Improving the Quality of Laser Drilling by Assisted Process Methods of Static Solution and Mist Blowing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In order to solve the problem of suspension droplet in alumina ceramic laser drilling under solution, the paper proposed two new methods of using different solutions and mist blowing. The suspension droplet, taper angle and recast layer of alumina ceramic microporous drilling were decreased from an easy-to-implement method, which is an interesting innovation. However, the following issues are worth discussing:

1. whether "blowing method" in the Abstract should be "mist blowing method"? Because "blowing method" is a kind of mold processing method. 

2. There should be a discussion of what percentage of the taper angle and recast layer has been increased by applying the two methods described in the manuscript.

3. It is advised that the data in Figures 5 and 6 contain a comparison of the data with drilling in the air.

4. Figure 8 is not adequate in clarity.

5. Figure 2 (a), (b), and (c) are less understandable because they do not directly match the windspeed-taper relationship graph.

6. In which drilling environment did the data shown in Figure 3 come from? NaCl, water, or air? There is no description provided. For Figure 4, the same issue.

7. the conclusion in the abstract summarizes the optimal process parameters such as current, solution and wind speed, but does not summarize the discussion of Drilling mechanism and process in the main contents

8. Conclusion (1) mentioned that "the laser is scattered and refracted again" because of excessive wind speed, which is an interesting finding, is there any research literature or experimental results as evidence?

9. Can analytical data be obtained from the thickness of the recast layer of the holes under varying solutions?

10. Certain sentences should use concise syntax.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Tao et al. reported the use of static solution assisted laser drilling to improve hole roundness, decrease taper angle, reduce recast layer thickness, and hole wall slag adhesion. The surface morphology of the obtained samples was measured by means of optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

These results are of interest to the readers as a technical reference. However, several issues were found and need to be clarified to improve the quality of the paper.

1) After introduction, it is not clear what problems authors are going to solve in the paper. The same question is about the scientific novelty of their results.

2) The description of laser processing parameters is missing. Fluence or intensity values must be provided as well as focusing conditions (fixed or not) and number of pulses per point. Moreover, laser pulse temporal profile and intensity distribution over a beam cross section should be demonstrated since their highly affect the appearance of molten material.

3) All the graphs presented lack error bars. Scale bars are missed in the insets of Figures 2 and 3.

4) I wonder if the drilling in water and NaCl solution could affect the chemical composition of the inner walls?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments except for the question about laser processing parameters. Speaking about any laser processing, it is obligatory to provide fluence or intensity values (the current of the laser machine is not enough). Otherwise, it is impossible to reproduce any result. 

The questions about number of pulses per point as well as laser pulse temporal profile are missed as well. Without such data, any laser-related paper could not be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your questions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have answered my questions about number of pulses per point as well as laser pulse temporal profile. However, these data are not included in the paper.

 

Regarding the question about laser fluence or intensity, it seems that the authors misunderstand these terms. Therefore, a slide with some formulas as a reference for the future is attached here. 

Comments for author File: Comments.zip

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The parameters you referred are shown in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf