Influence of Magnetic Field on Characteristics of Corona Discharge in Wire-Cylinder Electrodes Configuration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Influence of magnetic field on characteristics of corona discharge in wire-cylinder electrodes configuration In this paper, the influence of the transverse magnetic field on the current-voltage characteristics of wire-cylinder corona discharge has been investigated. The experimental current-voltage data at different values of a crossed magnetic field was obtained for positive and negative corona discharges, and corona inception breakdown voltages against the magnetic field as well. This work presents the experimental data and overview of the state-of-the-art theoretical background in the field. This work done in an educational and entertaining manner for the broad public presents 17 figures and 3 tables, cites 19 articles, and deserves publication after minor correction: 1. In the second raw the word “cinfiguration” should be corrected, consider using “configuration” 2. In figure 1 the word “boundry” should be corrected, consider using “boundary” instead. 3. in figures 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 consider dimensionless parameters for magnetic field and the voltage. Logarithmic value tends to be presented for dimensionless parameters.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
I would like to extend our sincere thanks and gratitude to your valuable comments and suggestions. The manuscript is revised according to your suggestions and more attention was given to the English language concerning the writing and presenting of the whole article..
Comment 1: 1. In the second raw the word “cinfiguration” should be corrected, consider using “configuration”
Response: Many thanks for this valuable comment, the word configuration has been corrected.
Comment 2: In figure 1 the word “boundry” should be corrected, consider using “boundary” instead.
Response: Yes right in figure 1, the word boundary has been corrected.
Comment 3: in figures 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 consider dimensionless parameters for magnetic field and the voltage. Logarithmic value tends to be presented for dimensionless parameters.
Response: Many thanks for these valuable comments. In figures 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; dimensionless parameters has been presented for Logarithmic value.
At the end, I do appreciate and many thanks for your valued recommendations and suggestions. Many thanks again and please accept my tremendous respect.
Best Regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Report Plasma 1485115
In this work the authors present a comprehensive report of their study about the effect of an applied magnetic field upon the parameters of the current-voltage characteristic in a corona discharge produced in a wire-cylinder setup.
In my opinion the paper is globally rather well written. It is well documented how the measurements were performed and what their results were. Also, an effort has been done to put the the scope of the study within the perspective of current research (although I will make a comment about this).
In summary, I am in favour of its publication, although have some recommendations.
* The English must be improved. There are not serious flaws, but several typos (e.g., in several place it is written "filed" rather than "field"; at lines 32,33 "The corona discharge is usually happend"; at line 95 "limit" rather than "limited"; at line 97 "diffeculities", and so on)
* I am not an expert of corona discharge thus I am curious about the mechanism producing either positive or negative ions depending on the applied voltage (first page, lines 31,32), in particular negative ions. Could the authors spend some words about it ?
* The authors write, at line 107-108, that the applied magnetic field B is perpendicular to the electric field E. Now, from what I understand of the experimental setup, the system is axialsymmetric, and the electric field is along the radial direction of the cylinder, whereas B is on a vertical plane. Thus, E and B are not perpendicular except than along the horizontal plane. Could the authors explain how the experimental setup is ?
* Likely a consequence of previous point, I have serious difficulties in understanding the reasoning at lines 169-174. First of all, I am not able to visualize where the magnetized ionization region is and why E and B force lines are perpendicular. Secondly, I do not understand the meaning of the sentence "Therefore, the electric field was reduced along the path direction by cos theta". Reduced with respect to what ? Furthermore, the word "therefore" implies a logical conclusion, but I do not understand what the premises are.
* Throughout the whole text the authors present their results in formulas and tables, but in the concluding paragraphs (roughly from line 379 to line 402) they make a long recapitulation of all the results obtained inside the text. Maybe it would be more convenient to recapitulate just the qualitative conclusions, referring the reader to the specific locations in the previous pages where the quantitative results had been summarized.
* From the point of view of an outsider: the cited bibliography seems a bit odd to me. Out of 19 entries, 9 refer to papers published in journals I had never heard of, or that have a vanishingly small citation rate. For comparison I looked at the bibliography cited in the paper [1]: there, out of 23 entries, only 3 were from journals unknown to me, and several instead from top-rated journals.
Therefore, the problem addressed in the present study appears to be considered also in main journals. I am not asking the authors to replace their references, but perhaps it could be worthwhile augmenting the bibliography with references also to papers more likely to be known by the readers.
