博文
同意颠覆现行理论的稿件发表，就是编辑和审稿人都勇敢地承担了巨大风险、和责任，表明了他们的胆识、他们承担了巨大的压力
||
推翻现行微波吸收理论是系列工作，其结果的发表一寸一寸地取得进展
1 基本原理
期刊原本是发表不同观点的平台，但是由于学术研究日趋游戏化，
期刊已经成为主流学者获取功名的角逐场。
很多时候研究热点就是大家都在为根本不存在的事情提供“存在”的实验证据
申请书天花乱坠，成果一地鸡毛, 科学研究不是深度挖掘根本不存在的关系
对于颠覆主流科学家观点的稿件，无论怎么写，通常都不可能通过期刊同行评审
结果是：
仅仅同意发表颠覆现行理论稿件，编辑和审稿人就必须承担巨大的风险和责任。
感谢他们的担当：
同行评审使专业阶层将信息把关过程变成了保护他们自身地位的保障
而发表主流理论文章，即使错了，编辑和审稿人也不用承担任何责任：
期刊同行评审:发现稿件错误很低效，不让颠覆性创新正确稿件发表效率很高
实践反复证明：期刊同行评审很难发现文章中的低级错误，但是能高效阻止新思想的传播
一方面，颠覆错误的现行理论的文章很难发表，另一方面顶刊发表文章的（低级）错误从来不被发现
大多数主流科学家的同行评审学术不端是比“图片误用”更恶劣的学术不端
在错误的语言体系中呆久了的主流科学家不能理解正确语言体系中的语言表达和逻辑思维
2 典型案例
同意颠覆主流理论的稿件发表，编辑和审稿人已经勇敢地承担了巨大的压力。
这是为什么颠覆性创新稿件屡遭拒稿的原因。
绝对真实,卢家人了挑战爱因斯坦,卢氏就是牛! (baidu.com)
“后来我父亲又把论文寄到美国物理评论（Physics Review），杂志编辑很重视这篇文章，先后5次提出这样那样的问题，质疑论文的各项立论，都被我父亲圆满解答，这就是后来所说的“五个回合的较量”。最后编辑理屈词穷，由总编辑出面答复我父亲，承认无法再提问题，承认您的文章无懈可击，但因考虑该刊为主流物理杂志，不适宜刊登，建议到别的杂志社。”
看美国物理学会编审如何评价我的反对相对论的论文 - 知乎 (zhihu.com)
稿件
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films: Multilayered Films, Journal of Electronic Materials, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11664-024-11370-9
因为审稿人不给作者任何申辩的机会的拒稿意见，
按现行期刊同行评审的行规，编辑必须做出退稿决定。
于是该稿屡次被退稿，但是该刊编辑都给了作者重投的机会。
能给作者申辩的机会，说明编辑是认同稿件论证的。
其间多次更换过责任编辑，说明编辑部的慎重。
只要同意颠覆主流理论的稿件发表，编辑和审稿人都承担了巨大压力。
从一篇SCI四区刊物文章的发表经过看颠覆性结果发表的艰辛历程
为揭示现行期刊同行评审是不可修复的伪同行评审提供的稀缺一手资料
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films: Multilayered Films, Journal of Electronic Materials, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11664-024-11370-9;经历四次投稿，其中三次退回重投，才最终得到发表。这种重投让作者有说话的的机会。
在这个主流权威主导的单极学术世界里，反对主流理论的文章能够发表出来、而且能发表这么多篇，从一个侧面说明反对主流理论的论证是深刻的、充分的、到位的、切题的、有力量的、无懈可击的。
----
尽管已经有大量研究说明期刊现行的同行评审阻碍科学进步，
但是
因为颠覆主流理论的成果很少，
期刊同行评审几乎都不是公开的，
一手资料很少能够公开获得。
“We thus planned to make posting peer review documents the next stage in opening up our peer review process, … The final step was, in my mind, to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse. Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting than the study itself.”
“So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798
J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr; 99(4): 178–182. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
-----------------------
“On the off chance you do figure out a way to improve peer review without also making it worse, you can try convincing the nearly 30,000 scientific journals in existence to apply your magical method to the ~4.7 million articles they publish every year. Good luck!” https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review
The rise and fall of peer review
The rise and fall of peer review
-----------------------
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1419627.html
“There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process
Scientists are prone to being confected to their pet theories and opinions, especially if they've been visibly rewarded or publicly obtained status and accolades as a result I mean who would want to put that at risk after all scientists just like lay people have susceptible emotional bodies and often fairly hefty egos
Anyone who is an expert in an area of medicine will be a supporter of whatever dogma holds sway. Close study of power dynamics in medicine bears this out
We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science
our most objective truth-teller, but we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust，
unaccountable， incomplete， easily fixed，often insulting， usually ignorant，occasionally foolish and frequently wrong. Peer review as a quasi-sacred process that somehow supposedly
transcends the foibles and follies of human nature has long since unconsciously taken on sacred ritual status.“
Is_Science_Broken_The_Failure_of_Peer_Review_
科学网—[转载]同行评审使专业阶层将信息把关过程变成了保护他们自身地位的保障
============================
顶级刊物不专业的拒稿，比比皆是
你不能仅仅因为你不同意文章的观点而拒掉一篇稿子，
你必须驳倒文章的主要论证，才有资格拒掉这篇稿子。
对文章的主要论证不做驳斥，仅仅凭借立场拒稿，
拒稿理由不充分，
拒稿意见不专业。
但是很多顶刊的拒稿意见都是不专业的，
审稿人只要不喜欢文章的观点就可以随意拒稿，不需要充分理由，
有意思的是期刊编辑更青睐于不专业的审稿意见。
编辑的逻辑是：
你作者连审稿人都不能说服，文章写的一定没有说服力，
审稿人高尚的特权源自他们为我们免费审稿。
几乎没有人在意评审意见是否专业、拒稿意见是不是充分、专业。
鬼一样的逻辑！
“Now pretty much every journal uses outside experts to vet papers, and papers that don‘t please reviewers get rejected … Weak-link thinking makes scientific censorship seem reasonable, but all censorship does is make old ideas harder to defeat. Remember that it used to be obviously true that the Earth is the center of the universe, and if scientific journals had existed in Copernicus‘ time, geocentrist reviewers would have rejected his paper and patted themselves on the back for preventing the spread of misinformation. Eugenics used to be hot stuff in science—do you think a bunch of racists would give the green light to a paper showing that Black people are just as smart as white people? Or any paper at all by a Black author? (And if you think that‘s ancient history: this dynamic is still playing out today.) We still don‘t understand basic truths about the universe, and many ideas we believe today will one day be debunked. Peer review, like every form of censorship, merely slows down truth.”
