Electric Field Analysis on the Corona Discharge Phenomenon According to the Variable Air Space between the Ionizer and Ground Current Collector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a research on “Electric Field Analysis on Corona Discharge Phenomenon according to Variable Gap Distance between Ionizer and Ground Current Collector” is interesting work and study begin This paper focused on optimized gap distance between the ionizer and the ground current collector to improve the performance of SK-AOR380 using an FEA software package. The results obtained from the analysis indicate that the probability of direct lightning strike can be reduced by improved lightning protection rod with optimized gap distance.

 

Following observation for improvement:

1)      The overall paper representation is not as per journal format and author has to change the format with ASI guidelines.

2)      In the introduction section it is not clear what is research objectives?

3)      What methodology they have used to reduce the gap distance between the ionizer and the ground current collector in the research work. 

4)      In the introduction section objective, methodology and organisation of the paper is missing in the introduction section.

5)      In section 2 modelling for numerical analysis what is the role of governing equations, what system it represents and how you have developed system model geometry from continuity equation.

6)      In the table 1 first two columns represents what and significance of different scale bar during modelling?  

7)      Quality of figures 4 need to improve for better illustrations.

8)      In the discussion section detailed justification with table is expected for reference 16 and 17 for gap between ionizer and ground current collector.

9)      The proposed methodology is too narrow and may be elaborated with comparison.

10)  Validation of data is required either with similar research work or different model.

11)  The author may refer following works with elaborated methodology and analysis.

a.      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132430

b.       https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-020-07853-7

12)  The conclusion is delivered with limited content. For this manuscript, the conclusion should be provided with more details, and the future scope are not motioned in this section.

13)  The novelty of the work must be addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings and highlight novelty, (compare your work with existing research findings and highlight novelty).

14)  Add some quantitative research outcomes in the abstract section.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good work, and it might be published in this journal. However, some comments should be considered to improve the quality of this paper.

Authors MUST use the journal’s template. The Table, and equations are not understandable.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the comments are incorporated in the revised manuscript.  

Author Response

Thank you for your all comments for publish.

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in ASI. However, some comments should be considered to improve the quality of this paper:

Name of Table 1: "Abbreviations and acronyms used in thesis". It is not a thesis. if you produced this article from a thesis, you MUST inform that in the acknowledgment section. 
Line 100-101 : "The following table 1 describes the significance of various abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the thesis." Again THESIS.
I would better define the novelty in the abstract. Also in the other articles in the literature, there was Electric Field Analysis on Corona Discharge Phenomenon.

 

Author Response

1. Name of Table 1: "Abbreviations and acronyms used in thesis". It is not a thesis. if you produced this article from a thesis, you MUST inform that in the acknowledgment section.

->  The word of thesis has been revised as paper

2. Line 100-101 : "The following table 1 describes the significance of various abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the thesis." Again THESIS.

->  The word of thesis has been revised as paper

3. I would better define the novelty in the abstract. Also in the other articles in the literature, there was Electric Field Analysis on Corona Discharge Phenomenon.

-> Some contents have been added in the abstract section.