The Influence of the Magnetic Field Line Curvature on Wall Erosion near the Hall Thruster Exit Plane

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Author's comments:

The reviewer is concerned that the current form of the scientific work is not acceptable for publishing in the journal, but only after a number of important changes and enhancements. Below are some suggestions for improving the draft manuscript:

1/ The abstract seems to be fairly generic. Please give some quantitative statistics on the study findings.

2/ It would be preferable if all physical parameters specified in the nomenclature section were supplied along with units.

3/ The author should update the References section to make the system used more realistic.

4/ For better reference, please number the pages and add line numbers.

5/ The findings may be pertinent to the particular system, but what is the additional value for other researchers?

6/ Brief descriptions of the work's uniqueness should also occur in the Abstract and Conclusion sections.

7/ After reading through the Introduction, I'd like to offer the following general observation: The introduction part should be written in a higher quality manner, with more up-to-date references mentioned. The research gap should be communicated in a clearer manner, with a specific need for the completed study activity. What is lacking (research gaps)? What should be done, why, and how?

8/ What is the primary goal of the research?

9/ It is improper to utilize the equations without citing the source.

10/ For any empirical relationships shown in the tables, please provide references (sources).

11/ Because this work is about numerical inquiry, please offer a distinct part to the text that is focused on boundary conditions.

12/ All of the graphs in the draft text need to be improved since they are unreadable.

13/ The reported findings lead to the conclusions. Future research and areas of study, in my opinion, could be properly stated and underlined at the conclusion of the Conclusions section.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Report of Review

 

The aim of study is to investigate the influence of the tilt angle of magnetic field line on the wall sputtering erosion

 

Authors should provide a rebuttal showing how the queries are answered. Also, present how the answers are reflected in the text by using different color (in red).

 

Shortcoming:

1. Erosion  modeling not seen

2. Unit of erosion rate not consistent why in  (m/s)

3. The physical and numerical modeling equations are not seen; they should be well presented and discussed in view of simulation requirement, grid size and mesh quality, solution schemes and time step selection etc....

4. Results neither validated nor compared to other references.

 

Queries

5. The language need to be checked carefully, there is plenty of syntax and grammatical errors; please have your paper proof-edited by a professional.

6. A lot of ambiguous sentences and very short incomplete sentences.

7. The abstract should present the real contribution in view of similar works. The Abstract should contain answers to the following questions: What problem was studied and why is it important? What methods were used? What are the important results? What conclusions can be drawn from the results? What is the novelty of the work and where does it go beyond previous efforts in the literature?

8. Give acronyms at first place of use.

9. Provide the list of parameters and abbreviations in the nomenclature.

10. Check the citation style which is not coherent through the paper text.

11. Provide an illustration of the actual studied thrusters.

12. Fig. 1 seems very simplistic and does not represent the real configuration.

13. Same remark for Fig. 2.

14. Check equation 2 not correct.

15. Explain physically why irregular and scatterings contours colours of fig. 3 and 4? And also for the rest of figures, this should be well documented and proved.

16. Present erosion in both directions.

17. Revise : The 2D spatial distribution of electron density with difference positive α

18. The caption of fig.8 and 12 do not reflect what is presented.

19. Revise line 323.

20. Revise lines 344-345 not clear.

21. Change in line 356-357:  bigger to larger.

22. In Conclusion remove introductory paragraph and detailed discussion should be moved to the section discussion of results. Focus on the new finding and their perspectives.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It can be accepted now. 

 

Author Response

Thank for your constructive comments to our manuscript (applsci-2226857).

Reviewer 2 Report

nuscript Number: applsci-2226857-peer-review-v2

Submitted to: MDPI applied sciences

Title:    The influence of the magnetic field line curvature on wall erosion near the Hall thruster exit plane

 

 

 

Report of Review

 

 

Queries

1. The list of keywords incomplete

2. The keyword incomplete:  curvature (of what)

3. Check the citation style still not coherent for example

.....by Morozov et al. [8].for its proven ability to reduce the divergence angle of the ion beam 123 and improve the discharge performance [8].  and many like this .

4. In Conclusion too long with detailed discussion should be moved to the section discussion of results. Focus on pertinent new finding and their perspective.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx