Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper is within the scope of the journal. Title is satisfactory. Abstract covers pertinent points. Conclusions are adequately supported by the data.

 

Why are references, figures and table numbers marked in red?

Personally, I think that the discussion of the results is poor. The article is similar to the report. Please expand the discussion. It is necessary to enormously improve this part to give a complete scientific framework of the proposed research.

As far as I am concerned, the authors of the manuscript should necessarily refer to the other publications in the "Introduction" section. It seems to me that there are many interesting works about the situation and perspectives of the irregular shape effect of brass and copper filler on the properties of Metal Epoxy Composite (MEC) for rapid tooling application that have been published in recent years, which could be referred to as the "Introduction" part in the manuscript. The authors can use more papers to support the work and demonstrate the knowledge behind it.

The English used in the manuscript is enough to correct and readable.

 

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript reports the effect of irregular shapes of brass and copper fillers on the properties of metal epoxy composites (MEC).The physical, mechanical and thermal properties of the MEC material were evaluated using ANSYS simulation software and its cooling time was simulated.The following suggestions need to be considered to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

1,The authors should provide the SEM images of irregular shape and spherical shape with the same magnification.

2,The specimen preparation process should be described in more detail, such as heating temperature, heating time and so on.

3, Graphs needs to be optimized. It is recommended to use software such as Origin to complete the diagrams.

4,SEM images of different filler specimens need to be supplemented.

5,"Density value at 60% wt, EB is the highest at 2.51 g/cm3, followed by EC at 2.38 g/cm3 and then EA at 1.69 g/cm3",the descriptions differ from the data in Table 6. It is need to be revised.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

It can be accpeted in present form

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments

Lines 346, 347 (Tables 3 and 4).

Indicate the obtained numerical values with a confidence interval. (X±Δx)

Otherwise, you cannot judge the reliability of your results.

Lines 381-384 (Table 6 and Figure 12). Lines 397-400 (Table 7 and Figure 13). Lines 418-420 (Table 8 and Figure 14). Lines 436-439 (Table 9 and Figure 15). Lines 498-501 (Figure 17 and 18).

 

 

 

Indicate the obtained numerical values of the densities with a confidence interval.

Without a confidence interval, plots cannot be considered informative. Perhaps they will represent straight lines if a confidence interval (expanded uncertainty) is visible.

For example

 

Lines 428-431.

“Therefore, a rapid response in thermal conductivity from copper and brass filler is obviously due to their irregular shaped particle.”

 

On what basis do you draw a conclusion about the thermal conductivity of particles of irregular shape of copper compared to particles of spherical shape of aluminum? The metals aluminum and copper are different in nature and have initially different thermal conductivity values. It is not correct. To do this, it is necessary to compare samples with copper particles of spherical and irregular shape. This also agrees with my remark (line 162 of table 1). You should update this section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments to improve the quality of this manuscript. Please refer to the attached file for responses to comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf