A Gysel Power Divider/Combiner with Enhanced Power-Handling Capability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The article is interesting research, but some revisions are needed to improve the quality of work. Below are my comments:
1. The Introduction is poor and superficial. Please search and add more bibliographic references to improve the Introduction;
2. Please add figures with the dimensions of the traditional device and the proposed device;
3. What software is used in the simulations? Add this to the article;
4. Please investigate and analyze the behavior of the device considering that Z1 is set to lower impedance values, i.e., Z0/4 and Z0/8, for example;
5.The simulated results were presented only for the operating frequency of 2.4 GHz. Please show simulated results and analyze device behavior for higher operating frequencies such as 3.5, 5 and 10 GHz. I think that this can improve your work.
That’s all for me at this moment.
Author Response
Please check the file attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors proposed a Gysel power combiner/divider (PCD) with a high average power handling capability (APHC). One traditional PCD is also fabricated to compare the APHC of the proposed one. The temperature variation of the traditional Gysel PCD is at least twice that of the proposed one at the same input power, which suggests that the APHC of the fabricated proposed Gysel PCD is nearly twice that of the traditional Gysel PCD.
The literature and methods are well-described.
In summary, the manuscript can be published after major revision.
Some major suggestions are listed below.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
[Figure description][Figure 4]
Please state the figure clearly. It’s not easy to understand the relation between the description and the figure.
For example, how to read 15 dB, 20 dB, and 3.21 dB from the figure. To point out where to read the data from the figure is important (for guiding readers).
What are S11, S21, S31, and S33?
[Figure description][Figure 5]
The same problem also happened in Figure 5. Please state the figure clearly.
On the other hand, there is no “S21” in the figure. However, in the sentence “The insertion loss S21 of the traditional Gysel PCD and the proposed Gysel PCD is nearly the same at center frequency.” S21 is mentioned.
[Symbol consistency][Figure 8]
Is it Delta_Tra or Delta_T ?
Is it Delta_Pro or Delta_P ?
Please choose one for consistency.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: [Figure description][Figure 4]
Please state the figure clearly. It’s not easy to understand the relation between the description and the figure.
For example, how to read 15 dB, 20 dB, and 3.21 dB from the figure. To point out where to read the data from the figure is important (for guiding readers).
Response 1: I have marked the points where the values were read in Figure 4a and Figure 4b and Figures 4c of the revision version. Please check them.
Point 2: What are S11, S21, S31, and S33?
Response 2: In Figure 4a and Figure 4b and Figure 4c , S21 represent the isolation between divide ports, S31 represents the insertion loss between one divide port and the combine port, S33 represent the return loss of the combine port, S11 represent the the return loss of one divide port. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear in the rejection version, and I made this clear on the fourth page of the revised version.
Point 3: [Figure description][Figure 5]
The same problem also happened in Figure 5. Please state the figure clearly.
Response 3: I have marked the points where the values were read in Figures 5 of the revision version. Please check them. In Figures 5, S31 represents the insertion loss between one divide port and the combine port, S33 represent the return loss of the combine port. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear in the rejection version, and I made this clear on the fifth page of the revised version.
Point 4: On the other hand, there is no “S21” in the figure. However, in the sentence “The insertion loss S21 of the traditional Gysel PCD and the proposed Gysel PCD is nearly the same at center frequency.” S21 is mentioned.
Response 4: “The insertion loss S21 of the traditional Gysel PCD and the proposed Gysel PCD is nearly the same at center frequency.” in the revised version should be “The insertion loss S31 of the traditional Gysel PCD and the proposed Gysel PCD is nearly the same at center frequency.” I fixed these errors in the revised version.
Point 5: [Symbol consistency][Figure 8]
Is it Delta_Tra or Delta_T ?
Is it Delta_Pro or Delta_P ?
Please choose one for consistency.
Response 5: Title of Figure 8 “The â–³TTra and the â–³TPro at different input powers.” in the revised version should be “The â–³TT and the â–³TP at different input powers.” I fixed these errors in the revised version.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thanks for addressing my comments. I believe that the article is ready for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors proposed a Gysel power combiner/divider (PCD) with a high average power handling capability (APHC). One traditional PCD is also fabricated to compare the APHC of the proposed one. The temperature variation of the traditional Gysel PCD is at least twice that of the proposed one at the same input power, which suggests that the APHC of the fabricated proposed Gysel PCD is nearly twice that of the traditional Gysel PCD.
The literature and methods are well-described.
In the revised manuscript, much missing information has been added to clear the descriptions. Figures also have been modified to match the statements. Some additional descriptions have been added to enhance the major statements.
In summary, the revised manuscript fits the journal’s criteria for publication.
Some major suggestions last time (with responses) are listed below.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
[Figure description][Figure 4]
Please state the figure clearly. It’s not easy to understand the relation between the description and the figure.
For example, how to read 15 dB, 20 dB, and 3.21 dB from the figure. To point out where to read the data from the figure is important (for guiding readers).
What are S11, S21, S31, and S33?
Author Response 1: I have marked the points where the values were read in Figure 4a and Figure 4b and Figures 4c of the revision version. Please check them.
Author Response 2: In Figure 4a and Figure 4b and Figure 4c , S21 represent the isolation between divide ports, S31 represents the insertion loss between one divide port and the combine port, S33 represent the return loss of the combine port, S11 represent the the return loss of one divide port. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear in the rejection version, and I made this clear on the fourth page of the revised version.
[Figure description][Figure 5]
The same problem also happened in Figure 5. Please state the figure clearly.
On the other hand, there is no “S21” in the figure. However, in the sentence “The insertion loss S21 of the traditional Gysel PCD and the proposed Gysel PCD is nearly the same at center frequency.” S21 is mentioned.
Author Response 3: I have marked the points where the values were read in Figures 5 of the revision version. Please check them. In Figures 5, S31 represents the insertion loss between one divide port and the combine port, S33 represent the return loss of the combine port. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear in the rejection version, and I made this clear on the fifth page of the revised version.
Author Response 4: “The insertion loss S21 of the traditional Gysel PCD and the proposed Gysel PCD is nearly the same at center frequency.” in the revised version should be “The insertion loss S31 of the traditional Gysel PCD and the proposed Gysel PCD is nearly the same at center frequency.” I fixed these errors in the revised version.
[Symbol consistency][Figure 8]
Is it Delta_Tra or Delta_T ?
Is it Delta_Pro or Delta_P ?
Please choose one for consistency.
Author Response 5: Title of Figure 8 “The â–³TTra and the â–³TPro at different input powers.” in the revised version should be “The â–³TT and the â–³TP at different input powers.” I fixed these errors in the revised version.
