Research on IR and Heat Transfer Characteristics of Molybdenum-Sputtered Polyamide Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Review of the manuscript "Research on Heat transfer and IR Characteristics of Molybdenum Sputtered Polyamide Materials"
In this work, studies were carried out on the effect of sputtered molybdenum on the infrared transmittance of polyamide films with different textures. It can be assumed that the samples of molybdenum-coated polyamide obtained in this study can be used for the manufacture of multifunctional military clothing.
Despite the rather original work, there are remarks
1 Much attention is paid to the methodology for assessing color shades. This makes the job very difficult. It's hard to read.
2. A lot of color simulation, which is already redundant and so clear that there are changes. As such, it does not provide additional information. Just reloads the article. The pictures are sufficient to illustrate what is happening with the coating
3..There is no method for determining pore size.
In general, the work can be published, but it needs to be simplified a bit. And the author should give links to the methodology for determining shades, where it has already been published. He didn't invent it. This version of the manuscript has been improved with pictures demonstrating changes in the properties of the coating.
Adequately
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The article titled " Research on Heat transfer and IR Characteristics of Molybdenum Sputtered Polyamide Materials" discusses the in-depth characteristics and applications of molybdenum (Mo) in various fields, particularly focusing on its thermal conductivity properties and infrared (IR) transmittance. The study presents experimental results on the heat transfer rate and IR transmittance of molybdenum-sputtered specimens under different conditions. Overall, the research addresses an interesting topic and provides some valuable insights into the potential applications of molybdenum in multifunctional military wear, biosignal detection sensors, semiconductor products, batteries, and infrared thermal imaging detectors. However, there are several areas that need to be addressed before the article can be considered for publication.
1 ) The author should highlight in the introduction and in the abstract the novelty of the work in comparison to previous works.
2) The article requires significant improvement in terms of language and writing style. The author should revise the text to ensure clarity, coherence, and adherence to academic writing standards.
3) The conclusion section does not adequately summarize the key findings and implications of the study. The authors should provide a more comprehensive conclusion that highlights the significance of the results, discusses potential applications of molybdenum and suggests avenues for future research.
4) Could the author add Raman analysis to investigate better Mo-sputtered samples?
Overall, the article has the potential to contribute to the field of materials science. However, it requires significant revisions and improvements in terms of clarity and language. Addressing these concerns will greatly enhance this research work.
Moderate editing of English language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The article presents the results of studying the thermophysical parameters of coatings based on molybdenum, obtained by spraying. In general, the study of thermophysical parameters is a very interesting and important area of research in the field of thermophysical phenomena, as well as the study of the relationship between the structural and thermal characteristics of various coatings. The results of the presented research are very interesting and promising, and the work itself corresponds to the subject of the declared journal and can be accepted for publication after the authors answer all the questions posed.
1. The abstract of the article does not meet the requirements of the journal, it is too full of results, as well as their description. Authors should provide a more capacious and concise abstract, taking into account all the main requirements of the journal and the reviewer's comments.
2. The morphological features presented in Figure 2 require more detailed explanations indicating the range of grain sizes and their geometric features.
3. The obtained side chips indicate the uniformity of deposition, however, the authors should present the results of the evaluation of not only side chips, but also refractometry data in order to determine the uniformity over the surface of the applied coatings.
4. The authors should present the results of X-ray phase analysis of the obtained coatings, since in most cases either amorphous or oxide films can form during deposition.
5. The authors should provide more data on how the transmission values for the obtained coatings were measured.
6. Technical comments include the need to make adjustments to the submitted figures in order to improve their quality, as well as correct typographical errors in the text of the article. Also, the authors should pay attention to the terms they use, as well as, if possible, rework the text stylistically.
7. Also, for all observed and experimentally obtained values, the authors should give the values of the measurement error or standard deviation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have carefully addressed my concerns. Therefore, I recommend the publication of this work
Moderate revision.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors answered all the questions posed, the article can be accepted for publication in an updated form.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, it was considered in-depth characteristics, the concentration of thermal characteristics, and IR car terminal characteristics, and IR vehicles. In the case of Mo sputtering-treated PF1, PE1~5, the electrical resistance was 9.5, 2600, 3400, 83.5, 84.7, and 98.0 Ω,respectively, and the electrical resistance was very low compared to the untreated sample. In addition, when the Mo sputtering samples were placed and connected between the LED light and the battery, the LED was lit at PF1 and PE3 to 5. some minor issues should be addressed before publication:
(1) The author is suggested to organize the manuscript according to the journal's template For example, page 1 lacks the author's information;
(2) Page 2, Line 85, "and the characteristics of these samples are as shown in <Table 1>", the "<>" is not needed to be appear;
(3) Page 8, Figure 4 (a) is suggested to redrawn, the quality is poor;
(4) Page 9, Line 214-215, "That is, it was confirmed that molybdenum sputtering polyamide stromal net and film could be used as electrically conductive materials", some more detailed explanations are suggested to be added;
(5) Figures of 5,6,8,9 are suggested to redrawn, the quality is poor.
