IET投稿后三个月Decline to resubmit revised paper已有4人参与
投稿IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution后三个月被拒并要求重投，麻烦大家帮忙看看审稿建议，之后提交修改稿录用的几率大不大，谢谢！
Comments to the Author
The paper deals with a complex problem in relation to the erosion of circuit breaker contacts after repeated short circuits.
The work is interesting, but uses approximations and laws that remain valid in well defined experimental conditions. In order to be published, the authors are asked to respond to the following suggestions and remarks.
1. The authors are asked to give in the introduction how they distinguish between the arc resistance and the resistance of circuit breaker poles contacts.
2. Please verify if the pressure of SF6 varies in the same direction than the DRM (dynamic resistance of contact).
3. In figure 1, the authors are asked to give further explanation about the considered values of the capacity C=16.8 mF and L = 0.6 mH.
4. Figure 5 wants for references and extensive explanations.
5. Concerning figure 6: The authors are asked to make in which type of breaker this type of arc cutting is operated?
6. One of the used approximations by authors concerns the mass loss of arcing contact and the cylindrical shape. The authors are asked to justify this hypothesis.
7. Please give more information concerning the used alloy (CuW80), especially some references where this alloy is currently used.
8. Equation 7 considers the enthalpy of the contacts from 20 °C to the evaporation of the contacts material. This needs further explanation and discussion with regard to the real temperatures at which the contacts are submitted during arcing occurrence.
9. It will be more relevant and necessary to give more justification and explanation concerning equation 10.
10. The value of the determined length decrement of arcing contact (L = 0.268 mm) needs for references and more explanation. What are the works that already determined this length?
11. A comparison between the number of experimental erosion tests and normal life CBs operations is needed.
Comments to the Author
In this manuscript, the authors tried to assess the condition of contact sets in SF6 CBs without dismantling. They used five parameters (Rm average main contact resistance, Ra average arcing contact resistance, Lm length of main contact part, La length of arcing contact part, Lc overtravel) which were extracted from R-L curve, to evaluate the conditions of SF6 contact sets. However, the R-L curve was obtained based on their experimental equipment and the errors of the results were not provided in this paper. So the five parameters extracted from R-L curves were not reliable.
On the other hand, the principle used to define the critical value of the five parameters (Rm, Ra, Lm, La and Lc) was not reliable too. For example, they proposed that the critical values of Rm and Ra, were the highest ones from R-L curve Fig.8. But the reason was not given. So the discussion and conclusion should be invalid.
The current and voltage during the operations were not shown in this manuscript. To assess the contact sets, the authors should compare the R-L curve and the characteristics of current and voltage. Finally, they would give some useful and reliable information.