Algorithm Verification of Single-Shot Relativistic Emittance Proposed Measuring Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article by D. Feigin B A. Weinberg B A. House presents the results of the transverse emittance analysis using simulation with a simulated relativistic electron beam from the General particle tracer code. The results will allow measuring the emittance of a hybrid accelerator in one shot. The paper briefly describes the calculation algorithm, is written in scientific language and can be recommended for publication. However, there are several comments on its content. 1. Modeling using LabVIEW and Matlab. should be described in more detail. 2. Compare the obtained method with other known methods for determining the emittance, presented in [8] and [9] for example. 3. In Section 3.1, the simulation results are described briefly and without analyzing the factors affecting the simulation result. 4. In the same section, Table 4.1 shows the result of two simulations - how do they differ? Why only 2 results? 5. In conclusion, the authors plan to reduce the processing time of the algorithm - how do they plan to do this?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am requiring only few minor edits:

- Line 50: "constructing nor destructive" use either -ing or -ive. 

- Line 67, 74, 109: "Where" should be lower case.

- Line 73: "The" (before the RMS) should be lower case.

- Line 85: "in order to process" "to" is missing.

- Line 85-86: rephrase the sentence.

- Line 92-93: rephrase the sentence.

- Line 135: "GUI" appears nowhere except in the Conclusion. You should talk about it prior the conclusion and at least give the definition.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that in its current form the manuscript is unfinished. Too small to publish as an article.

It is not entirely clear what does 3d simulation have to do with it? This article does not even have such words. I recommend to hange the title.

Photos of the setup are not enough, a good scheme of the experiment (Fig. 1) and the data processing actions (Fig. 2) are needed. Otherwise, many questions arise.

Figs. 3,4 - put a, b.

Figures 4 are almost the same, it is necessary to show extraction in a different way.

How were deviations from table 1 determined? Why is there no comparison with Fig. 2-4? Why is there no analysis of the results?

I suggest that the authors either redo it and submit it as a communiaction, or conduct a serious analysis of the proposed algorithm using several experiments and prepare a full publication as article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Several notes for recomended futher improvement:

I think the title is too common, no specific, it need to be smth like "Assessment of algorithm verification proposed for single shot relativistic electron beam emittance" or other

line 107: "It is clear that the transverse beam distribution has a Gaussian pattern" - its not clear, mb add some lines for concentration description in fig.1? Like red line in fig.5.

What are the coloura of Fig. 5a? Add scale, for example, "intensity, a.u."

line 90: Sec.3, line 149: Sec.3.1? Restructurise Section 3 to a convenient logical sequence.

I still do think that results received are too small for publication as an article type. You propoced method for emittance measurement but there is not much data for its verification with other algoritms and there is no data for experimental validation. I advice add all the moments and prepare full article research. Or have it as a communiaction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Agree with author's marks, recommend it for publication