Simulation of the Inductor Structure to Improve FZ Thermal Fields
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
It is a nice piece of work and I would recommend for the publication. However, after going through the manuscript, I found that abstract, introduction and conclusions are not well written and not impressive. It must include more results based comments/outputs. Results and discussion part must include some experimental work at least from the literature for support with proper discuss.
NA
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript titled "Simulation of the inductor structure to improve FZ thermal fields" aims to address the challenges associated with the Floating-Zone (FZ) method for pulling silicon single crystals. Specifically, the authors focus on the issues of unstable thermal fields and low crystallization rates. They employ COMSOL Multiphysics software to simulate the effects of modified inductor structures on these parameters. The paper is well-structured and offers valuable insights into the FZ process, but there are areas where it could be improved for clarity and impact.
· The methodology and results sections would benefit from further clarification. Certain aspects of the manuscript may be challenging for a broader academic audience to interpret.
· The manuscript discusses the modified inductor structures but lacks a comparative analysis with existing methods or structures. Inclusion of such a comparison would strengthen the paper's contributions to the field.
· Discussion on the practical implications of the findings is notably absent. Incorporating this aspect would enhance the manuscript's relevance and applicability.
· The figures and tables, while informative, could be improved with more descriptive captions and explanations. This would aid in the reader's understanding of the presented data.
· A thorough revision for language and style is recommended.
moderate revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
In this article X. Ai et. Al, demonstrated simulation studies of inductor structure to improve the floating zone (FZ) thermal fields for the pulling of silicon single crystals using COMSOL simulation software. The current studies provide a comprehensive theoretical approach, and the results show that the melt under the introduction of steps in the 2D model and the cross-slit structure in the 3D model is the most stable and most favorable for crystal growth, which basically matches with the actual production. Overall, the concept and the manuscript organization is well-structured and provides a concise overview of the study. However, these are some minor suggestions aim to enhance the clarity, context, and impact of the research presented.
(1) Introduction of FZ Method: It might be beneficial to include a brief explanation of what the "floating-zone (FZ)" method is, especially for readers who might not be familiar with the terminology.
(2) The abstract provides a clear overview of the research topic and objectives. However, consider specifying the exact issues faced due to the unstable thermal field and low crystallization rate, as this would provide more context to readers unfamiliar with the subject.
(3) Clarify why modifying the inductor structure is important in improving the FZ thermal field. What is the theoretical basis or prior research that suggests this modification could lead to improvements?
(4) It would be useful to add a sentence mentioning any limitations of the study and potential avenues for further research. This shows a well-rounded understanding of the research's scope.
(5) The abstract states that the inductor steps (2D model) and inductor slits (3D model) are compared, but it would be helpful to briefly mention what the baseline inductor structure is, and how steps and slits deviate from this baseline.
(6) Specify the significance of using COMSOL simulation software for this study. What advantages does this software offer for simulating the FZ process compared to other options?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
I recommend the publication of this article.
moderate revision
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors report a simulation of how the structure of the inductor improves the crystal growth in the floating zone technique and show some interesting results. The manuscript seems to be useful to readers who are interested in this field, however, the reviewer judges that it needs significant improvements before accepting to the journal "Coatings". The reviewer lists the comments below:
(1) In the current manuscript, the authors describe each result in each section.
However, in particular, for non-specific readers, it is hard to follow the overall story throughout the manuscript.
It seems that the hint is in Fig. 2. The reviewer requests the authors to make clear how each result corresponds to the factor for the crystal growth.
(2) In the section of the introduction, the authors should describe the purpose of the project, and how the authors lead the conclusion logically. It may be related to (5).
(3) The authors should describe the details of the software COMSOL in more detail including it commercial etc, because the use of it is the key of the project.
(4) In many figure captions, it is not easy to follow because the information there is lacking.
Note that the readers are trying to understand the manuscript only from the figures.
The authors should improve them with care. For instance:
(4-1) In Fig. 3, make Fig. 3(a) and (b), then explain each.
(4-2) In Fig. 4, make Fig. 4(a) and (b), then explain each.
(4-3) In Fig. 5, what does the closeup mean?
(4-4) In Fig. 6, make Fig. 6(a) and (b), then explain each. Then, what do the meshes mean?
