Study of Plasma Interaction with Liquid Lithium Multichannel Capillary Porous Systems in SCU-PSI
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see my comments in the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
the paper is interesting and the work generally well done.
I would recommend to improve the error treatment in the paper; nowhere an estimantion of the margin of error has been expressed.
Particularly, raw 158-161 pg5 the quantity descibed are difficult to understand with no errors handling.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the paper can now be accepted
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review and comments of our work!
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
From v1 to v2 of the manuscript, the electron densities displayed in figure 3 increased by a factor of 10 and this was not even mentioned in the author's answer. That is the reason of the apparent disagreement I found in the previous flux calculations. Particle fluxes are directly inferred from the saturation current of the LP, so I wonder how this correction by a factor of 10 took place.
Please, refer to evaporation or excitation (not ionization) curves when citing fig 5.
There were several numerical errors fixed through the review process. Please make sure that all the numbers are correct in the final version!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
Please correct: p3. It is mentioned that the maximum density is 1019m3, in contradiction with the data shown in fig 3.
p6. just above fig 5. Please correct, it is not an ionization curve.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your careful examination of our manuscript. We are so sorry for the problem. In case that there is still error in the manuacript, we spent two days to check the manuscript again and again. It is hoped that this edition will meet the requirements of publication.