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review
The rise and fall of peer review
================================================
一手资料
Paper 1
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films: Multilayered Films, Journal of Electronic Materials, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11664-024-11370-9;
感谢JEM编辑部认真而充分地对待这篇稿子。
整个审理做到了极致，是期刊同行评审的典范。
Date: 30 Apr 2024 第三次退回重投
Manuscript ID: JEMS-D-24-00478
Dear Prof. Liu,
Your manuscript "Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Multilayered Films" is being declined for consideration for publication in the Journal of Electronic Materials. To be publishable in the journal, manuscripts must meet the required standards of originality, importance, and broad interest, among other qualities. Your submission does not meet some or all of these criteria. We are prepared to reconsider the article as a new submission if you are willing to take into account the editors' and/or reviewers' comments and significantly revise the content. At this point, the journal cannot promise eventual publication. If you choose to submit a new manuscript, you must include a cover letter with a point-by-point list of changes and/or responses to the editor and/or reviewer comments. Resubmissions that do not include the required cover letter will not be considered for publication. …
Journal of Electronic Materials
----
Response
We appreciate that the editor has given us another opportunity to resubmit the manuscript.
History has repeatedly shown that the scientific community is conservative and scientists are often reluctant to accept new ideas. So, we welcome this support from the editor.
Two quotations are relevant to the current situation in regard of theories of microwave absorption
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
M. Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Paper, William & Norgate, London, 1950, pp. 33 -34.
Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo: “First-class work often overturns the established conclusion, so it is unpopular. The reviewers cannot fully understand your work and will give you many negative comments, …. Articles catering to the trend of the times are easy to be accepted, otherwise, it will take a long time to get recognized” (2000) and “If your research can’t overturn the established conclusion, science can’t progress. Of course, your research will be not recorded in history. The academic world is conservative. If you don't write your paper according to the existing conclusion, it will be very difficult for your paper to be accepted, and you will suffer a lot, but the research that can survive in history is exactly this kind of research. “ (2013)
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=5112614&version=1.1
-----
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
Reviewer #2: I completely agree with previous reviewer 4 that manuscript is suitable for the journal which has the theoretical science scope. However, the theoretical content described in the manuscript is useful for absorber design. Hence, it is suggested that the authors can include simulation results to validate the theory. Simulations for single layer - with and without metal backing, intermittent layer in multi layer. Absorbers available in literature for the three cases can be simulated and the phase condition can be verified through field study. Figures can be included for all cases separately and indicate the parameters more clearly. A case study could be included to show how the new approach can predict better result compared to the inadequate QWM theory in any of the reference papers. Language can be improved.
Reviewer #3: The authors argue that the quarter-wavelength theory is fundamentally flawed, and a new theoretical framework for multilayers is introduced to address this flaw. As a theoretical research manuscript without any experimental data, I consider it unsuitable for publication in the Journal of Electronic Materials, and it should be submitted to a journal with a theoretical scientific scope. In addition, the authors state in the introduction that "However, these challenges arise due to a common confusion between the terms "film" and "material" [2, 4, 6, 8, 33-36]. Specifically, the misapplication of the film parameter reflection loss (RL) to the material domain has been a persistent issue [37, 38]. It is crucial to recognize that the absorption mechanisms in films and materials differ fundamentally, primarily because of the influence of the two parallel interfaces present in films." It should be noted that the electromagnetic parameters of "material" is obtained by mixing "material" with wave-transparent substrate and then making a sample to be tested for testing, and the sample to be tested has upper and lower interfaces as well as "film", and there is no essential difference between these two. "The fundamental mechanism underpinning absorption in thin films arises from wave cancellation, a phenomenon stemming from the interference of beams reflected at the two interfaces of the film". This argument does not have absolute credibility. Prof. Tao Wang of Lanzhou University and his colleagues found, based on the designed "symmetry model", that the destructive interference does not dominate the loss behavior of coated wave-absorbing materials to electromagnetic waves.
Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript be rejected.
-----------------------------
对审稿人3审稿意见的回复
Reviewer #3: The authors argue that the quarter-wavelength theory is fundamentally flawed, and a new theoretical framework for multilayers is introduced to address this flaw. As a theoretical research manuscript without any experimental data, I consider it unsuitable for publication in the Journal of Electronic Materials, and it should be submitted to a journal with a theoretical scientific scope.
Response:
Currently, there are many different views on the importance of theoretical research. While many believe that theoretical research is an important part of scientific work, others believe that experimental research should be paramount. It is our view that the importance of experimental research has become over-emphasized and that the importance of new theories has become downgraded.
We do not believe that the reviewer’s understanding that the journal should not publish theoretical work is valid even though we respect this opinion. Indeed, we hold the view that theoretic research is a crucial part of scientific advancement.
