Influence of Exposure Parameters on Nanoliquid-Assisted Glass Drilling Process Using CO₂ Laser

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Influence of Exposure Time on Nanoliquid-Assisted Glass Drilling Process using CO₂ Laser

The manuscript reports the relationship between several hole parameters, defects and desired elements and control, processing parameters, a multidimensional surface is constructed from the control parameters to predict the results of any given input parameter set

General comments

The idea of creating a general, multidimensional predictive model is sound, it saves effort in repeating multiple experiments keeping parameters constant.  However I am not sure that the results are significant enough to merit another publication, considering that reference 15 covers a lot of the same ground.

The utility of employing CO2 laser radiation compared to other available sources should be discussed so that the reader can see why is necessary to have such a detailed model of the control parameter dependence.

Include reference 15 in the introduction so that the reader knows what is new and significant

The quality of the figures should be improved so that they emphasise the results not the axis labels, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the format has been chosen because there are so few data points in the figures.   I would say that no fewer then four datapoints should be included in a graph, before a trend can be determined.

 

Please test the veracity of the model, by comparing the prediction at a value of process parameters which haven’t been used to create the model, and the predictions of the model.

 

Misprint in the first line of the abstract should be addressed paper, I think it is supposed to be “holes” not “drills”

Author Response

Green Highlight: reviewer comment/concern that we have attended to.

Blue Highlight: our response or note on the reviewer's concern.

 

Reviewer #1

 

Dear respected reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript; we have modified it accordingly. In addition, two copies of the revised manuscript were attached; one with GREEN highlights to identify the new corrections, and the other is clean (without highlights). Again, we are very grateful for your consideration. The detailed corrections are listed below point by point:

 

1. The idea of creating a general, multidimensional predictive model is sound, it saves effort in repeating multiple experiments keeping parameters constant. However I am not sure that the results are significant enough to merit another publication, considering that reference 15 covers a lot of the same ground.

• The novelty and difference of the current study from our previous studies were outlined in the introduction, materials and methods and discussion sections.

 

2. The utility of employing CO2 laser radiation compared to other available sources should be discussed so that the reader can see why is necessary to have such a detailed model of the control parameter dependence.

• This was justified and added with references to the introduction section.

 

3. Include reference 15 in the introduction so that the reader knows what is new and significant

• Done as part of the first comment.

 

4. The quality of the figures should be improved so that they emphasise the results not the axis labels, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the format has been chosen because there are so few data points in the figures. I would say that no fewer then four datapoints should be included in a graph, before a trend can be determined.

• Bar-type figures were used instead of curves to better illustrate results.

 

5. Please test the veracity of the model, by comparing the prediction at a value of process parameters which haven’t been used to create the model, and the predictions of the model.

• Validation experiments results were added at the end of ANOVA Modelling section.

 

6. Misprint in the first line of the abstract should be addressed paper, I think it is supposed to be “holes” not “drills”

• Corrected throughout the manuscript.

 

Thank you for your precious time and kind efforts to improve our manuscript. We look forward to your positive response.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There is an extensive lab work visible behind this manuscript and therefore it is worth of publishing, however, I would have several suggestions that aim for manuscript clarity improvement.

First I would suggest to modify the title of the paper from "Influence of Exposure Time ..." to "Influence of Exposure Parameters .... " as it deals with several laser parameters, not just with exposure time.

Second, for the experimental part, for each parameter modification there is only one point in the resulting graph, but I assume, that it is some average value of the parameter resulting from several "holes" measurement drilled at the same conditions. I suggest, if possible, to use so called box plot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_plot) which is very useful in such cases. I am not sure if the graphs will be transparent enough after using this method, but could significantly increase the scientific value of the work. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest, that all the graphs should follow the same color scheme for better comparison where Fig9a, Fig10ab and Fig11ab use different line colors for number of pulses used in previous graphs. Please correct it.

Third, for the modelling part, the models are fully understandable, but I have problems reading the graph signed as (b) for each model.  It is not very clear to me what "Normal Plot of Residuals" exactly means for each model and I would appreciate more detailed description of that part. Furthermore, the calculation of models for three parameters should not be the goal of this section. The proper comparison of the resulting model parameters should reveal the most or least influence of change in wt.% of CNPs on chosen parameters and the ultimate goal would be to acquire only one model which would include change in wt.% of CNPs while maintaining relevant agreement with experimental results.

Fourth, for the discussion and conclusions, authors claim in the Discussion part that the change in wt.% of CNPs does not seem to have a great impact on the resulting CL, DINLET or DEXIT. From a first observation of experimental results and from the very different constants in the models I would came a very different conclusion. A comparison of resulting characteristics of all models in one graph would reveal significant differences from my point of view. Even a common 3D plot of experimental and calculated values would be very useful for better comparison of the modeled and experimental results.

I appreciate the short summary mentioning the experimental results in air, as I would ask about it if it would not be mentioned in paper.

To conclude my review, I would like to mention, that my comments are more suggestive than directive and the authors are encouraged to follow them only if it is possible. I would hope that they will follow at least some of them in reviewed version. After a revision I intend to accept the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Green Highlight: reviewer comment/concern that we have attended to.

Blue Highlight: our response or note on the reviewer concern.

 

Reviewer #2

 

Dear respected reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript; we have modified it accordingly. In addition, two copies of the revised manuscript were attached; one with GREEN highlights to identify the new corrections, and the other is clean (without highlights). Again, we are very grateful for your consideration. The detailed corrections are listed below point by point:

 

1. First I would suggest to modify the title of the paper from "Influence of Exposure Time ..." to "Influence of Exposure Parameters .... " as it deals with several laser parameters, not just with exposure time.

