Transforming DIY Geiger Counter Kits into Muon Detectors for Education and Scientific Exploration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Thanks for this nice paper, which decribes how to use a commercial geiger counter as a cosmic ray detector for educational and scientifical purposes.

The paper is complete, clear and well written: from this point of view I have no objection. 

However, the scientific originality, which is mandatory for a research paper, is not present: the sensor is commercial (not a novel R&D product) and no original measurement has been carried out.

From this point of view, I would not proceed to a publication in this journal, but maybe in some other more appropriate.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and kind response. We were directed from “Instruments” to “Particles” because, according to the editors (and now it seems also to the other reviewers), the manuscript fits the scope of this journal. We agree with your concerns regarding the scientific originality. Would you consider it more appropriate if we changed the format from “article” to “communication”?

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary:

The authors M. Arcani et al. describe in their article "Transformation of DIY Geiger Counter Kits into a Muon Detector for Educational and Scientific Exploration" how a low-budget coincidence counter can be built from off-the-shelf equipment. The manuscript comes along with some examples for teaching experiments. 

 

Article scope:

- The manuscript fits the scope of the journal.

 

Quality:

- The manuscript is written in a straight forward way and can be easily followed. The language tends to be colloquial. The figure quality is below average. 

 

General comments:

- Consider showing the name of your project (AMD5ALI) also in the abstract.

- Strengthen the overview in the introduction. Provide references to where people can learn about the different tpyes of particles in a cascade, their spectrum or a comparison to 'natural radioactivity'. Coincidence counting for muons can also be highlighted - not just by historical references which are interesting but not as exclusive as you present. 

- The introduction is also very narrow with respect to the focus of the detector on small-lab scale or educational equipment. There are a number of projects with a similar scope. Here the context, including some references should be provided which focus on such small-budget prototypes. There are for exmaple a number of other projects like Cosmic-Pi, Muon-Pi or others on Arduino basis which also claim to have realized cost-efficient solutions for muon detectors. 

- the sections containing information about AMD5 and its features is confusing. This is not an overview about AMD5, but your DIY kit. There might be some possibilities for overlapping topics but it is not clear what the reader will learn from the presentation of the pecularities of AMD5. The reviewer does not object bringing up your previous project, but if so it should be in a context, which is general enough to have AMD5 simply as one working example of what you are presenting in a simplified way with your DIY kit. 

- A possible shortcoming is the very low count rate of the system. 2 cpm is too low for an educational scope which requires experiments to be done in a couple of hours, not days.

- Why did the authors choose to separate both GMTs so far from each other if the count rate is already so low? You artificially limit the acceptance by doing so. There is maybe a misconception in requiring to have it look like AMD5. Both tubes should be as close to each other as possible in order to measure the maximum flux possible.  

- The authors several times mention the low costs for their proposed detector, however, a cost calculation for this system can nowhere be found in the manuscript. 

- Lack of discussion of relevant detection physics: It is not explained how the GMT actually detects muons. Using these small tubes has its pecularities. Which part of the muon spectrum do you actually measure? For muon detection you in general use scintillators. Such have enough area density in order to yield a significantly large ionization signal from muons. GMTs with small diameters and their low pressure counting gas are most likely experiencing zero ionization events from a muon passing through in the gas and maybe some compton events from the walls. The ionization density from muons is much lower than from other types of radiation and therefore typically you measure only a fraction of the ionization and a fraction of the total flux, respectively. And even if an ionization event occurs it might still be below the detection threshold of the counter. Running two of such counters in coincidence might in general be questionable considering the low absolute detection efficiency for muons. The fact that you measure a rate which is signifcantly lower than the total muon flux at sea level and the fact that you probably have a significant false coincidence rate in your signal hints to exactly that problem.  

 

 

Comments to the figures:

- Fig. 1: Cite source if not your own. 'Adrons' probably should be 'Hadrons'.

- Fig. 2: can be combined with Fig. 3

- Fig. 5 caption: remove "Simplify".

