Primary Design of Extended Interaction Klystron with Multi-Gap Cavity at 225 GHz

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The introduction is too short and has lack of information on previous studies. Authors should also include the justification why this study is important for potential applications and how this study is different from previous studies [8-9].

2. Why authors have written line 38 to 47 which should not be part of a scientific publication?

3. Why is it necessary to write the line 112 to 114?

4. The results presented in this manuscript is not compatible to the title which is too broad and general. The conclusion should emphasize potential application of the study.

5. Figure quality is not good particularly 7(b).

6. The manuscript doesn’t contain enough materials for publication. Authors should make comparison of their modeling results with the previously reported experimental results.

7. Authors should give explanation to their results presented in each figure. For example, it is not clear why output power increases with increase in input power, becomes maximum at 30 mW and decreases again on further increase in input power.

8. The current version of the manuscript doesn’t contain enough results for publication.

Author Response

1. The introduction is modified and added some information on previous studies.  The space charge wave theory [8-9] was used to analyze the beam-wave interaction in a single-gap cavity. In this paper, we study the beam-wave coupling in a multi-gap cavity.

2. Line 38 to 47 is the requirement of this journal. It was forgotten to be deleted.

3. Line 112 to 114 is modified.

4. The title is modified as Primary Design of Extended Interaction Klystron with Multi-Gap Cavity at 225GHz. The conclusion emphasizes some potential application of the study.

5. Figure 7(b) is modified.

6. Some results are added, such as Fig.6 and the corresponding text. And we make comparison of our results with the CPI's experimental results.

7. We add some explanation to their results presented in each figure.

Reviewer 2 Report

High-power electromagnetic sources operating above 100GHz represent a new frontier for radar and telecommunications technology, and this manuscript therefore is of strong interest for readers in this field. I am happy to recommend its publication in Particles, subject to minor edits being made.

My only criticisms of this manuscript are as follows:

- The manuscript contains a number of minor errors in its use of English, and should be carefully reviewed by a proficient English speaker or a professional scientific English-language editing service.

- In a number of places (in the first instance, on lines 38 - 47, and again later) placeholder text appears in the text of the manuscript. Care should be taken to ensure that this does not appear in the as-published paper.

- Some of the figures have text appearing in places which are very difficult to read, or could be erroneous altogether. This could be a PDF conversion issue, and should be carefully checked by the authors and journal subeditors before publication.

Author Response

1.The manuscript is reviewed by a proficient English speaker.

2.These text and format on lines 38 - 47 and others are checked.

3.Some errors in figures are checked and modified.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate authors' efforts.