This work overturns the current theories which offers disruptive new ideas which is healthy for the progress of science. If work utilizing the wrong theories can be regularly published, then surely it is important that work showing the errors in those theories is important and if of sufficient quality merits publication
Showing that the quarter-wavelength theory is not fit for purpose when applied to multilayer film is just one part of the manuscript. Indeed， we believe that the second part offering the correct theory for multilayer film is more important.
In addition, the authors state in the introduction that "However, these challenges arise due to a common confusion between the terms "film" and "material" [2, 4, 6, 8, 33-36]. Specifically, the misapplication of the film parameter reflection loss (RL) to the material domain has been a persistent issue [37, 38]. It is crucial to recognize that the absorption mechanisms in films and materials differ fundamentally, primarily because of the influence of the two parallel interfaces present in films."
Response:
It should be noted that the main focus of this manuscript is not the distinction between film and material or the absorption mechanism, which we have covered elsewhere. We have included references to our papers where these distinctions are considered so that readers can refer to them if they wish.
But surely to consider this present manuscript which is self-consistent, a reviewer should find flaws therein rather than comment in passing on other papers published by the authors. New theories are likely to be misunderstood. Surely, we welcome challenge and are willing to discuss any issues raised, but those issues should not be used as reason to reject this paper. We believe that the issues concerned by the reviewer have already been addressed clearly in our previous papers but we have added Appendix 2 which provides background material for our paper. For the subject on the difference between film and material, the reviewer can find relevant information from the following papers:
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material，Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials，2024， 593, 171850 ; The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film – Part 2: The difference between film and material，Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, Supplementarial file
Ying Liu, Xiangbin Yin, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, Reflection Loss is a Parameter for Film, not Material, Non-Metallic Material Science, 2023, 5(1): 38-48.
It should be noted that the electromagnetic parameters of "material" is obtained by mixing "material" with wave-transparent substrate and then making a sample to be tested for testing, and the sample to be tested has upper and lower interfaces as well as "film", and there is no essential difference between these two.
Response:
The permittivity er and permeability mr are properties of material.
The scattering parameter s11 (Reflection loss RL) and s21 are properties of device (film)
Even though the material parameters er and mr can be obtained from the film parameters s11 and s21, this cannot change the fact that they are properties of material while s11 and s21 are properties of film. This point has been explained clearly in the Supplementary Material in the paper referenced below:
Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 2: The Real mechanism, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 291, 126601.
A block of material has front and back interfaces, thus, it behaves as film and can be characterized by RL. But RL characterizes the property of film, not of material.
It makes a difference when the film and the material are distinguished from each other. Assigning the related properties of film to material has led to the establishment of the wrong theory of impedance matching theory.
In wave mechanics theory, the larger the amplitude of beam r1, the larger the angular effects (which are unique to film), and the stronger the absorption peaks can be. This is because a strong absorption peak requires complete cancellation of beams r1 and r2 which can be ensured by the two beams having the same amplitudes and being out of phase by p.
A large amplitude of beam r1 signifies that few microwaves enter the film as penetration requires a large difference between er and mr. a provable fact that is contrary to impedance matching theory.
As the thickness d increases, the film approaches material in its properties as the amplitude of oscillation from absorption decreases.
Impedance matching theory requires a large penetration and thus a small amplitude of beam r1 with similar values of er and mr. The smaller the amplitude of this beam, the film behaves more like a material as the angular effects of the film are weakened, and this makes the absorption peak weaker as beam r2 cannot effectively be canceled by beam r1.
A complete absorption can be achieved at Zin = Z0 with RL/dB = - ¥ where beams r1 and r2 are completely canceled. But this condition does not ensure that er = mr. Thus, there are still some microwaves reflected at the front interface as beam r1. How can the impedance matching theory explain the fact that all incident microwaves are absorbed while not all penetrate the film? For more detail, please see:
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material，Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials，2024， 593, 171850
Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304
"The fundamental mechanism underpinning absorption in thin films arises from wave cancellation, a phenomenon stemming from the interference of beams reflected at the two interfaces of the film". This argument does not have absolute credibility. Prof. Tao Wang of Lanzhou University and his colleagues found, based on the designed "symmetry model", that the destructive interference does not dominate the loss behavior of coated wave-absorbing materials to electromagnetic waves.
Response:
We have shown previously that destructive interference is the only reason for the formation of absorption peaks. Attenuation of material on beam r2 has already been considered in the new wave mechanics theory developed by us to explain microwave absorption in film.
Beam r1 does not affect by the attenuation power of material because the interface does not absorb microwaves. The attenuation of material only affects the amplitude of beam r2. However, this amplitude is mainly affected by the angular effects of film originating from energy conservation unique to film when it is not behaving as material. A small penetration can ensure a large amplitude of beam r2 so that it cancels beam r1. This is because r2 results from the back-and-forth reflections in the film and its amplitude is only determined from energy conservation.
The attenuation power of material is small if the abstract values of er" and mr" are small. But in such cases the amplitudes of beams r1 and r2 can still be large which ensures a strong absorption peak by complete cancellation of the two large beams. For more details, please see:
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew, The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 1: A short review, Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023
The absorption of the film is not the attenuation of the material from the zigzag optical path. The film can force the material to absorb more or less microwaves that is capable of the attenuation power of material. For more details, please see:
Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 2: The Real mechanism, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 291, 126601.