(4-5) In Fig. 7, what do the distribution lines mean? Use numbers for lines to understand the gradient.
(4-6) In Figs. 7 and 8, use colors like Fig. Fig. 9, then it is easy to follow.
(4-7) In Fig. 11, make Fig. 11(a),(b),(c), and (d), then explain each.
(4-8) In Fig. 12, explain the condition for the simulation.
(4-9) In Fig. 13, make Fig. 11(a),(b),(c),(d),(e), and (f), then explain each.
(4-10) In Figs. 14 and 16, an additional figure like Fig. 6 to easily clarify the definition of each "Length"
(4-11) In Fig. 15, make Fig. 15(a) and (b), then explain each.
(4-17) In Fig. 17, make Fig. 17(a),(b),(c), and (d), then explain each.
(5) Before the section of the conclusion, the authors should describe what is the systematic progress from the results. (That does not mean "conclusion". )
Anyway, the reviewer requests the authors to describe their results logically, rather than putting the bunch of them, just considering the "broader" readers including somewhat "beginners".
Author Response
Greetings, esteemed reviewers!
I have read your review comments, first of all, thank you for pointing out! I have enriched the content of this article appropriately, and at the same time added references, the copyright file has been downloaded. In response to your doubts, I would like to make some explanations here, some parts of the article are technical terms, I have not found suitable alternatives, and secondly, the black and white pictures appearing in the article are references to other literature, so I have not made color modifications. Once again, thank you for reviewing my paper and giving your valuable comments in your busy schedule!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study is very interesting and necessary. Mathematical modeling of the processes occurring during the growth of crystals is always relevant, allows you to make appropriate improvements in the field of industrial production of single-crystal materials.
Determination of the relationship between the design features of growth equipment, thermal conditions and crystal properties remains extremely difficult to understand.
The manuscript can be published in the current version.
I think that the research topic is more suitable for the purposes of the «Crystals».
As a remark, I note that there is no table with the basic characteristics of silicon that were used in the calculations; I think that these data should be summarized in a table.
As a wish to the authors, I think it would be right to test the method used in the future on another more dielectric crystalline material.
Author Response
Greetings, esteemed reviewers!
I have read your review comments, first of all, thank you for pointing out! I have enriched the content of this article appropriately, and at the same time added references, the copyright file has been downloaded. In response to your doubts, I would like to make some explanations here, some parts of the article are technical terms, I have not found suitable alternatives, and secondly, the black and white pictures appearing in the article are references to other literature, so I have not made color modifications. Once again, thank you for reviewing my paper and giving your valuable comments in your busy schedule!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This text cannot be recommended for a publication in a scientific journal:
1) The entire text starting from abstract is full of unclear/incorrect concepts and wording, e.g. "unstable thermal field", "outer groove of the FZ furnace", "tension gradients", "crystalline interface", "cross-way inductors" etc.
2) Sec. 1 and Sec. 3 contain several images copied from other publications without appropriate references, Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 have been copied from [6], Figs. 7, 9, 10 are very likely not original as well. The text is written as if these were original results. This is plagiarism by definition!
3) Sec. 4 seems to contain a few new results, but the numerical models do not have an adequate description in previous sections and are not reliable. The phase boundaries have not been calculated and obviously have unrealistic shapes.
See above
Author Response
Greetings, esteemed reviewers!
I have read your review comments, first of all, thank you for pointing out! I have enriched the content of this article appropriately, and at the same time added references, the copyright file has been downloaded. In response to your doubts, I would like to make some explanations here, some parts of the article are technical terms, I have not found suitable alternatives, and secondly, the black and white pictures appearing in the article are references to other literature, so I have not made color modifications. Once again, thank you for reviewing my paper and giving your valuable comments in your busy schedule!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors resubmitted the manuscript, however, it is really hard for the reviewer to find how and why the manuscript has been updated each by each from the comments because the authors have not prepared a detailed letter to be logically explained.
Also, thanks to the other reviewer's comments, the reviewer has found that the revised manuscript describes much "reprinted information" from [12], and [21].
The reviewer is concerned that too many reprints in the original paper touch on ethical issues as a scientific paper.
The reviewer has to judge that the manuscript never meets the criteria as a scientific manuscript.