Author Response
Reviewer: 2
I am very grateful to the respected reviewer for his/her valuable comments and your opinion that the topic described in paper seems to be interesting as it improves understanding of the influence of magnetic field on the corona discharge characteristics. The article is revised according to your suggestions and more attention were given to the writing and presenting of the English language for the whole article.
Comment 1: The English must be improved. There are not serious flaws, but several typos (e.g., in several place it is written "filed" rather than "field"; at lines 32,33 "The corona discharge is usually happend"; at line 95 "limit" rather than "limited"; at line 97 "diffeculities", and so on)
Response: Many thanks for these valuable comments. The language and the style had been checked and improved for the whole article.
- The word "filed" has been changed into "field" everywhere.
- At lines 32,33; the word happened has been corrected.
- At line 95 the word "limited" has been corrected.
- At line 97 "difficulties" has been corrected.
Comment 2: I am not an expert of corona discharge thus I am curious about the mechanism producing either positive or negative ions depending on the applied voltage (first page, lines 31,32), in particular negative ions. Could the authors spend some words about it ?
Response: Thanks a lot for the respected reviewer consideration. At lines 31 and 32, in the field of corona discharge, the positive corona is produced when the wire electrode is connected to the positive probe of power supply, whereas the negative corona is produced when the wire electrode is connected to the negative one. Therefore, The positive ions are produced when the wire electrode is supplied by a high positive voltage, whereas negative ions are created if the applied voltage is negative. I believe what has been mentioned in lines 31 and 32 is quite enough for those who are interested in the field of corona discharge.
Comment 3: The authors write, at line 107-108, that the applied magnetic field B is perpendicular to the electric field E. Now, from what I understand of the experimental setup, the system is axialsymmetric, and the electric field is along the radial direction of the cylinder, whereas B is on a vertical plane. Thus, E and B are not perpendicular except than along the horizontal plane. Could the authors explain how the experimental setup is ?
Response: I agree with the respected reviewer. The reviewer was right, the system is axially symmetric, and the electric field is along the radial direction of the cylinder, whereas B is on a vertical plane. Therefore, the statement at lines 107 and 108 have been corrected.
Comment 4: Likely a consequence of previous point, I have serious difficulties in understanding the reasoning at lines 169-174. First of all, I am not able to visualize where the magnetized ionization region is and why E and B force lines are perpendicular. Secondly, I do not understand the meaning of the sentence "Therefore, the electric field was reduced along the path direction by cos theta". Reduced with respect to what ? Furthermore, the word "therefore" implies a logical conclusion, but I do not understand what the premises are.
Response: Thanks a lot for the respected reviewer comments. As has been mentioned in comment 3 regarding the relationship between the B and E, I believe it is more convenient to remove the paragraph between lines 169-177 for avoiding any misunderstanding.
Comment 5: Throughout the whole text the authors present their results in formulas and tables, but in the concluding paragraphs (roughly from line 379 to line 402) they make a long recapitulation of all the results obtained inside the text. Maybe it would be more convenient to recapitulate just the qualitative conclusions, referring the reader to the specific locations in the previous pages where the quantitative results had been summarized.
Response: Many thanks for these valuable comments. I understand your opinion and I highly appreciate your comment. The results were presented in this paragraph because the next paragraph shows the comparison of our work with the two previous empirical formulas. I believe the location of the concluding paragraph (roughly from line 379 to line 402) will be more appropriate and helpful for the reader to know how the equations 17, 18, 19, and 20 were driven.
Comment 6: From the point of view of an outsider: the cited bibliography seems a bit odd to me. Out of 19 entries, 9 refer to papers published in journals I had never heard of, or that have a vanishingly small citation rate. For comparison I looked at the bibliography cited in the paper [1]: there, out of 23 entries, only 3 were from journals unknown to me, and several instead from top-rated journals.
Response: Many thanks for the respected reviewer comment. I appreciate his/her opinion. I believe the 19 references that have been used for this paper were quite enough to represent the compatibility of our results with those papers in the field of corona discharge using the cross magnetic field although the citation of each reference. The idea was concerned, how the magnetic field could change the characteristics of corona discharge in both positive and negative polarities. For this purpose, the provide references cover all the need explanation and discussions regarding the behavior of current-voltage characteristics.
At the end, I do appreciate and many thanks for your valued recommendations and suggestions. Many thanks again and please accept my tremendous respect.
Best Regards
