Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Manuscript "Influence of Xenon-Fluorine-Sulfur hexafluoride and Argon-Fluorine-Sulfur hexafluoride streameng on the dust surface potential having a Cairn-Tsallis distributed plasmas" is a theoretical analysis of the potential of dust particles in a plasma, considering the quasi-neutrality condition in the plasma and the collection of ions and electrons by the dust particle.

The manuscript language is understandable most of the time, but there are mistakes from the beginning of the introduction. Some mistakes are severe. For example, I could not find a verb in the second sentence of the introduction, and an extra misplaced 'of' is present. However, in the third sentence I could not find out who demonstrated the apparition of additional eigen-modes in dust-acoustics. In the second paragraph, two sentences are repeated with little variation, from 'Dust-charge fluctuation...' to 'ion current being equal'. These examples support the conclusion that the manuscript needs a thorough English language revision. Although I will not list all the typos I found (which is difficult given that the manuscript does not indicate line numbers) I recommend the authors to revise the text or get the text revised by an English language expert.

In page 9, at the end of the page, the authors state the primary objective of this research paper. The objective should be at the end of the introduction, before the article organization in sections. An indicator of the insufficient care that the authors devoted to the writing of the manuscript is the fact that that very important statement, the primary objective of the research paper, is followed by a cryptic text referring to figure 1. How does figure 1, which is a graphical representation of the Cairn-Tsallis distribution, display the effects of negative ion streaming? Is the referral to figura 1 a typo?

In the Summary section, in which sense the results of this research are similar to those of [7, 10]? No reference to these papers is given in the Numerical Results section, neither in the short Summary section the statement follows as a logical consequence of the previous sentences, which are about the alfa and q parameters, while in [7, 10] these parameters do not exist.

As a whole, the research may be interesting to those researchers working with dusty plasmas, but it is far from well presented. Therefore, I recommend that the paper is revised and be resent for publication.

I wish the authors the best.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The Manuscript "Influence of Xenon-Fluorine-Sulfur hexafluoride and Argon-Fluorine-Sulfur hexafluoride streaming on the dust surface potential having a Cairn-Tsallis distributed plasmas" is a theoretical analysis of the potential of dust particles in a plasma, considering the quasi-neutrality condition in the plasma and the collection of ions and electrons by the dust particle.

Point1: The manuscript language is usually understandable, but there are mistakes from the beginning of the introduction. Some mistakes are severe. For example, I could not find a verb in the second sentence of the introduction, and an extra misplaced 'of' is present. However, in the third sentence, I could not find out who demonstrated the apparition of additional eigenmodes in dust-acoustics. In the second paragraph, two sentences are repeated with little variation, from 'Dust-charge fluctuation...' to 'ion current being equal. These examples support the conclusion that the manuscript needs a thorough English language revision. Although I will not list all the typos I found (which is difficult given that the manuscript does not indicate line numbers) I recommend the authors revise the text or get the text revised by an English language expert.

Response 1: In the revised manuscript ‘Furthermore, both in the lab and theoretically demonstrated that dynamics of the dust charge introduce additional eigenmodes.’ has been removed.  One of the sentences has been removed having little variation and the mechanism of the dust charging process is made more clear by adding more sentences. All grammatical and typographical errors throughout the manuscript have been improved to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have also changed/modified some words/sentences in our revised manuscript accordingly

Point 2: In page 9, at the end of the page, the authors state the primary objective of this research paper. The objective should be at the end of the introduction, before the article organization in sections. An indicator of the insufficient care that the authors devoted to the writing of the manuscript is the fact that that very important statement, the primary objective of the research paper, is followed by a cryptic text referring to figure 1. How does figure 1, which is a graphical representation of the Cairn-Tsallis distribution, display the effects of negative ion streaming? Is the referral to figura 1 a typo?

Response 2: In the revised manuscript more explanation has been given regarding figure 1. And an unimportant tax has been removed from page 9

Point 3: In the Summary section, in which sense the results of this research are similar to those of [7, 10]? No reference to these papers is given in the Numerical Results section, neither in the short Summary section, the statement follows as a logical consequence of the previous sentences, which are about the alfa and q parameters, while in [7, 10] these parameters do not exist. As a whole, the research may be interesting to those researchers working with dusty plasmas, but it is far from well presented. Therefore, I recommend that the paper is revised and be resent for publication.
Response 3: As the spectral index q reduces to Maxwellian behavior when the values of q have increased the magnitude of dust surface potential decreases and show the same behavior as reference 7 and 11. In reference 11 the dust grain potential is calculated by using Maxwellian distribution. The (q,α)-distribution reduces to the Maxwellian distribution exactly in the case of α=0 and q→1.  In the figure value of alpha is very small and the value of q is 1 in one of the lines showing Maxwellian behavior like references 7 and 11

We finally hope that we have properly incorporated all the suggestions offered by you and your reviewer and that our revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in Applied Sciences 

With very best regards

Thanks

Dr. A. A. Abid

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper needs to be revised both dramatically and scientifically. Here, some comments. 