Overall, the paper ie well organised and can be accepted after minor reversion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author presented metallic Mo coatings on polyamide film.
There are some serious flaws in the manuscript, including:
1. The title of the manuscript contains the phrase "Mo Coated Condensation Polymer Materials". That is not clear, especially word "condensation". In addition, only one material is used as a substrate - polyamide.
2. The main result is the “electrical resistance” of the coatings obtained, but readers are interested in the resistivity of the coatings obtained.
3. Data on charge carrier concentration and mobility are also missing.
4. A comparison with other data for metallic Mo thin films from the literature is missing. Quick search lead to the http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.08.154. I believe there are many others.
5. There are many sentences in section 1 (Introduction) which are not relevant to the study. These sentences include "steels", "nutritional supplements", "thermal conductivity", oxide coatings, "artificial intelligence", etc. These include lines 26 - 56.
6. Usage of the phrase "plane waves" is not clear for me at all.
7. Section "2.2 Characterization". A methodology for resistance measurements is lacking as these measurements are not actually performed.
8. The same applies to IR transmittance methodology.
9. There is no explanation of the meaning of "H, S, V, Y, Cb and Cr". This make not possible to judge on further findings.
I propose to reject this manuscript!
The author should significantly improve the language of the manuscript as well as the correct use of terminology. The text looks very similar to the text generated by Google Translate or a similar tool.
Example is the very first sentence of the abstract: "With the development of the convergence industry, researches on electrical conductivity, thermal characteristics, semiconductor, motor and battery have come to the fore using special materials."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript can not be accepted in the present format. It has severe language issues. It is difficult to understand the sentences. Many ties sentneces are not complete and same words are repeated within a sentences also.
Also, it has serious flaws with the referencing. In the first few sentences all the references are kept in the bulk form 1-11, 12-20 and most of them are from 2021-2023 and not even relevant to the manuscript.
Some of the comments are
1. LED bulb lighting may not give the clarity, kindly add some measured value.
Figure 5 a can start from below zero so that the data can be seen
Technically the work is of value, but a complete overhaul including the title is required to come to the level of review and publish.
extremely poor
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The author needs to work on the manuscript
The text is clear. But a lot of unnecessary phrases
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I cannot accept this version of the manuscript.
Answer to "2. The main result is the “electrical resistance” of the coatings obtained, but readers are interested in the resistivity of the coatings obtained." is improper. Resistivity is a bit different value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity). You just changed word, but the meaning is still resistance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance_and_conductance).
Sorry, but I stop my review of this manuscript.
No comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the title, ‘Centering on High- 3 Temperature Heat Sources, ’ what does it mean?
A further blunder has been made in the manuscript. They have changed all resistance words with resistivity, which makes it unscientific. Resistance is different from resistivity. Kindly check the definitions using some book or online.
What is thermal conductivity rate in the abstracr. Like this we can’t check each setence and suggest.
In the abstract only IR car terminal
What is molybdenum sputtering-treated sample in the bastract only
It is not important to only correct the language but get it corrected by someone who understand the subject well.
very difficult to understand
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The author did not take into account the comments made earlier.
1. Table 2. Mo coating conditions.
should be corrected for The conditions of the molybdenum sputtering process
2. The graphs use the pore size value. Why is the method of their calculation not given?
Figure 4. Electrical conductivity of specimens: (a) electrical resistivity of untreated and molybdenum-sputtered specimens; (b) correlation between pore size and electrical resistivity; (c) LED 220 bulb lighting comparison between untreated and molybdenum-sputtered specimens.
3. The author is mainly interested in the use of various image evaluation systems. The RGB, YCbCr, and other color systems are ill-suited for describing colors in a human-like way. When describing a color, a person does not talk about the percentage of each of the primary colors in it. Looking at a colored object, a person describes it using color (hue), saturation and lightness. For this way of representing the color space, the HSV model was developed. The author mixed these systems, trying to deduce the dependency.
4. Мisspellings
The polyamide film exhibited a significantly reduced elec- 252
trical resistivity value of 9.5 Ω due to the polybdenum sputtering treatment compared to 253
5. A very long conclusion. Must be the point.
The work was done carelessly. Hard to read for those not related to image processing.
To publish this work in the journal, you still need to work.
To publish this work in the journal, you still need to work.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
