Study on Impulse Discharge Voltage Calculation of Environmentally Friendly Insulation Gas in Slightly Non-Uniform Electric Field

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review report can be found in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you for the expert's advice and assistance. We hope you can continue to support our research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a computational model to predict the shock discharge voltage of C₄F₇N/CO₂ mixture, an eco-friendly insulating gas that can replace existing SF₆ gas. The purpose is to calculate the discharge voltage under slightly non-uniform electric field conditions based on the spherical-planar electrode structure and to verify the validity of the model by comparing it with experimental results.

The following are the main points that need improvement for the quality improvement of the paper:

1. Lack of comparison and differentiation with existing studies
There are critical reviews of existing computational models such as literature [10]~[13], but it is not clearly presented which limitations the proposed model specifically addresses.
- Example: "The existing models are only suitable for special gases..." → It would be much more persuasive if it were summarized in a quantitative comparison or table that shows which models had limitations under which conditions.
Therefore, it is necessary to add a table or graph that quantitatively compares the performance improvement, calculation range expansion, and error reduction with experimental data of this paper model compared to existing models.

2. Lack of logical flow of formula and theory development
- The formula development is detailed, but important concepts (e.g., Mcr, Xcr, etc.) are introduced abruptly without theoretical background, making it difficult for readers to follow the content.
- In particular, **equation (19)** is listed excessively complexly and without clear explanation, making the interpretation or derivation path of the key formula unclear.
Therefore, it is necessary to specify the physical meaning and interpretation of the steps, and to use figures, tables, or step-by-step block diagrams for the important formula derivation process to help understanding.

3. Lack of experimental setup and data
- Comparison of experimental and calculated results for SF₆ and C₄F₇N/CO₂ is presented, but the number of samples is insufficient, and the error analysis is fragmentary.
- The universality of the model is claimed without sufficient experimental comparison for various conditions (electrode radius, distance, air pressure, etc.), so it is somewhat lacking in persuasiveness. Therefore, it is necessary to secure reliability by including experimental data under various conditions and presenting quantitative indicators such as relative error, average error, and RMSE.

4. Overall paper structure and visual materials
- Figures 1 to 8 show the calculation and experimental flow well, but the axis labels, units, and titles of some figures are insufficient. For example, the meaning of (a) and (b) in Figure 8 is not clearly explained in the text.
Therefore, each figure should be supplemented with a clear caption and a connection explanation in the text, and if necessary, visualization can be strengthened through 3D simulation images, field distribution animation examples, etc.

Author Response

Thank you for the expert's advice and assistance. We hope you can continue to support our research. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have faithfully reflected the review requests and made appropriate improvements to the content.