Passive Electrical and Optical Methods of Ultra-Short Pulse Expansion for Event Timer-Based TDC in PPM Receiver
, Tatjana Solovjova 1, Janis Semenako 1, Romans Kusnins 1, Sandis Migla 1, Pauls Eriks Sics 1, Oskars Selis 1, Nikolajs Tihomorskis 1, Dmitrijs Prigunovs 2, Armands Ostrovskis 2 and Sandis Spolitis 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript sounds solid, and the results are coherent with the conclusions of the authors. The figures are in good shape. I did not find any comment or suggestion to improve the present content of the paper.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We thank the Reviewers and Editor for the constructive suggestions and appreciate your devoted time to our work. They allowed us to improve the quality of this work. We believe that this new version of the paper addresses the Reviewers' concerns.
Please see the attachment.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with blue colored text indicating changes, and (c) a clean, updated manuscript without highlights.
Kind regards,
Arturs Aboltins
On behalf of all co-authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this work, the authors provide a comprehensive and detailed examination of passive pulse expansion methods for PPM data transmission, including both optical and electrical expansion approaches. The authors successfully demonstrate the feasibility of these methods in a laboratory setting, showing their capability to expand pulses to meet the requirements of event timer-based PPM demodulation. The findings shed light on the effectiveness of these passive pulse expanders in ultra-wideband communication systems and offer valuable insights for future research and practical applications. The manuscript can be recommended for publication in Electronics with revisions. Below are comments for the authors to consider:
1. The authors employed many abbreviations in the manuscript. I think they could consider reducing their use to avoid the possible influence on the smooth reading of the manuscript.
2. I think the authors may consider directly including more detailed descriptions in Figure 15's caption to further facilitate the readers’ understanding about the PPM transmission system.
3. When discussing the error floor observed with smaller position widths, could the authors give more detailed explanations how noise and jitter affect signal quality?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We thank the Reviewers and Editor for the constructive suggestions and appreciate your devoted time to our work. They allowed us to improve the quality of this work. We believe that this new version of the paper addresses the Reviewers' concerns.
Please see the attachment.
We have uploaded point-by-point response to the comments.
Kind regards,
Arturs Aboltins
On behalf of all co-authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMotivation and contributions must improved and expanded in Section 1.
Expose briefly the state of art of active methods in the introduction. It is possible a comparison in the results sections?
In Figs. 17 and 18, the range of the average received optical power should be justified. Furthermore, insert FEC limit and present discussions for getting this value.
Future works must be presented carefully.
Abbreviations section should be inserted.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
None
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We thank the Reviewers and Editor for the constructive suggestions and appreciate your devoted time to our work. They allowed us to improve the quality of this work. We believe that this new version of the paper addresses the Reviewers' concerns.
Please see the attachment.
We have uploaded point-by-point response to the comments.
Kind regards,
Arturs Aboltins
On behalf of all co-authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
