Investigation of Beat Wave Propagation along Lossy Dielectric Bar for Wind Tunnel Microwave Experiments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See my comments in the report.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The present article is a study of the interaction of a high power microwave with lossy dielectric bars used in the coating material of a wind tunnel. The motivation is linked to experimental study of the effects of such a high power microwave on a plane in realistic conditions. Obviously the wind tunnel geometry is far from an open field situation, and one wants to eliminate the influence of the tunnel itself on the experiment.
It is argued that previous studies are lacking some polarization orientation relevant for the experimental situations, so it seems perfectly relevant to complete the knowledge of these lossy bars in a high power microwave.
The article presents this study by the comparison of a analytical approximate solution with two different simulation (eigenmodes and FDTD). I consider the article is missing some precision on the numerical part that would gain to be better described in order to be reproducible. In particular, the FDTD method should be referred in the text, and not only cited in a table.
About these numerical results, I think a comment should be made on the fact that both numerical methods give essentially the same results. The computing costs could be detailed in such a way that the result could propose to avoid useless computations leading to similar values.
I would have a more open question about the nature of the excitation. If I didn’t miss an information, the study is done using an harmonic regime, where I would expect the high power microwave to be closer to a pulse, so leading to transient effects, that could be even more destructive than the stationary situation described here. Maybe a comment about this could be added somewhere, and maybe, a simulation of a transient situation could be done to evaluate what remains of the study for pulsed microwaves, that could be a more realistic description of the experimental situation.
To conclude, I consider the paper acceptable for publication, preferably after these minors additions if the authors find these comments relevant of course.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No further comments or arguments.