Just as energy cannot be assigned to beam r1 or r2, the absorption of film cannot be attributed to material attenuation since film absorption cannot be described by the attenuation power of material along the zigzag optical path. In passing we note the reverse conclusion by Wang et al give reference was demonstrably wrong. This is not the only wrong conclusion from professor Tao Wang. In the following papers, energy was wrongly assigned to beams r1 and r2 in:
Reflection loss mechanism of single layer absorber for flake-shaped carbonyl-iron particle composite
T. Wang, R. Han, G. Tan, J. Wei, L. Qiao and F. Li
Journal of Applied Physics 2012 Vol. 112 Issue 10 Pages 104903
DOI: 10.1063/1.4767365
The Relationship of Permeability and Permittivity at the Perfect Matching Point of Electromagnetic Wave Absorption for the Absorber Filled by Metallic Magnetic Particles
T. Wang, H. Wang, G. Tan, L. Wang and L. Qiao
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 2015 Vol. 51 Issue 6 Pages 2800405
DOI: 10.1109/tmag.2014.2382071
The mistakes have been corrected by us in:
Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part II: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304. The corrections have been summarized in Table 1 in this paper:
Also in:
Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model — part 1: analysis. Physica Scripta 2021 , 96(12) : 125003
The conclusions about the deviations of absorption peaks were wrongly presented in Tao Wang’s paper:
Strict proof and applicable range of the quarter-wavelength model for microwave absorbers
S. Zhang, T. Wang, M. Gao, P. Wang, H. Pang, L. Qiao, et al.
Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 2020 Vol. 53 Issue 26 Pages 265004
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/ab79da
The mistakes in the paper have been corrected by us in:
Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film Part 3: Inverse relationship, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 290, 126521.
Many of our published papers (such as: Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Drew MGB, Corrections of common errors in current theories of microwave absorption caused by confusing film and material, Qeios, 2024/02/10) have demonstrated our expertise in this subject.
The wrong results in the papers of T. Wang should not be taken as the reason to reject correct conclusions in our previous papers, and discussion instead of hastily not allowing the other party to utter the opposite views can promote the establishment of correct theory. In science, no party should weigh more than others if not sufficient evident is provided.
Even if the conclusion from Wang et al and his colleagues were correct, it should not prevent the publication of our results since we have correctly identified that film is different from material which has not to date been generally accepted.
Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript be rejected.
Response:
We believe that no sufficient reasons have been provided by this reviewer to support this suggestion.
We do not understand why the reviewer wishes to reject our manuscript while not establishing any critical flaws therein or indeed discussing out theories in any significant way. Relevant criticisms from reviewers are very helpful to authors in improving their manuscripts. However, we believe that the work in the current paper merits scientific criticism rather than be rejected without detailed indication of any scientific flaws.
------
2024年03月13日 20:41 (星期三) 第二次退回重投
Subject: Decision on your Manuscript #JEMS-D-24-00047 - [EMID:8790c2e8d2249cac]
Date: 13 Mar 2024
Manuscript ID: JEMS-D-24-00047
Dear Prof. Liu,
Your manuscript "Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Multilayered Films" is being declined for consideration for publication in the Journal of Electronic Materials. To be publishable in the journal, manuscripts must meet the required standards of originality, importance, and broad interest, among other qualities. Your submission does not meet some or all of these criteria.
We are prepared to reconsider the article as a new submission if you are willing to take into account the editors' and/or reviewers' comments and significantly revise the content. At this point, the journal cannot promise eventual publication.
If you choose to submit a new manuscript, you must include a cover letter with a point-by-point list of changes and/or responses to the editor and/or reviewer comments. Resubmissions that do not include the required cover letter will not be considered for publication.
…
Journal of Electronic Materials
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
Reviewer #1: Authors have demonstrated that the quarter-wavelength theory (QWM) employed for films with multiple layers is fundamentally flawed. The conventional results pertaining to single layered films with or without a metal backing are typically applied to the central layers of multilayer films. Nevertheless, this approach is flawed, as it overlooks the presence of incident microwaves on both sides of the intermediate layer, focusing solely on those in front of the film. To address this gap, authors have introduced a novel theoretical framework for multilayer films.
The manuscript presented that QWM method on multilayer films produced incorrect results. However, there are many research papers available in open literatures, which designed the multilayer absorber structure. They calculated the thickness of absorber on basis on QWM principle. Further they experimentally demonstrated the results and validated that their mathematical calculations have good agreement with the experimental results. It means, they have authenticated their theoretical results with experimental measurements. Therefore, If the authors claimed that QWM on multilayer films has many flaws and they propose a novel theoretical approach, then as per my suggestion authors should validate their theoretical results with experimental measurements.
As per reviewer opinion, the manuscript should be recommended for major revision so that authors can support their proposed theory with experimental results.
Reviewer #3: The authors present a study in the microwave absorption Where the quarter-wavelength theory (QWM) is commonly employed for films with multiple layers. This study demonstrates the inadequacy of QWM as it is fundamentally flawed.
This a topic of high interest in the literature in the área of microwave absorption technology.
The authors included previous suggestions in this version of the paper. The present study is well conducted and discussed. Nice piece of work. It is ready for publication.
Reviewer #4: I think this manuscript is not suitable for this JEMS. The manuscript just described the theoretical absorption phenomenon. There is no presented data in this manuscript. This manuscript is suitable for the journal which has the theoretical science scope.
------------------
Date: 19 Jan 2024 第一次退稿后重投
Manuscript ID: JEMS-D-23-02167
Dear Prof. Liu,
We have received the reports on your manuscript, "Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption Films - Multilayered Films". I regret to inform you that upon review and consideration, we have determined that your manuscript cannot be further considered for potential publication in the Journal of Electronic Materials. Below you will find the reviewer comments, which I hope you will find helpful.
Journal of Electronic Materials
COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:
Reviewer #1: The authors derived reflection coefficients of electromagnetic waves in a multilayer film based on the transmission line theory. The provided derivation is clear enough for the readers to understand the underlying mechanisms of electromagnetic shielding / absorption in a multilayer film. However, before publishing this article, the reviewer suggests several comments to improve this manuscript. 1. The reviewer found that the authors want to contradict the well-known QWM theory. While the reviewer agrees with the authors, the authors are spending too much efforts on explaining the limitation of QWM theory, not their own achievements. The reviewer suggests the authors to re-organize this article, for example as follows: - Ch 1. Intro - less explanations on QWM and authors' previous works - Ch 2. Flaw in QWM - Ch 1 and Ch 3.1 in current manuscript. But less and conceptual explanations needed. - Ch 3. Films with Multiple layers - Ch 4. Conclusion 2. The authors need to improve presenting way of their achievements. More schematic figures are needed for easier understanding of authors. In addition, the reviewer suggests the authors to add several calculation results with artificial e/u data, as the authors have done in their previous papers.
