Investigation of a Miniaturized E-Band Cosine-Vane Folded Waveguide Traveling-Wave Tube for Wireless Communication
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
I've found your paper quite appropriable for publication, so I have only few remarks:
1) Please, use scientific notation e.g. 1.0e-2 or powers for representation of numbers, like conductivity. Don't use "x" and "^" signs.
2) Improve the positioning of figures in figures that contain multiple figures, such as Figure 12. For these figures, the story template has a full-page format. Adjust the limits on the plot axes, e.g. for Figure 13 in order to get rid of extensive white space and represent the plot better.
3) You should explain the numerical modeling details in CST and MTSS. It is not clear which computational grid was used, what time step, parameters of absolute and relative convergence, etc. What is the reason for the use of such a small number of macroelectrons in modeling?
Author Response
Point 1: Please, use scientific notation e.g. 1.0e-2 or powers for representation of numbers, like conductivity. Don't use "x" and "^" signs.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. According to your suggestion, I have changed the 1.6×10∧7 to 1.6e7.
Point 2: Improve the positioning of figures in figures that contain multiple figures, such as Figure 12. For these figures, the story template has a full-page format. Adjust the limits on the plot axes, e.g. for Figure 13 in order to get rid of extensive white space and represent the plot better.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your review. I have improved the positioning of Figure 12 and changed the Figure 13 by adjusting the limits on the plot axes. The maximum value of ordinate is changed from 3 to 1.25. You can view the modified picture in the modified manuscript.
Point 3:You should explain the numerical modeling details in CST and MTSS. It is not clear which computational grid was used, what time step, parameters of absolute and relative convergence, etc. What is the reason for the use of such a small number of macroelectrons in modeling?
Response 3:We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. The PIC simulations were carried out on a cloud computing platform with about seven million mesh cells.The simulation time is 6ns for the bunching and amplifying. As for the number of microelectronic, I have corrected this problem in the revised manuscript. Actually the total number of particles in the model is related to the model size and the simulation time. There are more than 1.73 million particles in this model.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article titled "Investigation of a Minimized E-band Cosine-vane FWG TWT for the Future Communication" need certain improvements with respect to the mathematical analysis and interpretations. It is advised to the authors to include the following the major revisions. Hence I recommend to accept the manuscript with major revisions.
- Introduction is not provided with sufficient background and references. Add more appropriate recent references.
- The article should have either mathematical analysis or experimental validations to compare simulation results. The authors are advised to include if any
- There are grammatical errors in the English language. Proof read the whole document to avoid the typos and grammatical mistakes
Author Response
Introduction is not provided with sufficient background and references. Add more appropriate recent references.
Response1: Thank you very much for your comments. I added more suitable recent references to the revised manuscript. There are many researches on E-band TWT. L-3 Electron Devices Division has developed a CW E-band microwave power module (MPM) to cover 81 to 86 GHz for communication application. The power amplifier in the MPM is a folded waveguide (FWG) TWT, capable of 80W saturated output power at 20.8kV, 220mA. BVERI has developed an E-band TWT which can produce over 75W continuous wave saturated output power over the range of 81 to 86 GHz with a voltage of 16.3kV and a current of 105mA. UESTC has developed an E-band FWG TWT. The experimental results shows that the prototype tube covers the bandwidth of 83-86GHz with the output power of above 30W. The tube is tested when the electron gun voltage is 17kV and the beam current is 62mA.
Point 2: The article should have either mathematical analysis or experimental validations to compare simulation results. The authors are advised to include if any.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments. At present, the slow wave structure and coupler are being processed, but the experimental validations cannot be described in this paper due to time reasons. I apologize for that.
Point 3: There are grammatical errors in the English language. Proof read the whole document to avoid the typos and grammatical mistakes
Response 3: Thank you for your careful review. We apologize for the language problem in the original. According to your suggestion, we revised the English. If there are still problems, we will continue to improve. Thank you again for your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is corrected sufficiently to be published in its current version
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is improved according to the suggested review comments and it is in the right order. I recommend to accept the revised version of the publication.