 

Comments to the text body:

 

1. Introduction

- l38: "the Earth" -> "Earth".

- l42+: misleading, there are electromagnetic showers and hadronic showers. Not electormagntic and myonic cascades.

- l44: "that reach the ground include photons and electrons, some neutrons"- also protons have nearly the same abundance as neutrons.

- l61: "provided it is pure" - what does that mean? Any high-Z material can effectively shield low energy particles.

- l103: Remove "That's how we discovered the DIY Geiger kits." unnecessary statement. 

 

2. Materials and Methods

- l152+: coincidence windows in the range of ms seem to be excessively large. How do the authors arrive at such a large number? That is orders of magnitude off from any other muon detection system and orders of magnitude off from the actual coincidence window maximum (the dead time of the counter). The authors themselves state that by such you get an unnecessary coincidence rate.

The authors state that they need such a long coincidence rate in order to "achieve a satisfactory event rate" (l186), however, as there is no physical reason why a muon would require milliseconds to traverse a distance of a few centimeters and any possible electronics operates orders of magnitude faster than that, this seems to be highly suspicious to the reviewer. Explain why a lower coincidence window reduces the rate and explain why that rate is not simply false coincidences. If the authors themselves suspect, that there is a relevant shortcoming in the choice of their coincidence window time, then do not imply that such long coincidence windows would be reasonable. 

- It is also worth mentioning: the sensitivity of glass-bodied tubes to the rays of ordinary sunlight, especially to the UV spectrum.

- l211+: Eqn (3) is typically used for muons. In general the angular dependence for the intensity I, specifically for neutrons is expressed as I = I0(exp(alpha cos(phi)) with alpha = -2.5, see also 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.11.005. However, the reviewer thinks it is not relevant to extend the scope beyond muons. That general discussion is also partically misleading as the angular dependence is energy dependent for all types of particles. Furthermore there is a dependence on atmospheric depth, which the authors do not mention, but which is also not relevant for this manuscript. 

- l220: The whole discussion about this exponent is lengthy and not relevant. It can be simply considered as is. As you do not mention to which muons of which energy your detector is sensitive to, it is hard to conclude anything from this. 

Table 2: Why are there just two measurements? Eq. (3) requires at least 4 measurements for fitting the curve. The reviewer thinks with 2 cpm such measurements can be easily added (1 measurement per day).

- l246: remove "We suggest buying the assembled version unless you need extra experience with electronics mounting." 

- l249: "We were not lucky to (...)" -> "We were not able to obtain information from the manufacturer directly".

- Table 3: "in average" -> "on average"

- Table 3: The working current is for which voltage?

- l263: remove "these days". To be noted: Although some direct distribution options are not available, there is in general still the aftermarket. 

- l284+: "are relatively straightforward and can be completed quickly in practical terms" - in what way is the transformation straight forward and quickly done if the reader still has to produce the entire coincidence board? Even if you would place the PCB files in a public repository one still would need a significant amount of work and skills to have that board ready.  

- l296: "Anyway" -> "However". 

- Figure 8: caption: "outcome" -> "rendering", "Kicad" -> "KiCad"

- l317+: "As previously mentioned, (...)" - it is still not clear why you need such long coincidence windows at all.

- l355+: "In conclusion, the ratio value evidences that the AMD5ALI definitely works as a muon detector" - If the required coincidence time is 1 ns and you reduce the coincidence time from several ms to 1 ms and your detection rate drops to only a fraction of the rate, then that conclusion seems to be not supported and one can assume that there is a fundamental underlying issue. 

- l372+: "seasonal effect related mainly to the atmospheric temperature (and pressure)" - provide a reference which discusses those effects. 

- l379: what is "the cosmic component"?

 

Appendix: 

- The data of several neutron monitors is not very stable, JUNG is quite reliable, others not so. The reviewer thinks it is not very helpful to show the plots of the neutron monitors with uncleaned data as some of the features present in the shown other stations might simply be due to technical issues. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typography: 

- do not use the shortened forms like 'let's' or 'it's', these are just colloquial phrases.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and effort. We have incorporated some of your helpful suggestions. However, we believe that some observations are not relevant to the scope of the article. Please see our comments addressing each point individually.

