Influence of Melting State of Deposited Layer at Electromagnetic Launch Sliding Electrical Contact Interface on Armature Melting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe list of comments is attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am very impressed with the content and presentation of your paper. Introduction is succinct yet informative. Analytical approach is explained well.
The paper reports on a range of different parameters and their influence on ADL melting. Experimental results are complimented by theoretical considerations as well as numerical modelling. A good set of results is drawn.
The volume of results you present is significant. Findings are consistently and clearly presented, and analysed in depth. Utilisation of multiple methods further validates the finding and provides additional insights.
I would suggest few minor amendments though:
In the Introduction, you may want to consider a different way of citing specific work. For example, "Literature [11]" would be referred to by Author(s)' name or in a similar manner, rather than repeating the word Literature as the source of information.
It would be helpful to be more explicit which modelling calculations were performed to obtain the data in Fig 15. Ideally you would refer to an equation presented in your manuscript.
It would be also good to confirm this is the same theoretical model you're referring to in Table 2 and Fig 20. Please add the legend to Fig 20.
It would be very helpful to provide more details regarding your experimental setup.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: In the Introduction, you may want to consider a different way of citing specific work. For example, "Literature [11]" would be referred to by Author(s)' name or in a similar manner, rather than repeating the word Literature as the source of information. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have used Author(s)' name in the revised manuscript.
|
|
Comments 2: It would be helpful to be more explicit which modelling calculations were performed to obtain the data in Fig 15. Ideally you would refer to an equation presented in your manuscript. |
|
Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised this point in the revised manuscript. In the revised manuscript, this change has been highlighted in red where can be found in the – page 10, line 290-292
|
|
Comments 3: It would be also good to confirm this is the same theoretical model you're referring to in Table 2 and Fig 20. Please add the legend to Fig 20. |
|
Response 3: Agree. We have revised this point in the revised manuscript.
|
|
Comments 4: It would be very helpful to provide more details regarding your experimental setup. |
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. More details regarding this experimental setup can be found in [10], we have added this sentence in the revised manuscript where can be found in the – page 9, line 277. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General comment
This paper investigates the melting characteristics of the armature under various melting conditions within an aluminum-deposited layer on the rail surface. The authors present analytical formulations to calculate both the armature melting rate and volume. These analytical results are subsequently compared with findings obtained from specialized 3D finite element analyses. The study tackles a compelling subject that aligns well with the journal's aims and scope. While the theoretical analysis is robust, the numerical investigation could benefit from enhancement. The following comments must be addressed in order to consider the manuscript for potential publication.
Reviews required
1. Clearly outline the primary objectives of the research and the methodologies employed to achieve them in the abstract.
2. In the Introduction section, please cite relevant literature using the names of the first authors rather than referring to each of them as “Literature.”
3. In Figure 2a, the linearity referenced by the authors appears to be derived from a linear regression. Conversely, Figure 2b showcases trends in the deposited layer thickness relative to the number of shots that do not exhibit a linear relationship. Please provide a more comprehensive explanation of how this trend can be more accurately modeled using a nonlinear formulation rather than a simple linear approach.
4. To enhance the presentation of results, consider including photographs of the experimental tests conducted during the repeated launch trials.
5. In Figure 3, the authors depict a range of melting thickness variations for the deposited layer at two different current levels. Based on these findings, could the authors propose an optimal thickness within these specified limits?
6. In line 148, it seems that “tail” may have been mistakenly used in place of “rail.”
7. For each plot representing physical entities, please include the corresponding symbol used in the text in the axis labels, along with a description of the variable.
8. Consider subdividing Figures 9, 10, 12, and 16 into subfigures to facilitate specific references.
9. Please include a direct comparison in the text between Figures 9a, 10a, and 11a, as well as between Figures 9b, 10b, and 11b.
10. In line 339, a citation for COMSOL finite element software is absent, and should be included.
11. While the finite element analysis validates the theoretical results, it currently lacks depth in the discussion. Additional parameters that were not examined in the analytical analysis should be incorporated into the numerical investigations, prompting a parametric analysis that would enhance this section.
12. In the conclusions section, consider discussing potential future directions that arise from this research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
