Response to 'Comment on 'Electric field measurements under DC corona discharges in ambient air by electric field induced second harmonic generation'' [Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 026101(2020)]

摘要

Recently, Ferreira et al. submitted a comment 1 to our earlier letter.2 They used the method 3 proposed by themselves to estimate the surface electric field (SEF) and claimed that Kaptzov's assumption, which states that the SEF remains at the corona onset value, was valid for negative corona discharges regardless of corona current density amplitudes. However, after careful consideration, we disagree with the comment.The negative corona considered in Ref. 2 is in the form of repetitive Trichel pulses as revealed in Ref. 4, and the electric fields should vary over the time. As stated in Ref. 2, "we randomly sampled the signals over the time domain, the mean values of the electric field over the time are expected to be obtained after averaging," and the field shown in Ref. 2 is a mean value. To be more precise, the word "steady state" in Ref. 2 should be "quasi-steady state." It does not make sense to use the timely averaged electric field to compute the ionization integral K as was done in Ref. 1.