General comments:

- Consider showing the name of your project (AMD5ALI) also in the abstract.

Done

- Strengthen the overview in the introduction. Provide references to where people can learn about the different tpyes of particles in a cascade, their spectrum or a comparison to 'natural radioactivity'. Coincidence counting for muons can also be highlighted - not just by historical references which are interesting but not as exclusive as you present.

We think the reader already has a background in cosmic ray physics.

- The introduction is also very narrow with respect to the focus of the detector on small-lab scale or educational equipment. There are a number of projects with a similar scope. Here the context, including some references should be provided which focus on such small-budget prototypes. There are for exmaple a number of other projects like Cosmic-Pi, Muon-Pi or others on Arduino basis which also claim to have realized cost-efficient solutions for muon detectors.

We added some of them

- the sections containing information about AMD5 and its features is confusing. This is not an overview about AMD5, but your DIY kit. There might be some possibilities for overlapping topics but it is not clear what the reader will learn from the presentation of the pecularities of AMD5. The reviewer does not object bringing up your previous project, but if so it should be in a context, which is general enough to have AMD5 simply as one working example of what you are presenting in a simplified way with your DIY kit.

Essentially, the idea is that the DIY kit will work as an AMD5 that we have tested for years.

- A possible shortcoming is the very low count rate of the system. 2 cpm is too low for an educational scope which requires experiments to be done in a couple of hours, not days.

We gave a plethora of lectures in the classroom with these detectors.

- Why did the authors choose to separate both GMTs so far from each other if the count rate is already so low? You artificially limit the acceptance by doing so. There is maybe a misconception in requiring to have it look like AMD5. Both tubes should be as close to each other as possible in order to measure the maximum flux possible. 

We underlined the possibility of choosing any geometry. Narrow tubes can be more affected by natural radioactivity; furthermore, that results in losing the “telescope features.”

- The authors several times mention the low costs for their proposed detector, however, a cost calculation for this system can nowhere be found in the manuscript.

We preferred not to mention it (it is below 100 euros for the two DIY kits).

- Lack of discussion of relevant detection physics: It is not explained how the GMT actually detects muons. Using these small tubes has its pecularities. Which part of the muon spectrum do you actually measure? For muon detection you in general use scintillators. Such have enough area density in order to yield a significantly large ionization signal from muons. GMTs with small diameters and their low pressure counting gas are most likely experiencing zero ionization events from a muon passing through in the gas and maybe some compton events from the walls. The ionization density from muons is much lower than from other types of radiation and therefore typically you measure only a fraction of the ionization and a fraction of the total flux, respectively. And even if an ionization event occurs it might still be below the detection threshold of the counter. Running two of such counters in coincidence might in general be questionable considering the low absolute detection efficiency for muons. The fact that you measure a rate which is signifcantly lower than the total muon flux at sea level and the fact that you probably have a significant false coincidence rate in your signal hints to exactly that problem. 

This is known but not relevant for the scope of the article (we discussed it in another paper referenced).

Comments to the figures:

- Fig. 1: Cite source if not your own. 'Adrons' probably should be 'Hadrons'.

Yes thanks

All figures not referenced are of our own production

- Fig. 2: can be combined with Fig. 3

Not agree

- Fig. 5 caption: remove "Simplify".

Done

Comments to the text body:

1. Introduction

 

- l38: "the Earth" -> "Earth".

Done

 

- l42+: misleading, there are electromagnetic showers and hadronic showers. Not electormagntic and myonic cascades.

 

- l44: "that reach the ground include photons and electrons, some neutrons"- also protons have nearly the same abundance as neutrons.

Changed in “hadrons”

- l61: "provided it is pure" - what does that mean? Any high-Z material can effectively shield low energy particles.

