The Variation of Surface Shape in the Gas Jet Forming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have presented a work on numerical modeling and experimental validation of gas jet forming process. The quality of the work and presentation is satisfactory, but the following points need to be addressed before acceptance of the manuscript-

1. The background literature in respect to the gas jet forming needs to be elaborated.

2. Legends in the figures are too tiny.

3. Which platform was used for the numerical modeling?

4. How were the properties of the resin obtained?

5. How were the results from the numerical model compared to the experimental ones?

6.  

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. In the following section, we summarize our responses to each comment from the reviewers. We believe that our responses have well addressed all concerns from the reviewers. We hope our revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.

 

1. The background literature in respect to the gas jet forming needs to be elaborated.

We have re-written the introduction section, the background literature related to the gas jet forming is added in lines 38 to 48.

 

2. Legends in the figures are too tiny.

Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. The text size in figures 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 has been adjusted.

 

3. Which platform was used for the numerical modeling?

Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. Lines 171 to 175 in chapter 3 are explained. The numerical simulation in this paper is carried out in fluent software.

 

4. How were the properties of the resin obtained?

Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. The method of obtaining resin properties is explained in lines 264 to 266 of chapter 3.3.

 

5. How were the results from the numerical model compared to the experimental ones?

Tables 3 and 4 in the discussion calculate the deviation between the numerical simulation results and the test results. It is explained in lines 366 to 368 of chapter 6 that the maximum deviation predicted for the surface diameter of the mirror blank is 2.0708mm, and the average deviation is 1.07mm. It is explained in lines 377 to 379 that the maximum deviation of the principal curvature of the mirror blank is 0.1079mm^-1, and the average deviation is 0.03665mm^-1.

 

We thank the reviewer for reading our paper carefully and giving the above positive comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      The abstract must be make strong. Abstract should be reviewed again. Some of the numerical data obtained as a result of the study can be written in this section.

2.      Additions must be made to the introduction section.

3.      The literature section remained weak. If there are more current literature studies, these should be examined in detail and added to the literature section. It is a suggestion for the literature part of the article to be more comprehensive. It may be useful to include relevant articles in 2019-2022 in references.

4.      Many of the figures in the article should be improved. The quality and visibility of the figures should be increased. Especially figure 8-14.

5.      Many of the equations used in the article are not referenced. Authors need to review.

6.      The Discussion section should be a separate topic.

 

7.      The conclusion part should be supported by numerical data. If this study will continue in the future, the predictions should be shared in the conclusion section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. In the following section, we summarize our responses to each comment from the reviewers. We believe that our responses have well addressed all concerns from the reviewers. We hope our revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.

 

1. The abstract must be make strong. Abstract should be reviewed again. Some of the numerical data obtained as a result of the study can be written in this section.

  Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. We have rewritten this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. The deviation data between numerical simulation prediction results and test results are added in lines 13 to 19 of the abstract.

 

2. Additions must be made to the introduction section.

Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. The significance of the study is explained in lines 48 to 55 in the introduction section.

 

3. The literature section remained weak. If there are more current literature studies, these should be examined in detail and added to the literature section. It is a suggestion for the literature part of the article to be more comprehensive. It may be useful to include relevant articles in 2019-2022 in references

  Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. We have rewritten this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. In the introduction section, the background literature related to gas jet forming is added in lines 38 to 48 and references 5-7 are updated.

 

4.Many of the figures in the article should be improved. The quality and visibility of the figures should be increased. Especially figure 8-14.

  Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. The text size in figures 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 has been adjusted.

 

5. Many of the equations used in the article are not referenced. Authors need to review.

  Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. Equations 1-3, 11-17 and 19 have been cited. Equations 2, 4, 5-10, 18, 20-26 are original works.

 

6. The Discussion section should be a separate topic.

  Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. The article's structure has been reorganized, and lines 360 to 441 are used as the discussion module.

 

7. The conclusion part should be supported by numerical data. If this study will continue in the future, the predictions should be shared in the conclusion section.

  Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. The conclusions section has been modified; The deviation data between numerical simulation prediction results and test results are added in lines 448 to 459.

 

We thank the reviewer for reading our paper carefully and giving the above positive comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx