Theoretical Study on the Collective Scattering Properties of Charged Particles to Electromagnetic Waves
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper the authors presented The influence of charged particle clusters on the electromagnetic scattering. The work is interesting. However, it lacks lucid presentation. The paper needs a thorough revision in terms of grammar and writing.
1. Graphs are not clear. Legends are not visible.
2. Typos are scattered through out the text. Need a thorough check of the article.
3. The authors need to provide more explanation for the frequency dependencies of extinction coefficient. Merely stating the low and high frequency behavior of the extinction coefficient for different cases from the graphs will not help the readers to get a full understanding of the work.
4.In Fig. 9 and 10 why graphite and metal particles were selected? Need further explanation.
5."After many experiments 1.4 GHz was selected for the experiment". Why?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Hu, Shao et al. present a mostly theoretical study about the scattering properties of particles as a function of size, charge distribution and other materials properties. The topic of electromagnetic waveguiding is timely as applications of waveguiding, attenuation are at dawn on various size scales.
In the theory part, the obtained relations evoke interest, however,
1. the description of the results and figure captions must clarify not only which parameters were varied but also which ones were kept constant at what value.
2. the labeling in the graph should follow the appearance of the graph in the coordinate system (e.g. color code varies from top to bottom as the graphs appear in the figure).
While the theoretical parts seem to be sound, the experimental part of the paper falls off.
3. Literature on respective experiments must be studied and evaluated for comparison
4. the methods and materials used require a description that allows a reproduction of the experiment in labs. Devices, setups need to be named and specified incl measurement parameters.
I suggest the authors work on these amendments and re-submit their manuscript. Possibly, a concentration on amendments 1-3 is indicated.
update：
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
Hu, Shao et al. present a mostly theoretical study about the scattering properties of particles as a function of size, charge distribution and other materials properties. The topic of electromagnetic waveguiding is timely as applications of waveguiding, attenuation are at dawn on various size scales.
Although the topical features and phaenomena described in the manuscript are to be considered "normal science", a comprehensive analysis of such with respect to applied research is needed and hence I would consider the research both original and relevant. There is not a specific gap addressed, but I deem that not necessary.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?Comprehensive analysis of scattering phaenomena.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?4-1. While the theoretical parts seem to be sound, the experimental part of the paper falls off. To overcome this impression, literature on respective experiments must be studied and evaluated for comparison.
4-2. in the experimental part, the methods and materials used require a description that allows a reproduction of the experiment in labs. This is not the case in present form. Devices, setups need to be named and specified incl measurement parameters. Further, experimental results need an uncertainty analysis.
4-3. To my mind, there are (at least) two ways to getting a publishable manuscript.
a) The theory part (close to publishability: with the graphs amended, with the state of the art enhanced to order and disorder effects of scattering, with the results 'mirrored' thoroughly at existing experimental literature, with conclusions drawn on this basis) could be perfectionized and the experimental part (by far not publishable) could be skipped for another publication.
b) A by far more thorough description of the experiments and further control experiments are conducted to confirm the theory. I suppose yet that this might be out of scope of the resources of the authors (I judge from own experience where you have found adn described a theory for a phenomenon but need to team up with a powerful and hardware strong experimental team to confirm it, I admit that this might be out of scope, but if the authors can do, why not ...).
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?5-1. Not in present form. As written under 4., the experimental part is not ready for drawing conclusions.
6. Are the references appropriate?6-1. First analysis did not lead to a negative conclusions. Phenomena of order and disorder between two, a few, and many scatterers for electromagnetic waves would render the theory part publishable.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.7-1. the description of the results and figure captions must clarify not only which parameters were varied but also which ones were kept constant at what value.
7-2. the labeling in the graph should follow the appearance of the graph in the coordinate system (e.g. color code varies from top to bottom as the graphs appear in the figure).
7-3. For the sake of aesthetics, axis labels should be written sufficiently large and for the same type of diagram in the same font and style.