Means not radioactive

- l103: Remove "That's how we discovered the DIY Geiger kits." unnecessary statement.

2. Materials and Methods

 

- l152+: coincidence windows in the range of ms seem to be excessively large. How do the authors arrive at such a large number? That is orders of magnitude off from any other muon detection system and orders of magnitude off from the actual coincidence window maximum (the dead time of the counter). The authors themselves state that by such you get an unnecessary coincidence rate.

The authors state that they need such a long coincidence rate in order to "achieve a satisfactory event rate" (l186), however, as there is no physical reason why a muon would require milliseconds to traverse a distance of a few centimeters and any possible electronics operates orders of magnitude faster than that, this seems to be highly suspicious to the reviewer. Explain why a lower coincidence window reduces the rate and explain why that rate is not simply false coincidences. If the authors themselves suspect, that there is a relevant shortcoming in the choice of their coincidence window time, then do not imply that such long coincidence windows would be reasonable.

We already explained the reasons; we added a paragraph; now it should be more clear.

- It is also worth mentioning: the sensitivity of glass-bodied tubes to the rays of ordinary sunlight, especially to the UV spectrum.

We indeed made some tests with UV lamps with no clue, so we decided not to mention this aspect.

- l211+: Eqn (3) is typically used for muons. In general the angular dependence for the intensity I, specifically for neutrons is expressed as I = I0(exp(alpha cos(phi)) with alpha = -2.5, see also 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.11.005. However, the reviewer thinks it is not relevant to extend the scope beyond muons. That general discussion is also partically misleading as the angular dependence is energy dependent for all types of particles. Furthermore there is a dependence on atmospheric depth, which the authors do not mention, but which is also not relevant for this manuscript.

 

- l220: The whole discussion about this exponent is lengthy and not relevant. It can be simply considered as is. As you do not mention to which muons of which energy your detector is sensitive to, it is hard to conclude anything from this.

Table 2: Why are there just two measurements? Eq. (3) requires at least 4 measurements for fitting the curve. The reviewer thinks with 2 cpm such measurements can be easily added (1 measurement per day).

Sorry, not clear what do you mean

 

- l246: remove "We suggest buying the assembled version unless you need extra experience with electronics mounting."

Why?

- l249: "We were not lucky to (...)" -> "We were not able to obtain information from the manufacturer directly".

Thanks

- Table 3: "in average" -> "on average"

Thanks

- Table 3: The working current is for which voltage?

Working voltage we suppose

- l263: remove "these days". To be noted: Although some direct distribution options are not available, there is in general still the aftermarket.

done

- l284+: "are relatively straightforward and can be completed quickly in practical terms" - in what way is the transformation straight forward and quickly done if the reader still has to produce the entire coincidence board? Even if you would place the PCB files in a public repository one still would need a significant amount of work and skills to have that board ready. 

It is very straightforward, indeed.

- l296: "Anyway" -> "However".

done

- Figure 8: caption: "outcome" -> "rendering", "Kicad" -> "KiCad"

thanks

- l317+: "As previously mentioned, (...)" - it is still not clear why you need such long coincidence windows at all.

Maybe now it is

- l355+: "In conclusion, the ratio value evidences that the AMD5ALI definitely works as a muon detector" - If the required coincidence time is 1 ns and you reduce the coincidence time from several ms to 1 ms and your detection rate drops to only a fraction of the rate, then that conclusion seems to be not supported and one can assume that there is a fundamental underlying issue.

Sorry, not clear what do you mean.

 

- l372+: "seasonal effect related mainly to the atmospheric temperature (and pressure)" - provide a reference which discusses those effects.

done

- l379: what is "the cosmic component"?

Added muons

 

Appendix:

 

- The data of several neutron monitors is not very stable, JUNG is quite reliable, others not so. The reviewer thinks it is not very helpful to show the plots of the neutron monitors with uncleaned data as some of the features present in the shown other stations might simply be due to technical issues.

