Particle-in-Cell Simulations on High-Efficiency Phase-Locking Millimeter-Wave Magnetrons with Unsynchronized High-Voltage Pulses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In Introduction, knowledge should be more systematized. Point out the differences between what the authors are doing and what is now. It is necessary to emphasize the originality and what was used. Not enough specifics, e.g. what configurations (line 60)?

2. The drawings are not scaled correctly. The caption must not be smaller than the font used in the drawings.

3. There is a lack of information about what is in the individual sections of the article.

4. Lack of information about the applied method, program, adopted conditions, model, etc.

5. And where is the verification of results by using another method (analytical, experimental)? What is the credibility of the simulation performed? What kind of calculations?

6. Conclusions fail to emphasize the originality of one's own achievement compared to other available solutions. No explanation of the phenomenon, no justification of the results, etc. No information about the possibility of using this solution in the future and about further research directions.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment .

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript described the characterization study of two phase-locked magnetrons using particle-in- cell simulation software using two discrete, unsynchronized high voltage pulses. The simulation results presented by the authors showed that the both the magnetrons were phase-locked in the high-efficiency phase-locking regime and output power was doubled. This work is highly significant as phase locking in magnetron is a long-standing issue. Magnetrons are highly efficient vacuum tubes. However, due to the phase locking issues, their applications are limited. This new method could show a new path in the high-power microwave (HPM) device research where requirement of high-power output from an efficient tube is extremely desirable.

However, several issues need to be resolve before this manuscript could be published.

1)      Number of mesh cells and type of the mesh used in the simulation were not included. To have a sense of simulation accuracy, mesh cell numbers are very important.

2)      Version of the CST is not mentioned. Reference for the CST is also not included.

3)      Magnetic field is not discussed properly. Did the author study the effect of magnetic field variation and its effect on the phase-locking?

4)      The magnetron startup time is usually > 90 ns. It is not clear why the startup simulation time is so fast.

5)      How many macro particles were used?

6)      On page 7, line 172, the authors mentioned “Notably, the oscillation build-up time of the second stage is only about 1/2 of the oscillation build-up time of the free-running magnetron” Why is that?

7)      The current used in the simulation is seems to be low. Did the authors confirm that the magnetrons are operating at the space charge limited region?

English need to be improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment .

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your answers.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I hope this letter finds you well. I wanted to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude for your meticulous review and insightful feedback on my article entitled "Particle-In-Cell Simulations on High-Efficiency Phase-Locking Millimeter-Wave Magnetrons with Unsynchronized High-Voltage Pulses" Your expertise and dedication have been invaluable in shaping the quality and clarity of my work. Your thorough examination of my submission, along with your thoughtful suggestions and comments, have truly enhanced the overall content. I am genuinely appreciative of the time and effort you invested in providing me with detailed feedback that allowed me to make significant improvements. Your guidance has not only refined the manuscript but has also expanded my understanding of the subject matter. I am pleased to inform you that I have carefully incorporated the changes according to your recommendations. Your expertise has undoubtedly elevated the content to a higher standard, and I am grateful for your role in this process. Beyond your professional contributions, I also want to extend my best wishes to you personally. May your life be filled with happiness, good health, and continued success in all your endeavors. Once again, thank you for your dedication and assistance. Your commitment to the academic community is truly commendable, and I am honored to have benefited from your expertise. If there are any additional insights or thoughts you'd like to share in the future, I would be more than eager to consider them. Wishing you all the best and looking forward to any opportunities for future collaboration.

Warm regards,

Minsheng

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for answering all the questions.

Just one comment. Please mention in the manuscript if the cathode priming was used. 

A few minor english editing is required. 

For an example, on page 7 line 230, phase-locing spelling should be "phase-locking". Please double check the english. 

Minor editing is required. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I hope this letter finds you well. I wanted to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude for your meticulous review and insightful feedback on my article entitled "Particle-In-Cell Simulations on High-Efficiency Phase-Locking Millimeter-Wave Magnetrons with Unsynchronized High-Voltage Pulses" Your expertise and dedication have been invaluable in shaping the quality and clarity of my work. Your thorough examination of my submission, along with your thoughtful suggestions and comments, have truly enhanced the overall content. I am genuinely appreciative of the time and effort you invested in providing me with detailed feedback that allowed me to make significant improvements. Your guidance has not only refined the manuscript but has also expanded my understanding of the subject matter. I am pleased to inform you that I have carefully incorporated the changes according to your recommendations. Your expertise has undoubtedly elevated the content to a higher standard, and I am grateful for your role in this process. Beyond your professional contributions, I also want to extend my best wishes to you personally. May your life be filled with happiness, good health, and continued success in all your endeavors. Once again, thank you for your dedication and assistance. Your commitment to the academic community is truly commendable, and I am honored to have benefited from your expertise. If there are any additional insights or thoughts you'd like to share in the future, I would be more than eager to consider them. Wishing you all the best and looking forward to any opportunities for future collaboration.

Warm regards,

Minsheng

 

Point 1:

Just one comment. Please mention in the manuscript if the cathode priming was used. 

A few minor english editing is required. 

For an example, on page 7 line 230, phase-locing spelling should be "phase-locking". Please double check the english. 

Response 1:

In Chapter 2.1, Line 134-137, “Cathode priming is used for fast-startup. For cathode priming of a 22-cavity magnetron operating in the π mode (11 electron spokes), the cathode has 11 azimuthally periodic, emitting regions around the cathode [31]. Absolute current of 50 A ensures that the cathode possesses sufficient emission capability and current rise time is 0.1 ns.” has been revised according to your suggestion.

Sorry for the misspelling. Thank you for noticing, I have already revised them.

Line 197, “Phase-locing” has been revised to “Phase-locking”.

Line 234, “Phase-locing” has been revised. to “Phase-locking”.