Joining Superconducting MgB2 Parts by Spark Plasma Sintering: A New Technique with High Potential for Manufacturing Future Superconducting Devices
, Yiteng Xing 2,3, Pierre Bernstein 2, Muralidhar Miryala 3 and Jacques Noudem 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Sufficient literature was not reviewed in the introduction section
2. Experimental details are missing such as for density measurements, diffraction analysis
3. Conclusion that the difference in the magnetic moment of the samples is linked to their widths should be verified by preparing samples of similar widths or sectioning the samples.
4. The manuscript contains grammatical errors and poor sentence structures at various places for instance in lines 33, 44-45, 50, 52-53, 67, 69, 84
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors show an investigation about superconducting samples of MgB2 by Spark Plasma Sintering. The authors present physical and properties of the superconducting pieces of MgB2. The results are interesting. However, the authors must address some major observations for this manuscript to be accepted:
The writing of the manuscript seems to have been carried out by several authors. It is required that the writing of the manuscript be homogenized.
The presentation of the references of the manuscript must be changed to a natural number, that is, 1, 2, 3. Review the writing template.
In line 72 the authors present the following sentence “tern corresponding to the (hk0)*plane of a crystallite located at the interface”. The above refers to a diffraction plane obtained from figure 3. However, only (hk0)*plane is observed, review this line and modify it.
Line 91 presents the following sentence “(reference) samples measured between 10 K and 40 K with a SQUID magnetometer”. However, it is not clear what the word in parentheses refers to. It seems that the authors wish to present a reference.
In line 103. The authors mention equation 0. However, in the manuscript this equation is not present. Check the numbering of the equations present in the manuscript.
The abstract of the manuscript must be improved. It does not show the relevant results obtained from this research.
The introduction of the manuscript is very brief, it requires a better review of the state of the art.
The contribution made by each of the authors in this manuscript must be included in the manuscript.
In the experimental details section
The authors must detail the Spark Plasma Sintering technique for obtaining the samples.
Describe each of the techniques used to obtain the results. That is, mention the conditions under which each measurement is carried out.
Results and discussions
Improve in general the discussions of the results obtained.
In line 66, the authors refer to the non-presence of pores in the sample. The authors must improve this affirmation.
What was the number of samples scanned to mention this supported?
Carry out density measurements that demonstrate a high densification of the samples
In line 68 an analysis of EDX is mentioned. However, the authors show no evidence for this analysis.
Conclusions Section
Authors are recommended to improve this section and highlight each of the results obtained through bullet points.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This article describes a novel and successful method for soldering MgB2 pellets, an open problem to which finding a solution is relevant and useful, for both science and technology. The method is implemented experimentally by the authors, who also measured the most relevant physical parameters sought after when welding, with notable success. The readers will find the results most interesting, and the paper will probably attract a good scitation count.
I found some minor problems with the typography and formatting of the text and figures of the manuscript, that otherwise has been very well written and kept within a very reasonable length.
These issues are:
In Fig 1, maybe some informatic object is missing, in the lower-right frame, as no drawing is above the word “SEM/TEM”, at least in my copy of the manuscript – The authors should check this file.
In the paragraph between eqs (1) and (2), the numbering of the equations seems to be incorrect (in my copy, it mentions eq (0) in the first text line, and eq (2) in the last).
In Fig 4 (c), the typography for the numbers in the axes are too small.
The same for the labels of the electrical contacts in Fig 4(d) – bottom scheme.
In the reference list, both the typography and the format of the references are not uniform. Also, two different years are given for Ref. i
I recommend the acceptance of the paper once the corrections are introduced, without a second review round from my part.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction to the study is still short
2. Experimental details are still lacking
3. Grammatical errors are still present
Author Response
Dear referee,
Thank you for your remarks on our paper. Please find below our responses to your comments.
Point 1. Introduction to the study is still short
Based on your suggestion, the introduction section has been lengthened.
Point 2. Experimental details are still lacking
Based on your suggestion, we added the accelerating voltage for the TEM analysis. Please let us know the other information you want in this section.
Point 3. Grammatical errors are still present
Several grammatical errors were corrected.
We thank you again for your constructive comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been modified as requested by the reviewers. I believe that the manuscript can be published in the form presented.
Author Response
Dear referee,
Thank you again for your kind remarks and recommendation on our paper.