As stated by NMDB the data are corrected for efficiency and pressure, why do you think they should have technical issue? Eventually we can fix in the next rev. step

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typography:

- do not use the shortened forms like 'let's' or 'it's', these are just colloquial phrases.

agree

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Lines 93-94: I suggest including the brief summary of the results and only refer the reader to the supplementary material for details. 

Lines 160-161: "an additional time window" suggest that both time windows can be use simultaneously, which is not the case. Maybe clarify by "alternative time window"?

Line 214: Citation in parentheses should be included as a regular citation

Figure 4, caption: Citation in parentheses should be included as a regular citation

Figure 5: The electronic circuits inside the block diagrams are not visible, please correct.

Line 351-352: Please clarify the sentence, what do you mean with "degree of energy absorption"? How do you measure energy? 

Line 363: AMD11 is mentioned, but later on AMD15 results are given. Is it a typo?

Line 364: "even big" --> even bigger. Maybe you can provide the solid angle covered by the detectors? Also, where were the detected placed? In the same room, building, city? Could the placement affect the measurements?

Figure 10: The scale on the plot axes is not visible. Please increase the size.

Line 437: I am a bit confused about the units of Cf, should it not be divided by cpm ?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. In Figure 1, Adrons --> Hadrons

2. Figure 9, caption: "Ended" --> Final

Lines 340-341: Take away "anyway"

Line 348: Take away "In any setup" or modify

Line 386: "present and visible" --> visible

Figure 12, caption: "Row" ?

Figure 13, caption: Zenit --> zenith

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and effort. We have incorporated all your helpful suggestions. Please see our comments addressing each point individually.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 93-94: I suggest including the brief summary of the results and only refer the reader to the supplementary material for details.

Done

Lines 160-161: "an additional time window" suggest that both time windows can be use simultaneously, which is not the case. Maybe clarify by "alternative time window"?

Done

Line 214: Citation in parentheses should be included as a regular citation

Done

Figure 4, caption: Citation in parentheses should be included as a regular citation

Done

Figure 5: The electronic circuits inside the block diagrams are not visible, please correct.

This is intended only as a block diagram, the electronic circuit is provided in the references.

Line 351-352: Please clarify the sentence, what do you mean with "degree of energy absorption"? How do you measure energy?

We mean that lead can cut off some scattered low-energy particles.

…………..

Line 363: AMD11 is mentioned, but later on AMD15 results are given. Is it a typo?

Yes thanks!

Line 364: "even big" --> even bigger. Maybe you can provide the solid angle covered by the detectors? Also, where were the detected placed? In the same room, building, city? Could the placement affect the measurements?

Maybe now it is more clear

Figure 10: The scale on the plot axes is not visible. Please increase the size.

Fixed

Line 437: I am a bit confused about the units of Cf, should it not be divided by cpm ?

No Cf converts cpm to the dose value. It is a kind of algorithm; it first converts cpm to Rontgen according to the sensitivity of the GMT, then Rontgen to Gray (or Sievert); the provided reference should clarify it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. In Figure 1, Adrons --> Hadrons

Fixed

2. Figure 9, caption: "Ended" --> Final

Fixed

Lines 340-341: Take away "anyway"

Done

Line 348: Take away "In any setup" or modify

Done

Line 386: "present and visible" --> visible

Done

Figure 12, caption: "Row" ?

Typo: Raw

Figure 13, caption: Zenit --> zenith

Right!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I sincerely  deem this is a very good work, extremely clear and detailed. It would be a very useful reference for teachers or for any other educational purpose, so it would be a pity not to make it available to a broad community.

If you have been redirected to this journal, and if the Editors are fine with this, this is also fine for me.

And yes, I fully agree with your proposal to change the format into "communication".

