paper, and I wrote in my report that "the whole conclusion is very vague". I wrote multiple points that should be addressed in this topic. However, despite replying that the conclusion has been reviewed, the authors left it unchanged (i.e., the conclusion in the revised manuscript is the very same I reviewed in the first version of the submitted paper. Therefore, I do not recommend this paper to be published in this journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved, but there are also some mistakes in the references, including [1][3][13][14]. It is necessary to capitalize the first letter of the title of the references according to the requirement of the Journal.
Author Response
Thanks for the reviewer,I have capitalized the first letter of the titile of the reference.