I am willing to regrade my decision to "major revisions requested". I think the theory part can be rendered publishable alone.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The drawings are illegible
The graphs overlap
The authors do not say how they measured the dimensions of the particles and their charge
Figure 12 lacks the basic parameters to check the correctness of the tests performed
The obtained results have large discrepancies
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the previous comments. However, the figure qualities can be further improved.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your previous review comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Hu, Zhou et al. have followed the recommendations to waive the experimental part. Theoretical part has been left for separate publication. Comments as follows:
- Title should be changed to e.g. "Theoretical Study on the Collective Scattering Properties of Charged Particles to Electromagnetic Waves" at discretion of the authors. I suggest this as the scattering properties of a single charged particle alone would be just reproduction of textbook physics. However, the role of collective effects, of effects of order and deviation from it (i.e., partial order or disorder) are highly interesting for the emerging field of photonics.
- Introduction chapter
... should (start with) sketch the societal and technical relevance of the topic, e.g. photonic data transmission and computation.
... should include particularly relevant examples for "electromagnetic waves" and may address scalability (or not) of the approach
... should include a clear message which role collective items of charged particles could play in that field (and how they could be technically realized)
... should address state-of-the-art methods in theory and simulation (e.g. FDTD) to describe related phaenomena and their limits including citations
... should formulate a clear research question for this paper, e.g. "evaluates simulations based on a transformation of Maxwell's equations to Foldy-Lax set of equations to predict the collective behaviour of charged particles to emw" and highlight the unicality of this approach. Please obey spelling rules: "Maxwell's equations, "Foldy-Lax?" or "foldy-LAX?"
... should carve out a clear scientific 'unique selling point'
... should cite relevant literature on the statement "The numerical solution of Foldy-LAX is given."
- Chapter "Action on ..."
... headline should read "Interaction Mechanisms between Charged Particles and Electromagnetic Fields"
- Chapter "Simulation of Attenuation of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation by Different
Charged Particles"
... headline should read e.g. "Simulation of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation by Different Collectivities of Charged Particles" (omit Attenuation only as Scattering is meant, introduce a term such as Collectivities that indicates the importance of collective effects in final consequence)
... subheadline "Calculation results of electromagnetic scattering by a single particle" should read "Attenuation and Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves by a Single Charged Particle"
... subheadline "Electromagnetic properties of randomly distributed multi-particle clusters"
should read "Attenuation and Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves by a Collectivity of Randomly Distributed Charged Particles" (I would avoid the term cluster here unless it is in line with current use in physical chemical sciences as atomic or molecular complexes or compounds)
- Conclusions chapter
... should start start with the summary signalled by e.g. "In this work, we ..." followed by conclusions and outlook.
... should reformat the sentence "maxwell's equation is transformed into Foldy-Lax multiple scattering equation, and numerical solution is carried out to obtain the equation of extinction coefficient of single particle and multi-particle cluster, and conduct simulation to obtain some scattering characteristics of charged particles."putting the result into the focus, e.g. "scattering characteristics of charged particles are derived from numerical simulations from equations of the extinction coefficiont of single-particle and multi-particle clusters ... based on a (mathematical? algebraic? ) transformation of Maxwell's Equations into Foldy-Lax Multiple Scattering Equations.
... should conclude from the individual numerical results and give a particular outlook based on the research questions
... should (as entire manuscript) be polished entirely regarding formatting. Paragraphs and numeric lists have typographic deficiencies regarding layout, gaps, paragraph distances, fonts etc. Blanks, interpunctuation (hyphenation, fixed blanks between value and unit) must be written exactly otherwise the reading is very very tedious.
#
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Unfortunately, the authors did not respond to my objections.
Additionally, paragraph 4 is badly formatted,
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Workaround for structural amendmends have been completed, so that topical dicussion can start.