·    English grammar needs to be checked. Some statements are not clearly/grammatically well-written. It would be useful to edit or rewrite those parts. As an example, Page 6, Xenon-Fluorine-Sulfur hexafluoride (Xe -F -SF60 plasmas, two modes exist depending on the temperatures of electrons and ions.

·      The size of the captions are abnormally large and I suggest to reduce it.

·      Results and discussion:

1.     Some parts of the discussions are opaque and needs to be rewritten. For example, “The in.uence of   for a large value of q(= 0:9) is studied in Fig. 1(b), additionally….”

2.     The author needs to make comments/extend the explanation of “It is investigated that for

increasing values of  ; prominent e.ects of plasma species are shown on top shoulders but

no e.ect on tail of velocity distribution curves.” Rewrite this part first then: Why? Refence? Explanation?

Is the reason behind increasing U_Xe+ increasing and U_Ar with DSP related to the increasing the ion velocity and decreasing the colliosions? What could be possible reason behind it?

 

Author Response

Response Ro reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: English grammar needs to be checked. Some statements are not clearly/grammatically well-written. It would be useful to edit or rewrite those parts. As an example, on Page 6, Xenon-Fluorine-Sulfur hexafluoride (Xe -F -SF60 plasmas, two modes exist depending on the temperatures of electrons and ions.

Response 1: All grammatical and typographical errors throughout the manuscript has been improved to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have also changed/modified some words/sentences in our revised manuscript and the mansion part on page 6, has been revised accordingly

Point 2: The size of the captions is abnormally large and I suggest reducing it.

Response 2: the size of the captions has been reduced and the values of required parameters added to the tax of the manuscript.

 

Point 3: Results and discussion:

1 Some parts of the discussions are opaque and need to be rewritten. For example, “The influence of   for a large value of q(= 0:9) is studied in Fig. 1(b), additionally….”

Response 3: In the revised manuscript, the mansion part has been revised accordingly

 

Point 4: The author needs to make comments/extend the explanation of “It is investigated that for increasing values of  ; prominent effects of plasma species are shown on top shoulders but no effect on tail of velocity distribution curves.” Rewrite this part first then: Why? Reference? Explanation? Is the reason behind increasing U_Xe+ increasing and U_Ar+ with DSP related to the increasing the ion velocity and decreasing the collisions? What could be possible reason behind it?

Response 4: The dust particles are negatively charged and due to the increasing velocity of U_Xe+, the magnitude of the DSP increases because of increasing the ion velocity and decreasing the collisions.

 

We finally hope that we have properly incorporated all the suggestions offered by you and your reviewer and that our revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in Applied Sciences 

With very best regards

Thanks

Dr. A. A. Abid

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have kept some places a bit less informed. For instance, section IV is presented with little or almost no explanation. The paper doesn't also elaborate on the numerical schemes. I find it full of mathematics and less of physics. I consider the paper can be improved if the authors include some relevant physical elements. The basic physics part is missing somehow. Some schematic diagrams and inclusion of physics part will attract more readers. I hope that the authors can improve it on the revised version. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The authors have kept some places a bit less informed. For instance, section IV is presented with little or almost no explanation. The paper doesn't also elaborate on the numerical schemes. I find it full of mathematics and less of physics. I consider the paper can be improved if the authors include some relevant physical elements. The basic physics part is missing somehow. Some schematic diagrams and inclusion of physics part will attract more readers. I hope that the authors can improve it on the revised version

Response 1: In the revised manuscript, we have added the explanation regarding the physics of the paper and also in section IV.  All grammatical and typographical errors throughout the manuscript have been improved to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have also changed/modified some words/sentences in our revised manuscript accordingly.  

We finally hope that we have properly incorporated all the suggestions offered by you and your reviewer and that our revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in Applied Sciences 

With very best regards

Thanks

Dr. A. A. Abid

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors fixes some of the problems I detected in the first revision.

The usage of English language has been improved. Even though there are still plenty of space for improvement, the severe mistakes have been fixed. The manuscript still requires some editing during the editorial process.

Regarding the second of my concerns in the first revision, I still do not understand why the statement of the main objective of the article is not present in the introduction. The other reviewer was right in noting that the physical explanation was not present or hidden behind plenty of unineteresting long mathematical equations. The authors apparently have preferend to delay the physical explanation to the summary.

Regarding the third of my concerns, I thank the authors for the explanation that has been added to the summary. In my opinion, it really makes the difference.

I hope that the manuscript is successful and I wish the best to the authors.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been improved and deserves to be published.