Subject: PoP: MS #POP28745A Editor From: physplas@pppl.gov Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:35:45 UT To: dcohen1@swarthmore.edu Dear Prof. Cohen, We have received the referee's comments on your paper "Numerical Modeling of Hohlraum Radiation Conditions: Spatial and Spectral Variations Due to Sample Position, Beam Pointing, and Hohlraum Geometry." Though largely positive, there are recommendations for revision. Please revise your manuscript and submit a detailed response to the referee. The revised manuscript and response are due by September 24, 2005. The Editors will then make the decision as to the next step in the review process. Please feel free to contact the Editorial Office if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Sandra Schmidt Assistant Editor Physics of Plasmas Office Princeton Plasma Physics MS 20 James Forrestal Campus Sayre Drive at Route 1 Princeton, NJ 08543 fax:609-243-2427 sschmidt@pppl.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Manuscript #POP28745A: Reviewer Comments: The authors have significantly improved their manuscript, and eliminated a lot of unnecessary figures. There are a few more figures that can be removed without detracting at all from the content of the paper. I note that the authors state they are open to making more changes to the figures. With the changes suggested here (many minor), the paper should be suitable for publication. 1. In the abstract, the acronym "HED" does not need to be used. 2. p. 4. The sentence in the middle of the page starting with "Finally,..." is muddled and should be rewritten with greater clarity ("variations in" doesn't really apply to everything in the list, and there are too many "and"s). 3. p. 5. Just below the middle, Fig. 2 might be described better as a "schematic" than as a "sketch." Line 2 from the bottom, say that the albedo is assumed to be spatially uniform. This will then be justified in the text (see point 23 below). 4. p. 6, bottom two lines. The implication is that the x-ray drive has constant power. Clarify that it's a constant-power laser pulse producing an increasing radiation drive. 5. p. 7. Move the definition of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to a few lines earlier, where it's first used. 6. p. 10, middle. "time-dependence" shouldn't have a hyphen. 7. p. 14, end of para. 3, I'm not convinced by the explanation for the dramatic increase of DANTE temperature as the pointing becomes deeper. Comparing Figs. 12 and 13, the temperature without the lip at the shallowest beam pointing is slightly lower than with the lip. This can certainly be ascribed to larger LEH losses. However, what happens at shallow beam pointings is surely irrelevant to observations of what occurs when the pointing becomes deeper. 7a. p. 16, line 3 of Para. 2 should read "simulations" not "experiments." Comments on figures. 8. The figures are greatly improved by the addition of white ellipses around the lip. This should definitely be done also in Fig. 1(b) and, if possible, Fig. 1(a). 9. Fig. 10(a) is identical to Fig. 1(c) and should be removed. It is conventional in publications that a figure is not inserted twice to save the reader from having to refer back to an earlier figure. Fig. 10(b) is fine, except that the extraneous blue ring in the bottom left should be removed. The text on p. 12, 8 lines from the bottom, should read, "The DANTE view of the halfraum is shown in Fig. 10, which may be compared with the view of the corresponding hohlraum in Fig. 1(c)." On the last line, "By comparing Fig. 10 with Fig. 1(c) it is clear..." 10. In Fig. 11, the right-hand column should be omitted. In contrast to the clear figures on the left, it's hard to understand what the figures on the right mean or what significant additional information they convey. The right-hand column isn't even mentioned in the text. The figures on the left show very clearly what is happening as the laser spots move inwards. Removal of the right column will also help the reader focus on the main message. Also, the four images should be labeled with the focus positions, preferably on the figures but possibly in the caption. 11. Unfortunately, we still have some redundancy, because Fig. 10 is now the same as Fig. 11(b). We cannot have the same picture reproduced twice in adjacent figures. The authors should choose one of two ways to fix this: (a) Remove the second image from Fig. 11 and change its caption to read something like, "As Fig. 10, but for three other beam pointings...". The main message isn't compromised at all. (b) Replace Fig. 10 with the four (left-column) images of Fig. 11, introduce the figure as containing four beam pointings, and then focus the discussion on the second one, which can be compared with Fig. 1(c), before moving to a discussion of dependence on pointing position. 12. In Figs. 12 and 13, do we need "mean" on the x axis as both rings have the same position? Where the rings are separate, we do of course need "mean." (On p. 15, on line 7, it might help to say that the weighted mean of ten beams at 480 and 5 at 890 is 617.) 13. In Fig. 17, the bottom two figures should be deleted. The bottom left repeats Fig. 5(a). The top left should have the white ellipses added, and so should the top right. In this case the view from the midplane is worth including because it shows both the temperature on the inside of the shield and the solid angle of the shield as seen by the point in the midplane. Again, nothing is lost by referring the reader back to Fig. 5(a) to make the point that the shield obstructs DANTE's view of a hot spot. 14. Fig. 18. I agree with the authors that it is useful to see the beam paths to the external shield. I have no problem with the left figures, except that the white ellipses should be added. I would also add the ellipses to the right figures, for consistency, and remove the grid from the black annular region where it is confusing. The caption might say that the outer portion of the image corresponds to the intersection of the end cap with the cylindrical surface. Figure captions. 15. Fig. 5. Delete, "as is true ... the paper, it" as this repeats what's already been said in the Fig. 1 caption. 16. Fig. 6. Delete the last sentence, again because it's repetitive. A similar comment can be removed from the Fig. 10 caption. 17. Fig. 12. Delete "(three-quarter LEH, hot spots in a single ring)" as repetitive. In the last sentence, say "position is measured with respect to ....". 18. Fig. 13. It's much clearer to say, "Same as Fig. 12 but with no LEH lip (i.e., 100% LEH)" and omit the rest. 19. Fig. 14. Similarly, this can be shortened saying, "Same as Fig. 12 but with the two beam cones..." 20. Fig. 15. It should be stated what the pointings are. Also, consider merging Figs. 15 and 16 into a single figure, i.e., with two separate graphs but a single caption. This would save some repetition in the present two captions. 21. Fig. 17. Do we understand correctly that the outside of the shield (blue) is at 140 eV, based on the color map on Fig. 1? 22. Fig. 19. It seems that the dotted line of Fig. 19 should match the dashed line of Fig. 9. However, overlaying the two figures, it seems that the dashed line of Fig. 19 matches. Response to my report. 23. I would favor adding the comments about albedo calculation, spatial uniformity of the albedo, and plastic albedo. Include the Golovkin, Schnittman and Murakami references. On the albedo, the level of description in the response is fine, but I would say "infinite gold slabs" if that is the case (as I presume). Reference to the Schnittman figure to show that a spatially uniform albedo is indeed an excellent assumption strengthens the value of the present work. For the plastic albedo, I much prefer a reference to Eq. (2.6) of Murakami to a number used without explanation. I don't think the absolute number is important for this work - the authors describe clearly the overall result (lower temperatures but the same spatial pattern). (I might add, as an aside, that I distrust scaling laws such as this equation, especially when they predict in excess of 100% conversion if you wait long enough.) 24. For the most part, the other changes described by the authors are fine. They made a good case for keeping (most) of Figs. 17 and 18, but I think elimination of the figures I've suggested above, especially the duplicates, will improve the manuscript further, making it easier for the reader to absorb the main points. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------