Reviewer #2: In order to study waves in layered media a well known technique is to consider an equivalent transmission line model. (See for example Akira Ishimaru, Electromagnetic waves propagation, radiation and scattering, Prentice Hall, 1991, Section 3.5). Page 3 of the paper, lines 3-6: The terms 'material' and 'film' must be defined. The thickness of the 'film' considered in this paper should be specified as fraction of wavelength Page 3, line 60, what the authors mean with 'the input impedance of the film'? Page 3, Equation (1), The authors should add a figure with the geometry and define all the symbols used. It seems that they consider a planar interface between two media with the interface in the plane yz and the propagation axis x Page 3, Eq. (1) (first row) seems to be derived from an equivalent transmission line model. In this case, the free-space impedance Z0 has nothing to do with it. The modal impedances (or wave impedance) must be used and not the characteristic impedance of an unbounded medium. To study layered media an approach based on the ABCD matrix (or Transmission matrix) is preferable. In fact, the total matrix can be obtained as the product of the matrices of each layer. (see for example Akira Ishimaru, Electromagnetic waves propagation, radiation and scattering, Prentice Hall, 1991,Section 3.7 Waves in layered media.) The use of the scattering matrix adopted in this paper is very cumbersome. Section 2 Methods, two lines only in this section?! Section 3.2.1 line 4-8, the same symbol, Greek letter Gamma, is used for both the reflection coefficient (correct) and for the transmission coefficient (no, the transmission coefficient is T) Equation (10) defines the impedance of an unbounded medium and cannot be used in the transmission line model as characteristic impedance of the equivalent transmission line (see Ishimaru, Section 3.5, formula 3-44). Page 5, line 3-9. The authors seems not to know the definition of 'incident field' in the theory of stratified media. They mixed up the incidence f_(k-1) from the left side with the incidence b_(k+1) from the right side. Perhaps, even worse, they mixed up the incident field with all the contributions reflected and transmitted at each interface. Page 5, the legend of the figure is missing.
=================================================
扩展
====================================================
Paper 2
参考文章
Strict proof and applicable range of the quarter-wavelength model for microwave absorbers
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 53 (2020) 265004 (8pp)
S. Zhang, T. Wang, M. Gao, P. Wang, H. Pang, L. Qiao, and Fashen Li
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/ab79da
相关评述文章已经写入下面这篇文章之中：
Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film Part 3: Inverse relationship, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 290, 126521.
类似错误文章：
相关纠错文章：
Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304
Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Review: Recognizing Problems in Publications Concerned with Microwave Absorption Film and Providing Corrections: A Focused Review, Qeios, preprin, 2024-07-01, Supplementary data,
Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Drew MGB, [Commentary] Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing” by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935], Qeios, 2024,
-------------------
14-Sep-2021
Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "Comments on the paper “Strict proof and applicable range of the quarter wavelength model for microwave absorbers”" Article reference: JPhysD-127745
Your Comment, submitted to Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, has now been refereed and the referee report(s) can be found below and/or attached to this message.
Please accept our apologies for the severe delay - it has taken some time to obtain an authoritative report from our Editorial Board.
We regret to inform you that the referee(s) have recommended that your article should not be published in the journal, for the reasons given in the reports. Your manuscript has therefore been withdrawn from consideration.
REFEREE REPORT(S):
PRELIMINARY REPORT BY EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER:
The authors have been used theoretical modelling in their comment and the comments may be reasonable.
Referee: 1
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The application of quarter wavelength theory in the field of absorbing material design is widely recognized. However, the relationship between its theoretical proof and actual data still needs to be studied and found. Firstly, the author questions the theoretical basis deduced in the original article, that is, there are different views on the wavelength calculation formula. In fact, the calculation method of wavelength in various media has been reported in the field of electromagnetic field and electromagnetic wave for a long time. Secondly, the wide applicability of the model is questioned according to the relationship between dielectric constant and permeability in different cases. The two special cases discussed in this paper can not be used as a strong argument to support the author's query, so a more detailed proof process is needed to determine the applicability of the model in other cases. Thank the author for his contribution to the theoretical application of quarter wavelength theory. However, because the comprehensiveness and accuracy of this review still need to be further discussed, there is still a certain distance from publication. So, I do not recommend it to be accepted for publication.
Referee: 2
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
REPORT BY EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER
Reject.
Referee: 3
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Referee Report
on paper “ Comments on the paper “Strict proof and applicable range of the quarter wavelength model for microwave absorbers” “ (JPhysD-127745) by authors Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew submitted to Journal of Physics D
This is interesting theoretical comment. It reports the correction of the problem related with the proof of the quarter-wavelength model in current literature and specifically in a recent paper “Strict proof and applicable range of the quarter wavelength model for microwave absorbers” by Zhang et al. In my opinion, the proposed representations, mathematical calculations and proofs are reliable without any doubts. So, the paper should be published in present form without any changes. My verdict is Accept as is.
Referee: 4
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
ADJUDICATION BY EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER
I agree with the criticisms of Reviewer 1. The comment is not directly related to the paper, as is commented by the reviewer. If the authors would like to write a new manuscript in this area, they are welcome.
