Discharge Characteristics and Mechanisms of Electrolytic Discharge Processing by Jet Mask

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores a novel method of high-voltage jet electrolytic discharge for microfabrication. It presents findings on the discharge process, morphology of machined surfaces, electric field dynamics, and the underlying discharge mechanism, highlighting its unique characteristics and potential for various applications. Although combining experimental and theoretical work is absolutely positive and encouraged, the text has some points that must be addressed by the authors. They are following.

 

What does ECC, in line 37, stands for?

Could the authors briefly explain how a composite-based tool electrode and using different dielectrics can control the discharge impact during electrochemical discharge processing?

Could the authors explorer more the “jet electrochemical discharge machining” for readers to have a minimal idea of what it is about?

The final part of the introduction is confusing. There seem to be typos and punctuation errors, making it more confusing.

I believe “NI” stands for “National Instruments”. The authors should write it on section “2. Discharge experimental research of Jet-ECDM”, line 74.

Authors are presenting the discharge process in Figure 2 but the image show neither the mask-covered area of the stainless-steel workpiece material nor the workpiece without mask coverage. Could the authors provide a better image?

From table 1 it is clear that a discharge is obtained when the machining voltage is higher (above 350 V, approximately) and the machine gap is above 2 mm, approximately. Could the authors explain this behaviour?

Figure 4 has to images. From the text, it seems that the left one was taken in the beginning of the process and the right one at the end. Authors should improve the caption so the readers can understand the differences between both images. Also, authors compared them to the pattern of a conventional EDM but without showing any image of a conventional EDM. Readers not used to the conventional EDM process may not fully understand the comparison. The same is observe in the analysis of Figure 5 where the authors claimed the side walls of the pits processed by jet mask electrolytic discharge have better quality then the ones processed by conventional mask electrolytic processing. Without an image and any quantitative parameter for comparison, the authors must be careful when making comparisons. I suggest changing the analysis.

Authors should improve Figure 7. The caption of the figure is poor. The reader cannot understand the meaning of the symbols shown in the image.

Why does the simulation require unreal assumptions such stable and constant electrolyte conductivity and temperature and a current efficiency of 100%? Could the authors justify? How much different these assumptions are from the real process?

The insulation boundary is not shown in Figure 7.

“The mesh around the anode is refined”. This sentence is repeated in line 185.

Figure 9 must be improved. It is very hard to read the captions, axes-titles, values, etc. In this way, one cannot visualize the subsequent discussion about the relationship between current density and simulation time.

Particularly, I do not like the use of the same letter for the bubble generation efficiency, V, and for both parameters, the volumes of bubble and gas. Could not the authors use another letter for efficiency?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. Please see the response letter in the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The pulsed high-voltage electric jet processing discharge presented in this manuscript is of technical importance. The authors have also provided a theoretical analysis and used COMSOL to simulate the conditions, which helps understand and improve the setup. The following issues are minor, but I recommend the authors to clarify and revise the manuscript.     

1) The discussion section should be enhanced by comparing the results with the findings from published papers. The references are mostly cited in the introduction but lacking in the discussion section.

2) It seems that the authors used Generative AI to assist the writing. There are repetitive sentences from different versions in the Introduction, i.e. “This paper is dedicated to the above-mentioned research, which is of great importance for the in-depth study of Jet-ECDM. This paper is dedicated to the above, providing a new methodological and theoretical basis for ECDM.” If this is the case, please add the declaration sentence or acknowledgments.

3) In addition to the aforementioned sentences, some other sentences need revision, e.g., “The micro-pits were observed with an optical microscope, and the changes in the electric field of the high-pressure electrolytic jet channel were simulated and analyzed by COMSOL software, and the dielectric electric field composed of electrolyte and bubbles was mathematically deduced to reveal the mechanism of discharge channel formation under the jet condition.” is too long.

4) The temporal changes in Figure 2 are barely noticeable. Perhaps the author may highlight the distinct features by arrows or circles.

5) Captions of Figures 2,3,5,8 and 9 must be revised to include descriptions of (a), (b), (c),…

6) Thoroughly proofreading the text and the reference list is essential. Some spacing is missing, and the reference format currently appears inconsistent.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editing of English language is required

Author Response

Thank you! 

Please check the attachment for the coverletter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research investigates the discharge characteristics and electrolytic discharge processing mechanism by jet mask. Research innovation is good. The research structure is appropriate. The results are understandable. My opinion is to publish the manuscript in Coating.

Author Response

Thank you! 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research is the discharge characteristics and mechanism of electrolytic discharge processing by jet mask. This study aims to investigate and understand the behavior of electrochemical discharge machining in a jet state, specifically focusing on the discharge characteristics, formation mechanisms, and its effects on material processing.

The topic can be considered both original and relevant in the field, as it explores a relatively less-researched aspect of electrochemical discharge machining. The research addresses a specific gap in the field by examining the discharge process in a jet state and providing insights into how it differs from traditional electrochemical discharge machining methods. This information could be valuable for improving the understanding and application of this microfabrication technique, especially for materials that are brittle, hard, or non-conductive.

The cited references are numerous and relevant.

I would recommend modifying the title. It is not necessary to include the word “Research” in the title, since this is obvious. Rephrasing the title would also make is shorter, more concise.

I have a question: What is the meaning of the “Sports platform” in figure 1? I didn’t find the description in the caption, nor in the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. Please see the response letter in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted for publication in the present form.