• Agreed and manuscript title modification was done.

 

2. Second, for the experimental part, for each parameter modification there is only one point in the resulting graph, but I assume, that it is some average value of the parameter resulting from several "holes" measurement drilled at the same conditions. I suggest, if possible, to use so called box plot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_plot) which is very useful in such cases. I am not sure if the graphs will be transparent enough after using this method, but could significantly increase the scientific value of the work. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest, that all the graphs should follow the same color scheme for better comparison where Fig9a, Fig10ab and Fig11ab use different line colors for number of pulses used in previous graphs. Please correct it.

• Bar-type figures were used instead of curves to better illustrate results, also bar colours and legends were unified throughout Figs. 4-11.

 

3. Third, for the modelling part, the models are fully understandable, but I have problems reading the graph signed as (b) for each model.  It is not very clear to me what "Normal Plot of Residuals" exactly means for each model and I would appreciate more detailed description of that part. Furthermore, the calculation of models for three parameters should not be the goal of this section. The proper comparison of the resulting model parameters should reveal the most or least influence of change in wt.% of CNPs on chosen parameters and the ultimate goal would be to acquire only one model which would include change in wt.% of CNPs while maintaining relevant agreement with experimental results.

• A line explaining the meaning of the Normal Plot of Residuals was added in the ANOVA Modelling section, also further discussion of ANOVA models importance was added.

 

4. Fourth, for the discussion and conclusions, authors claim in the Discussion part that the change in wt.% of CNPs does not seem to have a great impact on the resulting CL, DINLET or DEXIT. From a first observation of experimental results and from the very different constants in the models I would came a very different conclusion. A comparison of resulting characteristics of all models in one graph would reveal significant differences from my point of view. Even a common 3D plot of experimental and calculated values would be very useful for better comparison of the modeled and experimental results.

• We agree and we further explained the effect of wt% in more details at the beginning of the Overall Discussion of Findings section.

 

Thank you for your precious time and kind efforts to improve our manuscript. We look forward to your positive response.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read your manuscript, entitled:

 Influence of Exposure Time on Nanoliquid-Assisted Glass 2 Drilling Process using CO₂ Laser and I  have found it quite interesting.

However, I have some remarks and doubts;

·         All abbreviations have to be explained, when they are used for the first time in the text.

In Abstract: -the continuous-wave carbon dioxide (CW CO₂) laser;   the statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA).

In Introduction: Micro-Electro Mechanical System (MMS) devices.

·         In Abstract: according to the SI system, for the time unit “second” we should use the mark [s] not (sec).  I propose to change this sentence in Abstract, as follows:

 “The study focuses on the influence of Exposure Time (TE) [s], Laser Beam Power (P) [W] and 19 Number of Pulses (NP) on resulting geometrical features, namely, Crack Length (CL) [ mm], Inlet 20 Diameter (DINLET)  [mm] and Exit Diameter (DEXIT) [mm].”

·           The size of letters in the legends in Figure 12 are too small .

·           Axis titles in Figures 12-17 should have the same type of fonts and size.

·           The Conclusion part have to be extended and the novelty of results presented in this manuscript should be emphasized, particularly in compare to the earlier works of Authors , [15] and [16].

Author Response

 Green Highlight: reviewer comment/concern that we have attended to.

Blue Highlight: our response or note on the reviewer's concern.

 

Reviewer #3

 

Dear respected reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript; we have modified it accordingly. In addition, two copies of the revised manuscript were attached; one with GREEN highlights to identify the new corrections, and the other is clean (without highlights). Again, we are very grateful for your consideration. The detailed corrections are listed below point by point:

 

1. All abbreviations have to be explained, when they are used for the first time in the text. In Abstract: -the continuous-wave carbon dioxide (CW CO₂) laser; the statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA).

• All abbreviations have been explained in the revised manuscript.

 

2. In Introduction: Micro-Electro Mechanical System (MMS) devices.

• It is done as suggested.

 

3. In Abstract: according to the SI system, for the time unit “second” we should use the mark [s] not (sec).  I propose to change this sentence in Abstract, as follows:  “The study focuses on the influence of Exposure Time (TE) [s], Laser Beam Power (P) [W] and 19 Number of Pulses (NP) on resulting geometrical features, namely, Crack Length (CL) [ mm], Inlet 20 Diameter (DINLET)  [mm] and Exit Diameter (DEXIT) [mm].”

• It is fixed as recommended.

 

4. The size of letters in the legends in Figure 12 are too small.

• It has been corrected.

 

5. Axis titles in Figures 12-17 should have the same type of fonts and size.

• All formatting corrections of the Figures mentioned were made in the manuscript.

 

6. The Conclusion part have to be extended and the novelty of results presented in this manuscript should be emphasized, particularly in compare to the earlier works of Authors , [15] and [16].

• Done… we have extended the discussion of results in different sections of the paper and we have clarified the novelty and difference of the current study from our previous studies, this is now outlined in different places: the introduction, materials and methods and discussion sections.

 

 

Thank you for your precious time and kind efforts to improve our manuscript. We look forward to your positive response.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Bearing in mind the efforts by the authors to comply with the referees comments, the paper should be accepted, but there is still some work to do to make the graphics acceptable, but the editors can help with that.