==================
Paper 3
这么多的审稿人审一篇稿子，这样的同行评审不能不算“严格”了吧？
无论多少个审稿人，期刊现行同行评审仍然是有严重瑕疵，
仅仅学术游戏而已。
原因是现行期刊同行评审专家无病呻吟，吃不透稿件内容，因而往往做出的是错误的判断。
而历史裁决所依靠的同行评审是裁决人有感而发，吃透了稿件的内容，因此才能给出正确的裁决。
相关评述文章最终发表在：
Ying Liu, Xiangbin Yin, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, Reflection Loss is a Parameter for Film, not Material, Non-Metallic Material Science, 2023, 5(1): 38-48.
审稿意见的明显错误的评语有高亮标注：
30 Jan 2023
Ms. Ref. No.: CEJ-D-22-28163 Title: Reflection loss is a parameter for film, not material Chemical Engineering Journal Dear Dr. Liu, Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. Eight reviewers in total reviewed your manuscript, of which four suggested rejection. My opinion is that your work would be more suitable for a physics journal where the debate originating from your manuscript would find more suitable ground and audience. For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below. In view of the comments made, I regret to inform you that I must reject it and your manuscript cannot be further considered for publication in the Chemical Engineering Journal. I am sorry not to have better news on this occasion and thank you for choosing the Chemical Engineering Journal as a publishing medium. Chemical Engineering Journal
被评论文章所依据的理论错了，
评论文章不适合在该刊发表，那么被评论文章为什么适合在该刊发表。
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: This manuscript is a comment on Reference [5] based on References [13 - 21]. The basis of Reference [5] is the current theory used by many research papers. The basis of this manuscript from References [13 - 21] is the new theory proposed by the authors themselves recently. For such a subject, it is important that the comments (from reviewers) should be based on an evaluation of the validity of the newly proposed theory. Subtitle: "Reflection loss should not be used to characterize material" In the authors' view, the common practice of using RL/dB to characterize the microwave absorption of the material is inappropriate ("The purpose of the paper by Du et al. [5] was to establish the amount of Mo2C that would provide the best microwave absorption material based on Mo2C/Co/C composite."). I agree with the authors. Reflection loss RL is a parameter for a portion of the material but cannot extend as a parameter for the material itself. Layered material should be viewed as a film. Property of material with thickness d may not be the property of the material itself. A property characterizing a material should be an intensive property, such as permittivity or permeability，that is independent of the size of the material. As seen from Equations 2 and 5, RL is related to d. Take Figure 4 in [5] for example, at a fixed frequency, RL has different values for the same material at different d. If that is the case, which values among those for RL should be used to characterize the innate behavior of material where d should not involved? Thus, I agree with the authors that "using RL to characterize material is inappropriate and the conclusions obtained are misleading." Subtitles: "Input and the characteristic impedances" and "Impedance matching for interface and for film" The related issues in [5] were based on the impedance matching theory accepted in the field of microwave absorption. The comments in the manuscript have their basis in Reference [15] and Figure 5 in [18]. The problems of impedance matching theory can be identified in Figure 4 in Reference [5]. At fixed frequency, the amount of microwaves entering the material is fixed for different d of the same material backed with a metal plate since the front interface of the material is the same. However, RL has different values at different d when the frequency is fixed. It should also be noted that RL/dB can increase (less absorption) when d increases. The impedance matching theory cannot explain why RL/dB can increase with increasing d while the amount of penetration is fixed for the same material with different d. I agree with the authors that the problems of impedance matching theory are related to the confusion between Zin (input impedance) and ZM (intrinsic impedance of the material). As shown by Equation 1, the amount of microwave penetration is related to ZM - Z0, while the amount of microwave absorption is related to Zin - Z0 from Equation 2. It should be noted that the two conditions of Zin = Z0 and ZM = Z0 are independent of each other and thus Zin = Z0 cannot ensure ZM = Z0. So, as stated in Reference [17] that "According to the impedance matching theory, all the incident microwave energy can be absorbed in the metal-backed film by adjusting the thickness of the film d (together with other means) until the input impedance equals Z0, or the normalized input impedance Zin/Z0 equals 1. But this theory cannot explain why all the energy is absorbed by the film while not all the microwaves penetrate the film.". Noted other arguments against impedance matching theory from authors in [18] that the effect of Zin + Z0 in Equation 2 cannot be neglected. The comments in the Section "The delta function" are related to these issues. Subtitle" "The quarter-wavelength model cannot be universally applied" I have noted that the quarter wavelength theory is also an accepted theory in the field. However, the comments have their basis from References [17, 18, 21], that is, the quarter wavelength theory has overlooked the phase effects from the two interfaces in the film. Thus, I agree with the comment in the manuscript that the following claim in [5] is incorrect: "In that case, if the phase difference at the air-medium interface between incident EM waves and reflected waves from a metal-backed layer is 180°, there will be intensive consumption of EM energy due to interference cancellation, and the matched coating thickness of EM absorption materials (tm) and the frequency of maximum absorption peak (fm) may satisfy the following equation [14,55]". The manuscript is informative and I recommend its publication.