I. typographical part:
The math-type layout used in the manuscript is not sufficient to grasp the content due to its graphical and graphhological deficiencies.
Please rework completely (or provide a PDF rendered in a different machine).
If it helps, consider to type-set the manuscript using a latex-based WPU such as Overleaf for handy math and reference management (e.g. bibtex).
Please avoid math type for jump targets (e.g. Eq. numbers), use regular or italic instead
Consider to avoid math type in plain text paragraphs for physical quantities, replace by regular or italic texts whereever complexity and stringency allow.
II. methodological part
l. 104: "Student: In the direction of observation" remains unclear
l. 106: "Scattering field for" remains unclear
l. 120: is the scattering field of the <?>th degree" remains unclear (note what stands for <?>)
l. 121: type the angle brackets to make clear which of the brackets you mean
l. 140-142: "Based on the above model, the electromagnetic scattering of different charged particles is simulated by Matlab software to reflect the attenuation of different charged particles to electromagnetic wave propagation." - sentence is tautologic regarding the possesional "different charged particles" ... is this necessarily an identical set or not? Please make clear what you mean.
l. 350: "In this work, we according to the scattering characteristics of electromagnetic wave of charged particles, the effects of different particle composition, different electric quantity, different humidity and different particle number on electromagnetic wave propagation were studied."
- sentence not understandable "we ... were studied", please rephrase
l. 357: "In this paper, maxwell's equation is transformed"
- this second paragraph seems fully decoupled from first one. The message about the necessity of this undertaking in completely not clear. Please write using considerable reasoning.
l. 361: "the relationship between the extinction coefficient of a single particle of different size and the power function of the incident wave frequency." is an incomplete sentence. Please complete.
l. 387: Chapter should read "conclusions"
- It should end with final conclusions from the elementary conclusions 1-4 (l. 361 ff) and 1.4 (l. 373 ff)
- It should provide an Outlook about potential applicability of the findings.
II. Typo part:
line 34: ] requires blank " " after itself unless followed by interpunction (this regards all occurrences in the manuscript)
line 35: double blank " " needs to be replaced by single blank " " (this regards all occurrences in the manuscript)
line 38: period "." requires blank " " after itself (this regards all occurrences in the manuscript: l. 43, l. 55, l. 79, l. 109)
line 51: should read "particle centers" (plural)
line 52:
- "a" should appear math style (but see comment on math style above),
- the following phrases "incident direction is ," "polarisation is ," point into nowhere, please check what qunatity is meant here
line 53: exponent "ik*r" is blurred, please enhance readibility to grasp the correct operator
line 55-57: The sentence is ungrammatical. Suggestion to formulate <the quantities> w_sub(mn) _sup((M)(l) and w_sub(mn) _sup((N)(l) are given by
... (1)
and
... (2)
, where <description of quantities>.
line 56: Eqn. numbers (1) and (2) must not appear in math type. Please transfer to simple regular or italic according to style requirements. Observe no blank after them when interpunction follows. Replace "." by ":" to keep sentence structure.
l. 123: ":" must not stand alone on one line
l. 128: ":" requires no blank before and blank after itself
l. 137: Full stop "o" at the line end unsyntactial, please correct (also l. 214).
l. 144-145: quantities require blanks " " before and after, but not within and not if an interpunction follows (regards also other occurrences: l. 154, l. 170, l. 178, ...)
l. 196: value and unit require separation by "fixed blank" " " (regards also other occurrences).
l. 295: horizontal tilda ~ does not mean <from> ,,, to ... , but has different funciton. Please use suitable em dash or "..." according to journal's style requirements (also l. 317, l. 331, ...)
l. 146: Avoid to start a sentence with a symbol, especially if it is a small letter and/or even non-latinic. Write "The <quantity> <symbol> ..."
#
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did not respond to my comments
Author Response
The article has been extensively revised according to your requirements, please refer to the submitted manuscript for details.
