|
[½»Á÷]
ÇóÖú£¬µÚÒ»´ÎͶ¸å£¬Éó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û£¬ÊÇÍ˸åµÄÒâ˼£¬»¹ÊÇÓÐÐ޸ļÛÖµµÄÒâ˼ѽÒÑÓÐ6È˲ÎÓë
ÇóÖú£¬µÚÒ»´ÎͶ¸å£¬Éó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û£¬ÊÇÍ˸åµÄÒâ˼£¬»¹ÊÇÓÐÐ޸ļÛÖµµÄÒâ˼ѽ£¬ÎÒͶµÄÊÇliquid crystals ÔÓÖ¾
Éó¸åÈËÒâ¼û:
Referee(s)' Comments to Author:Referee: 1Comments to the AuthorI am totally confused by this paper. The authors seem to rub a bare ITO surface, and then claim that rubbing produced homeotropic alignment. This is counterintuitive, since rubbing normally produces planar alignment. They then go on to talk about VA (vertical alignment), but yet their experimental geometry is for a planar-aligned cell. Other specific problems:
1. The cholestreric LC has dissolved CTAB. This certainly will affect the anchoring. How much CTAB is in the mixture? Is it controlled?
2. What is the pitch of the CLC? How does it vary with temperature?
3. CLCs normally give fingerprint or Grandjean textures, not focal conics. Please explain. Also, how does the pitch and orientation vary with electric field?
4. Each variable in equation 1 (and following) needs to be defined in the text.
5. I have no idea what the middle paragraph on page 6 is saying. The authors write "Various cells were measured, the results were almost the same. Anchoring energy ofthe rubbed cells is large than that of the non-rubbed ones." The second sentence seems to be inconsistent with the first.
6. The decrease of anchoring strength with an increase in temperature is a result known for nearly 30 years. The authors need to include references.
The manuscript is very, very confusing, and it's not clear to me that the experiments were conducted with the required care to draw any significant conclusions. This paper will need a near total rewrite before it can be considered for publication. I also suggest that the authors find a colleague who is more fluent in English to help with the writing; perhaps some of my confusion stems from the less-than-adequate use of English.
ÏÖÔÚÇóÖú´ó¼Ò£¬Õæ²»ÖªµÀÕâƪÂÛÎÄ»¹ÓÐûÓÐÐ޸ļÛÖµÁË |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
» ±¾Ö÷ÌâÏà¹Ø¼ÛÖµÌùÍƼö£¬¶ÔÄúͬÑùÓаïÖú:
|