Reviewer #2: This comment elaborates some viewpoints on studies of absorption material, and declares that the theories on some published paper are not correct. I find some expresses in the paper are not strict and not convincing. Additionally, this work is not suitable for publication on Chemical Engineering Journal. It should be submitted to the journals on physics studies after careful modification. 1. There are some writing errors. This paper should be written carefully. 2. RL is a parameter of absorber device other than material. This is right(This work has been done in 2012, J. Appl. Phys. 112, 104903 ). A absorber device includes a material layer and a terminated metal plane. The RL of a absorber device depends on material properties (permittivity and permeability) and layer thickness. I think the title of this work should be changed into "Reflection loss is a parameter for absorber device, not material". 3. The authors declare that reflection loss, impedance matching, the delta function, and quarter-wavelength model have been inappropriately applied. This declaration is not strict. RL comes from transmission-line theory and the Zin equation is absolutely right. The authors in Ref. 5 use the Zin to calculate the RL curve. I cannot find the incorrect application. Quarter-wavelength model is the experimental result and of course right. The inappropriate issue is the wavelength formula inside material rather than Quarter-wavelength model. 4. The authors declare that the impedance matching in the interface cannot be achieved by adjusting Zin. This sentence is not right. The impedance matching reveals the zero reflection on the interface between material layer and air. Zin is a parameter of absorber device include the material properties, material thickness and the backed metal. Impedance matching in the interface can be surely achieved by adjusting Zin. 5. "using s11 and s21 to obtain permittivity and permeability and using s11 and s21 to characterize material are not the same." The permittivity and permeability is obtained by using S11, S21, and thickness of material. If material thickness is known, we can use S11 and S21 to characterize material. If thickness is unknown, permittivity and permeability cannot be obtained by S11 and S21. 6. The results of Fig. 5c in ref.[5] are obviously the incorrect measurement data. If the device is not calibrated correctly, researches often get the incorrect data like results in ref.[5]. Please do not comment these incorrect data from your viewpoint. For soft magnetic composite, the real part of permeability should have higher values at low frequency and lower values at high frequency except the resonance region. 被传统错误理论偏执的审稿人理解不了正确的新理论。
审稿人用错误的观点否定正确的观点。
这是否定颠覆性创新十分常见的，
所以不急于拒稿颠覆性创新稿件、给作者申辩的机会，让审稿人和作者充分辩论很重要。 2012, J. Appl. Phys. 112, 104903这篇文章错误太多了。
Tao Wang; Rui Han; Guoguo Tan; Jianqiang Wei; Liang Qiao; Fashen Li, Reflection loss mechanism of single layer absorber for flake-shaped carbonyl-iron particle composite, J. Appl. Phys. 112, 104903 (2012)
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4767365
其中的很多错误在下面这篇文章中给予了纠正：
Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304
Reviewer #3: The authors present their viewpoint against the current theories of reflection loss, impedance matching, the delta function, and the quarter-wavelength model in this letter. I appreciate their spirit of exploration and thought of criticalness. For prudential reasons, I am afraid that the letter cannot be accepted before more convincing evidences being added. I have several comments as follows:
多少证据才足以否定现行理论？仅仅发现一个证据就不足以发表吗？即使只发现一个证据，这个证据是不是可能引发另一个证据？ 1. I agree that the reflection loss is a property of coatings or films, which I think it is wide accepted in the field of microwave absorption. In ref.[5], they point out that the RL concerns with the coating thickness and frequency, and the RL of coating can be optimized by adjusting d value. I do not think the ref.[5] use RL to characterize the intrinsic quality of a pure materials. （审稿人在睁眼说瞎话） 2. Regarding to the imaginary permeability, there are many publications discussing the reason and mechanism of the negative imaginary permeability, but no unified conclusion is widely agreed. The authors' opinion of 'the magnetic loss is determined by the absolute value of mr"' may make sense, but I found that the references to support this opinion are written by the authors themselves. For prudential reasons, I think it is not convincing enough to refute ref.[5]. Then for the quarter-wavelength model, the authors also refer themselves' papers to support their view. I think more references are needed such as monographs to support their opinions if they want to change the widely accepted method in a field. 审稿人提供的拒稿理由充分吗？
Reviewer #4: This manuscript is a critique of a published paper with its significance not limited to the particular paper since the issues raised are representative. First of all, the title "Reflection loss is a parameter for film, not material" is meaningful. Reflection loss RL has been commonly used in microwave absorption to characterize the material. However, RL is a parameter to characterize the device. Thus, it can be used to characterize the film which is device composed of material and two parallel interfaces but cannot be used to characterize material itself. Input impedance Zin of the film is different from characteristic impedance such as the characteristic impedance of free space Z0 and characteristic impedance of film ZM. Zin = Z0 is related to microwave absorption. But in the published report, the condition is commonly used as a criterion for the amount of microwave penetration of the front interface of the film. In fact, such penetration amount should be measured by ZM = Z0. The delta function is established due to the confusion between Zin = Z0 and ZM = Z0. Thus, the analysis in [5] related to the delta function is not correct. As said by the author, microwave absorption from the film is not determined by impedance matching theory, but "It is determined by how close are the two amplitudes of beam r reflected from the interface at x1 and of beam t reflected from the interface at x1 + d in Fig. 1 when the two beams are out of phase by 180, which is determined by the property of the film." A film is not just composed of material. There are also two parallel interfaces in a film. The quarter-wavelength theory cannot be correct though it is commonly used since it ignored the phase effects of interfaces. The wavelength calculation in [5] is a low-level mistake in physics but this mistake is common in published reports. The claim in [5] that maximum absorption occurs when the incident and reflected microwaves are out of phase by 180 is apparently wrong though this claim is also common. The manuscript demonstrates that in the literature, evidence disproving the accepted theory has been used to support it.
Reviewer #8: The criticisms included in the manuscript, such as reflection loss, impedance matching, the delta function, and the quarter-wavelength model, but I think in this feild, we use different method to evaluate its microwave absorbing properties. I think the Reflection loss could also be used to characterize material and film. there are some grammar mistakes in the manuscript. 审稿人用错误的观点拒稿正确的观点。
反射损失（Reflection loss）是膜的性质，不能用来表征材料。
Reviewer #9: The manuscript "Reflection loss is a parameter for film, not Material" (CEJ-D-22-28163) by Liu et al. concerns theory against the mainstream one used in the field. The views expressed seem radical and interesting. Although the reasoning seems flawless and there is also support from previous work as indicated by Refs. [17 - 21], the views are relatively new, while the mainstream theory has existed for a long time. So, I do not sure whether other aspects that are not involved in these materials still support the accepted mainstream theory. Some related ppers, such as Carbon, 2023, 202, 244-253; Carbon, 2023, 204, 305-314; Adv. Funct. Mater., 2022, 32, 2202588; Adv. Funct. Mater., 2021, 31, 2102812, should be cited. I have done some work in microwave absorption material which was based on the mainstream theory. However, I support the publication of this manuscript because the different perspectives there deserve to be recorded in publications.