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
we have changed the format to "communication". Many thanks for your thoughtful comments and kind support.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

thank you for your detailed responses to the feedback given for your initial manuscript. They have increased the quality of your mansucript, specifically the dependence on environmental variables. However, upon reviewing your replies, it is apparent that many of the concerns raised have not been adequately addressed. Peer review relies on thorough and constructive engagement with the feedback provided, ensuring that the manuscript meets the highest standards of clarity and scientific rigor. A peer review process, specifically in this journal, does not give rise for back-and-forth discussions between author and reviewer. In general you ought to follow the critique addressed to the manuscript. If you think that a statement is not adquate it is necessary to detail a reasoning for not following the recommendation. Below, I will address specific issues where your responses fall short.

 

 

- Original Comment: Strengthen the overview in the introduction. Provide references to where people can learn about the different types of particles in a cascade, their spectrum or a comparison to 'natural radioactivity'. Coincidence counting for muons can also be highlighted - not just by historical references which are interesting but not as exclusive as you present.

Author's Response: > We think the reader already has a background in cosmic ray physics.

Reviewer: Assuming the reader has a background in cosmic ray physics does not negate the need for a comprehensive introduction. A well-rounded introduction is essential for all readers, regardless of their prior knowledge. This also enhances the manuscript's educational value, particularly for those who may be new to specific details of the field as you want to target this audience with your presentation. Specifically, as the authors claim natural radioactivity being one of the main influence factors, it lacks the discussion of such.

 

 

- Original Comment: The sections containing information about AMD5 and its features is confusing. This is not an overview about AMD5, but your DIY kit. There might be some possibilities for overlapping topics but it is not clear what the reader will learn from the presentation of the peculiarities of AMD5.

Author's Response: > Essentially, the idea is that the DIY kit will work as an AMD5 that we have tested for years.

Reviewer: The response does not clarify the purpose of including AMD5 details. The manuscript should clearly delineate between the AMD5 and the DIY kit, emphasizing the educational advantages without causing confusion about the former AMD5. It is a nice reference, but the scope of your paper is clearly not to build a stripped-down version of AMD5. Your solution might take inspriation from it, but as such, the discussion of AMD5 takes too much room. 

 

 

- Original Comment: A possible shortcoming is the very low count rate of the system. 2 cpm is too low for an educational scope which requires experiments to be done in a couple of hours, not days.

Author's Response: > We gave a plethora of lectures in the classroom with these detectors.

Reviewer: While classroom lectures are valuable, the low count rate remains a significant issue for practical, hands-on experiments. Detailed justification and potential solutions to mitigate this limitation should be discussed to enhance the educational utility of the kit. 

 

 

- Original Comment: Why did the authors choose to separate both GMTs so far from each other if the count rate is already so low? You artificially limit the acceptance by doing so.

Author's Response: > We underlined the possibility of choosing any geometry. Narrow tubes can be more affected by natural radioactivity; furthermore, that results in losing the “telescope features.”

Reviewer: The explanation provided does not sufficiently address the concern. A more thorough discussion on the trade-offs between different geometries and their impact on detection efficiency is necessary. The determination of angular distributions ('telescopic feature') is not a specific topic which has been highlighted for the educational context, not speaking of the fact that this angular resolution is only achievable in one axis, not in both angular axes, which would be necessary for the cosmic muon flux, see also your Fig. 6 in DOI 10.3390/particles6030051.

 

 

- Original Comment: The authors several times mention the low costs for their proposed detector, however, a cost calculation for this system can nowhere be found in the manuscript.

Author's Response: > We preferred not to mention it (it is below 100 euros for the two DIY kits).

Reviewer: The cost calculation is crucial for potential adopters of the kit. A detailed breakdown of costs should be included in the manuscript to support the claim of affordability and to assist educators in budgeting. Otherwise remove all references to that claim. 

 

 

- Original Comment: Lack of discussion of relevant detection physics: It is not explained how the GMT actually detects muons.

Author's Response: > This is known but not relevant for the scope of the article (we discussed it in another paper referenced).

Reviewer: Each manuscript should be self-contained and provide all necessary explanations relevant to its content. A concise discussion of the detection principles specific to this setup is crucial, even if it is covered elsewhere. This ensures that the reader fully understands the mechanics and limitations of the detection system used. The reviewer is furthermore not aware of any publication in your references which would explain how the GMT detects muons. Provide more detailed information here, see the full comment in the first review. 

