Reactive Ni–Al-Based Materials: Strength and Combustion Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is prepared with extreme care. The publication presents current engineering issues. The introduction of this paper and the extensive literature review are particularly noteworthy. The paper deserves special recognition because of the subject matter presented, and in my opinion can be published in its present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for appreciating our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well developed, the results are clearly stated and scientifically well discussed.
However the paper needs some improvements which I report below
Materials and methods
Line 89 the authors say “the number of fibers was chosen experimentally”. Please clarify this sentence.
Line 92: The presentation of the different type of samples is not clear. A summary table could better explain the various powder mixtures and improve the readability of the paper
Line 95: The authors give the density for all the samples; the method to measure the density was not reported, please clarify.
Results
Line 163: the authors explicit the “% of the total contact area between two layers of powder”. How is it possible to evaluate this without any image analysis (SEM or optical microscopy)? Please clarify
Figure 6: It is not clear why the chosen range for the number of fibers is different in the case of the W and the B. Please clarify
The title of the x axe is not centered; please modify.
Line 170: The authors talk about the interface between matrix and reinforce but there is no image analysis such as SEM and optical microscopy. So, it is impossible to make some assessments without any characterization.
Line 183/184: this result need to be confirmed in literature
Figure 8: there is no coherence in the nomenclature between the results and the figure. Please select one nomenclature and modify the other (e.g. in the results, specimens are called as “a”, “b”, etc, while in the graph are “Ni-Al”, “Ni-Al + boron fiber”.
Line 212: it will be very interesting investigate the fracture surface by SEM analysis.
Line 223-225: This reaction has to be confirmed in literature. Please add some references.
Line 265: the authors cite the Figure 17 to confirm that 1.5 km/s was sufficient to initiate the reaction for the 5 wt% PTFE sample. Actually figure 17 is an XRD pattern. It is not clear, the results must be discussed deeply and the XRD pattern has to be cited if it is added to the paper.
Conclusions:
Line 276: RM is a new acronym. Probably the authors missed an S (RSM).
Line 280: the authors assume that after the HT at 500°C there is no reaction between starting components. This result must be confirmed by more specific analysis than the XRD.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very grateful to you for detailed reviewing of our manuscript entitled "Reactive Ni-Al-based materials: strength and combustion behavior." Your comments are really valuable and very helpful in revising and improving our research. Please check the enclosed file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is interesting work and has been presented perfectly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very grateful to you.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I do not have any other comments