Reviewer #10: Recommendation: Reject Comments: This Letter tries to point out the so-called theoretical problem in a recent paper as well as the whole microwave absorption realm. However, it severely misunderstands the characterization and the related theory in these works and misjudges the results. It should not be published.
到底是谁的理解有误？
现行微波吸收理论是对传输线理论的错误解释。
Detailed comments include the follows: (1) In the adduced papers, the electromagnetic parameters are measured from the absorbent/paraffin rather than the pure absorbent. The calculated reflection loss definitely represents the performance of the film made of the prepared absorbent and polymer matrix. In this letter, the authors misunderstand these works and believe that the reflection loss is the performance of the pure absorbent, which is a false conclusion. 文章所关心的结论于吸收剂是否与高分子基质混合无关。
(2) The impedance matching theory tries to find the relationship between the intrinsic electromagnetic properties of composite film and its microwave absorption property. It can widely guide the synthesis of nano/microsized absorbents in the material realm. In the letter, the authors judge the impedance matching and the reflection loss, from the point of engineering science, by the maximum amplitude of voltage at the surface/interface. These two theories have their own character and applying scope, which can not be used to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the published papers.
该评论说明审稿人对膜、界面、和材料的概念混乱。 Overall, the scientific debate and doubt are welcome since they can somehow promote the progress in all the research realms. （那么为什么不让争论？）However, we wish the debate and doubt are made after carefully reading, thinking, and understanding（审稿人并没有给出该评语的支持证据）. Besides, some scientific results maybe demonstrated to tbe wrong in the future, even though they are right at present due to the limitation of current theories. These mistakes should be allowed. Without them, the truth will never be found. 审稿人的逻辑：
因为我们要包容现行理论出错，因而纠错文章不应该发表。
Reviewer #11: In this paper, the researchers highlight inadequacies in the theory that has been applied in a recent paper and others to experimental data concerned with microwave absorption and provide detailed corrections that can be used to correctly interpret such experimental data. I considered it can be published in Chemical Engineering Journal after a major revision: (1) I hope the author can overview the accurate definition of "material" in the manuscript, and whether the film material belongs to "material"? In addition, it is necessary to describe the relationship between the application scope of transmission line theory and the thickness or surface properties of materials. (2) There are some corresponding pictures missing in the manuscript, so it is necessary to supplement them in appropriate places. For example, on the page 2, "... a result which can be readily obtained from the innate properties of the composites shown by Figs. 5b, 6, and S11 in ref. [5]." (3) It is pointed out in the manuscript that the value of film RL will change with its thickness, and then it is pointed out that " The absorption mechanism of film is related to angular and amplitude effects unique to film [20].". What is the grafting bridge between the two? (4) There are some mistakes in text expression in this paper. For example, on the page 2, "The purpose of this Comment is to draw attention to the subject and to shorten the period for the practice of the wrong theory." I hope the author will take these errors seriously and correct them. (5) some references in this paper have lost their timeliness, and a small number of references have certain format errors and lack necessary hyperlinks. For example, ref. [25]. add some references such as "Carbon, 2019, 152: 827-836., DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00615-y., J Mater Chem C, 2015,3(29):7677-7690., Chemical Engineering Journal, 2018, 333: 519-528., Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2019, 536: 548-555., doi:10.1002/adfm.202204499., Nature Communications, 2021, 12(1): 834., Journal of Materials Chemistry A,2021, 9 (35): 19710-19718." The author must carefully check the statements in the manuscript and correct the mistakes pointed out in it.
==================
paper 4
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2021.03.132
Deep understanding of impedance matching and quarter wavelength theory in electromagnetic wave absorption
T. Wang, G. Chen, J. Zhu, H. Gong, L. Zhang and H. Wu
J Colloid Interface Sci 2021 Vol. 595 Pages 1-5
Received 8 March 2021, Revised 22 March 2021, Accepted 23 March 2021, Available online 26 March 2021, Version of Record 1 April 2021. “Some people think that the input impedance Zin is equivalent to the characteristic impedance ZM of the absorber. ”
ZM是我们用来表示特征阻抗的符号，巧合的是作者采用了跟我们一样的符号。
我们的很多文章在这篇文章之前投稿，羡慕这篇文章从投稿到录用快的惊人。
文章认为微波吸收中采用金属后衬膜表征材料吸收是因为表征和计算的方便。“Therefore, in order to facilitate calculation and characterization, the transmission line model with absorber attached on the metal backing is often used.“实际上这种认知并不准确。
文章认为阻抗匹配和四分之一波长理论源于四分之一波长长度的阻抗转换器：“Eq. (4) shows that the condition for no reflected wave at the interface between air and the absorber is that the characteristic impedance of the absorber is the geometric average of the characteristic impedance of the air and the load impedance, and the thickness of the absorber is an odd multiple of a quarter wavelength. In conclusion, the effectiveness of quarter wavelength matching layer can be explained by interference cancellation, multiple reflection and impedance transformation.” 这种认知显然不对。详情见：Yue Liu, Michael G. B Drew,Ying Liu, A Theoretical Exploration of Impedance Matching Coefficients for Interfaces and Films, Applied Physics A, 2024, 130, 212的2.3节：“2.3 Impedance matching and quarter‑wavelength
concepts in transmission‑line theory“
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1452862.html
上一篇：很多颠覆性的科学研究的结果都说明理论研究比实验研究更重要 ---- 重大科学进步，都是以建立学科理论为标志
