| 查看: 1369 | 回复: 4 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者wojiaozjf将赠送您 5 个金币 | ||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||
[求助]
JAP悲剧了怎么办？求助已有1人参与
|
||
|
这样悲剧了，怎么办？在线等，很急…… Your manuscript, referenced below, has been reviewed for publication in the Journal of Applied Physics. "Propagation dynamics of picosecond electron bunch produced by Micro-Pulse electron Gun" Included below are the reviewer comments. In view of the recommendations, we feel that we cannot accept your paper for publication. I regret being unable to send you a more favorable report. Editor's Comments: Reviewer Comments: Reviewer #1 Evaluations: Significant Advance: No New Research: No Innovative Technology: No Scientific Advances: No Real World Applications: Yes English Correct: Yes Good Title: Yes Descriptive Abstract: Yes Good Figures: Yes Adequate References: No Reviewer #1 (REMARKS to AUTHOR(s)): This paper is a very thorough examination of a compact rf gun, however, the authors must realize it is not new. This paper is more like a well written internal report. In order to qualify for publication in JAP, there must be new physics leading to an interesting application or established physics that is used in a novel way. This paper is neither. The method of calculating the electron propagation dynamics is solid but there is no serious consideration of other well established codes in the particle physics community for this that are readily available to do these calculations at the same level of rigor (GPT and ASTRA for example). I would be more enthusiastic about accepting this paper if there were experimental results. The authors must wait to publish some brief theoretical analysis (this work) with their experimental findings. My biggest problem with this work is that this design and concept is extremely well known. No one uses it because of the high power required to drive the cavity for relatively low electron energy gains. It is a very low efficiency device. I also note the authors do not cite the work of Kraus' group (New J Phys paper) that examined the same concept...and have yet to implement because of the power requirements and relative small improvement in performance. Other points: - the authors should actually read some of the references and not simply parrot them. Ref. 11 for example is largely discredited by the field (other than the Zewail camp) as they have yet to observe subps dynamics to claim real time monitoring of atomic motions. For real space imaging, if you go through the numbers, using 1 electron/pulse imaging will take 10^10 to 10^12 photon cycles for one signal count. Most of the work shows dynamics and spatial resolution one could obtain with a optical microscope. There are other reviews that are more balanced and actually show space-time resolution in the Angstrom-100fs window critical to resolving atomic motions. - some spelling errors (minor) - discussion that no one has treated the near surface extraction process is incorrect. Full simulations have been done and with greater care in treating the initial electron distribution critical to getting the electron pulse dynamics correct. In summary, this is a solid study. I don't want to be too discouraging. It is just not a stand alone paper. With experiment,this theoretical analysis and simulation (in much compressed form) will make for a very strong contribution to the field. Please include this work with the experiments that one assumes will be forthcoming. Reviewer #2 Evaluations: Significant Advance: Yes New Research: No Innovative Technology: No Scientific Advances: Yes Real World Applications: Yes English Correct: No Good Title: Yes Descriptive Abstract: No Good Figures: Yes Adequate References: Yes Reviewer #2 (REMARKS to AUTHOR(s)): The paper studies the effects of space charge on pulse length broadening in a Micro-Pulse electron Gun. The pulse propagation dynamics are analyzed in three stages: beam generation region, acceleration region, and drift region. Both theoretical models and particle-in-cell simulations are presented. While the results are certainly of importance to the generation of short electron bunches for a broad range of applications, the manuscript requires considerable revisions. First of all, to be published in JAP, the English needs to be improved. The article would benefit greatly from further readings for grammar, clarity, brevity, and idiomatic use of language. Below are some other comments on the article: In Fig. 4, it would be helpful to point out the range of electric fields in which MPG could run with self-bunching effects. It would be necessary to state the assumptions/approximations used in deriving eqs. 13 and 25. 2nd line after eq. 12, "F_E makes no contribution to bunch length broadening ...". This statement is not true if one looks at the spatial length of the bunch during acceleration. In eq. 14, the authors should specify if Ei is the electrostatic field only, or it is the total electric field including both the electrostatic field and the field due to space charge. Page 12, 1st paragraph in Sec. III, what are "electron cancellation effects"? Also, please consider describing briefly the PIC simulation, including the number of particles, simulation domain, cell size, time-step size, etc. It is recommended to state explicitly which equations in Sec. II are used to generate the plots in Figs. 5-12. The results from PIC simulations are compared with theory only in Figs. 8 and10, but not in Figs. 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12. It would be great if PIC simulations can be presented in all these figures. If this is not possible, it is recommended to explain why PIC simulations data are missing in these figures. Figure 6, what initial velocity distribution (Gaussian? Uniform? Or Linear?) is assumed for the calculation? Only the energy difference between the electrons in the front and the back is stated as 0.1eV, but how about the velocities of the electrons inside the bunch? Also, it is not very clear about the electron bunch's initial density profile. Similar clarifications are needed for Figs. 8 and 10. p. 16, Sec C. "Theory analysis was performed still using coulomb MF model presented in II. B ...". So it seems that the theory in Sec. II. C is never used? p. 16, 2nd last sentence. "Finally, the pulse duration increases linearly with time." But Fig. 10 shows a clear non-linear increase of pulse duration with time. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
催稿后秒拒
已经有6人回复
-
前同事拿我以前未中的国自然标书申请今年的国自然，现在基金委发来调查函
已经有10人回复
-
想问一下有没有需要文章但是没时间带学生的研究生导师。
已经有17人回复
-
298求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
申请省自然科学基金，研究区能否是省外区域
已经有13人回复
-
国内科研环境差导致国内科研水平差的根源
已经有3人回复
-
CSC在职申请求问
已经有7人回复
-
家乡二本高校/沿海传统私企，如何抉择？
已经有15人回复
-
哎
已经有6人回复
-
发现督导在听课，需要跟TA招呼示意吗？有同学看手机、课件有疏漏算大问题吗？
已经有3人回复
xiaopang8958
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 163 (高中生)
- 金币: 6262
- 散金: 1262
- 红花: 26
- 帖子: 1299
- 在线: 729.3小时
- 虫号: 761690
- 注册: 2009-05-02
- 专业: 有机合成
3楼2015-09-13 19:59:35
90