 

- Original Comment: Fig. 2: can be combined with Fig. 3

Author's Response: > Not agree

Reviewer: Explain your objection

 

 

- Original Comment: l103: Remove "That's how we discovered the DIY Geiger kits." unnecessary statement.

Author's Response: No response

Reviewer: Statement repeated

 

 

- Original Comment:  l152+: coincidence windows in the range of ms seem to be excessively large. How do the authors arrive at such a large number? 

Author's Response: > We already explained the reasons; we added a paragraph; now it should be more clear.

Reviewer: The reviewer does not find any (added) paragraph which would have addressed this issue. Please address the critique which was provided in the original comment of the reviewer as this is one of the most relevant issues raised during the review. Your answer should be concise and technical in order to support your claim that your are not just counting random coincidences.  

 

 

- Original Comment: l211+: Eqn (3) is typically used for muons. In general the angular dependence for the intensity I, specifically for neutrons is expressed as I = I0(exp(alpha cos(phi)) with alpha = -2.5, see also 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.11.005. However, the reviewer thinks it is not relevant to extend the scope beyond muons

Author's Response: No response

Reviewer: Statement repeated

 

 

- Original Comment: l220: The whole discussion about this exponent is lengthy and not relevant. 

Author's Response: No response

Reviewer: Statement repeated 

 

 

- Original Comment: Table 2: Why are there just two measurements? Eq. (3) requires at least 4 measurements for fitting the curve. 

Author's Response: Sorry, not clear what do you mean

Reviewer: In order to confirm your hypthesis "A simple and valid test to check the good functioning of any muon detector is to collect the rate of muon at a zenith angle". Specifically, as you did not provide any estimation about the coincidences of natural radioactivity, this is an unknown variable. Equation 3 would need to be extended by such. For now, there are simply two measurements which are incongruent and which do not go along your initial claim.  

 

 

- Original Comment: l246: remove "We suggest buying the assembled version unless you need extra experience with electronics mounting."

Author's Response: Why?

Reviewer: A peer review is not the place for asking counter questions. Either you object this claim with good reasoning or you do as is suggested to you. The suggestions in this peer review process are well reasoned. Firstly, you require the reader to also assemble the coincidence board by yourself. Secondly, you assume that the reason for self-assembling is that the reader "needs" experience, which is an unreflected, paternalistic presumption and above all, an unnecessary statement. 

 

 

- Original Comment: l284+: "are relatively straightforward and can be completed quickly in practical terms" - in what way is the transformation straight forward and quickly done if the reader still has to produce the entire coincidence board? Even if you would place the PCB files in a public repository one still would need a significant amount of work and skills to have that board ready.

Author's Response: It is very straightforward, indeed.

Reviewer: The reviewer questioned "straightforward" and "quickly". Producing and assembling a PCB is not at all a quick process. Specifically in the context of education where such a methodological knowledge is often not present. It is also not straightforward as you have not provided any materials for actually realizing your detection system. In order to have a straightforward solution a detailed description and supporting materials need to be provided in order to not have the reader being faced with a series of questions and possible obstacles. 

 

 

- Original Comment: l317+: "As previously mentioned, (...)" - it is still not clear why you need such long coincidence windows at all.

Author's Response: Maybe now it is

Reviewer: See comment above, not it is not. In the review process you have not providing any reasoning or evidence that you are actually detecting the muons you claim to do so with the long coincidence window.This also links to the follwoing comment of the reviewer in l355+ 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 Despite all the required modifications being feasible, a critical point cannot be addressed. The reviewer criticized us for giving too much attention to our AMD5 detector. Since the proposed DIY muon detector is essentially a replica of the AMD5, the manuscript includes a comparison between the two, along with the experiments and lectures provided to students using these devices. If we were to avoid mentioning these works, it would result in a complete overhaul of our article, losing the essence of our contributions.

Thank you for your thorough and detailed review.