Next Article in Journal
Static Video Compression’s Influence on Neural Network Performance
Next Article in Special Issue
A CC-Type IPT System Based on S/S/N Three-Coil Structure to Realize Low-Cost and Compact Receiver
Previous Article in Journal
Design Studies of Re-Entrant Square Cavities for V-Band Klystrons
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reduced-Cost Optimization-Based Miniaturization of Microwave Passives by Multi-Resolution EM Simulations for Internet of Things and Space-Limited Applications
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Calculation and Analysis of Characteristic Parameters for Lossy Resonator

Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 27 November 2022 / Revised: 14 December 2022 / Accepted: 16 December 2022 / Published: 20 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced RF, Microwave Engineering, and High-Power Microwave Sources)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Resonator model was not shown and detailed. The paper has poor presentation especially regarding methods. There are no information about current distribution or coupling matrices.SPSS evaluation in terms of reliability is questionable.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Ans: merely physical parametric studies about lossy dielectric resonator.  2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?   Ans: relevant but it needs revisions and more details to fill the gaps in its field.   3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Ans: some parametric studies about quality factor .   4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? Ans: Investigated resonator was not shown nor its dimensions and other properties are explained.  Current intensity and coupling factor are questionable. SPSS results investigation is questionable. 5.Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented

and do they address the main question posed?

Ans: not enough. 
  6. Are the references appropriate?  Ans: enough. 7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. Ans: Investigated resonator was not shown nor its dimensions and other properties are explained.  Current intensity and coupling factor are questionable. SPSS results investigation is questionable.   Above revisions can be figures or tables.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments, (b) an updated manuscript in Track Change version, and (c) a clean updated manuscript without Track Change (PDF main document). Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Yu Yu et al.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper 'Calculation and Analysis of Characteristic Parameters for Lossy Resonator' the authors present their recent results about a novel lossy resonator model calculation approach. The paper is well written and the results are clearly presented. It could be interesting to check their results with FEM simulations. However, I believe that this work can be published in the present form.

My main indication was to accept the paper in the present form. However, I add here few minor comments: 1. In Fig. 1 the materials are defined with [1], [2], [3]. I suggest the authors remove the brackets; 2. All the eqs at page 4 and 5 should be placed elsewhere (in appendix or supporting materials file) as all the details of the calculations are difficult to read entirely; 3. The authors should better stress why the error in fig.3 is increasing as a function of deltah instead in fig.4 is decreasing (until a minima) as a function of deltah.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments, (b) an updated manuscript in Track Change version, and (c) a clean updated manuscript without Track Change. Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Yu Yu et al.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Revisions and Author responses are reasonable. The revised paper is acceptable. 

Back to TopTop