Modulation of Surface Plasmonic Bending Beam via Nanoslit Interactions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-
The work entitled "Modulation of surface plasmonic bending beam via nanoslitsinteractions" by Xiaoming Li et al. describesa surface plasmonic bending beam (SPB) created via an aarray of 20 antisymmetric double V-shaped structures.On the electric field intensity of SPB, the effects of the polarisation states of the incident light (such as polarisation angles, linearly polarised (LP), left-circularly polarised (LCP), and right circularly polarised (RCP) light) are examined. The theory of dipole radiation may adequately account for these discussion outcomes. The findings of the numerical simulation match well with the theoretical analysis. These findings are believed to serve as a roadmap for further investigations into SPB generator optimization.
- The work is well written and organized and easy to follow and I highly recommended for publication.
- Although there a few issues, see below:
Page 5, line 154; units of constant a?
Typo, page 5, line 155; every sources
Typo, page 5, line 156; the number of each sources.
What is the based material of the v-shaped slits?
Typo, page 7, line 188; with the b=0.3
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the work you have submitted for publication. I enjoyed reading your research. I would like to point out some minor problems which I hope it can improve the quality of the work.
In line 18, the coordinate of point "A" does not match the figure 3 axes. Please address this issue. It would be easier to track if the authors highlighted the point "A" on the graph directly as well. Figure 3a, the x-axis appears to be overlayed by numbers on the original graph numbering, which I presume is to increase the size or resolution. There are still residues from the original values of the axis that are noticeable.
Line 191, point "A" would be better identified if it was shown on the graph as well. The purpose of the dashed-line on the Figure 4a is not clear and it is not repeated for different widths "b" which are shown in Figure 4b-d.
Line 201, in the caption of the Figure 4, section f, a value for x is indicated which I believe is what the dashed line is representing. What is significant for x=20um? Maybe the dashed line could be used in all 2D surface plots?
Line 232, there is a mention of a previous work which I believe is part of the references. I suggest the authors add a reference to cite their work in here for clarity.
Line 233, the x=20um point, is this referring to the position that was indicated in Figure 4? This position has been mentioned a few times in the manuscript. Why this distance from the plasmonic metasurface structure is selected?
Additional information on the way the modeling was carried out could have been helpful to follow the steps that the authors took for their FDTD simulation. I did find any supplementary document that could help with this.
I have attached the PDF version of the manuscript that contains some of my comments with highlights.
I hope this helps improving the quality of the work.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The author's report on a unique and novel design of 20 antisymmetric double V-shaped structures array designed to study and understand the generation of surface plasmonic bending beams (SPB). The authors carefully did a systematic study varying the arms of the structures and changing the polarization angle of the incident electromagnetic radiation. The satisfactory sine distribution fitting of the results goes well with the electric dipole radiation theory. The influence of polarization states including linearly polarized (LP), left-circularly polarized (LCP) and right circularly polarized (RCP) light is also studied. This study is suitable for optimizing SPB generators and in optical communications.
The authors present an incredibly good concise and informative introduction with references to the relevant and most recent literature. The articles contain important and significant novel results that will be of great interest for the broad scientific readership of the journal.
For the reasons mentioned above, I suggest this work deserves publication in Photonics, provided the following (major) comments and suggestions are fulfilled:
1. The authors have referred to Figure 1b after first mentioning Figure 2. The authors should consider discussing Figure 1b first, before going to Figure 2. Another way is to include Figure 2 in Figure 1.
2. The authors have mentioned arm length “L”, width “w”, angle “α”, aL and aR (Line 160-165) of the manuscript, although these have not been labeled in the Figure 2. The authors must clearly define each of these in the schematic diagram shown in Figure 2.
3. How did the authors decide on using plane wave of 0.8 µm for the electromagnetic radiation confinement studies? The authors must provide an extinction or scattering curve versus wavelength to better understand the plasmonic behavior of the as designed array.
4. The authors have used a 20 antisymmetric double V-shaped structures array for their study. In the previous reports the authors have displayed the electric field intensity of the SPB exhibit clear disturbance with the increase in the number of M shaped nano slits (Reference 39). However, the shape used in the current study is V- shaped. How will the number of slits (V-shape affect) the modulation of the SPB?
5. In line 207 and 208, Figure 4 should be changed to Figure 5.
6. In Figure 6b, the lines on the graph shows a different color set in comparison to the legend on the graph. The authors should make it consistent. Also, the xP should be replaced with LP.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have adequately addressed the reviewers comments. The manuscript can now be accepted in the present form.
