Determining Topological Charge of Bessel-Gaussian Beams Using Modified Mach-Zehnder Interferometer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is readable and well illustrated. I expect that it will receive a great response from readers if it is supplemented with a small revision in accordance with the following comments

 

[1] There is no strict definition of the TC. The reference to the article [28] is not enough, since there is no clear physical distinction between the OAM and TC. Still, it is worth relying on the original source DOI:10.1088/1464-4258/6/2/018 and the review article doi.org/10.1364/OE.386401. The differences between OAM and TC should also be clearly explained, since in the special case of single vortex beams they numerically coincide.

 

[2]  There is no convincing argument for using the interferometric measuring TC compared to other simpler approaches. For example, the astigmatic lens technique significantly simplifies the measurement process (as in the article doi.org/10.1364/AO.396557) of the beams with multiple ring dislocations and eliminates confusing TC and OAM. This problem should be discussed in the text

 

[3] What type of SLM and CMOS were used, and what restrictions do they impose on TC and the number of ring dislocations? The fact is that the imperfections of the holographic grating and the resolution property of the detector can cause the destruction of degenerate ring dislocations and appearing several parasitic topological dipoles in the interference pattern.

 

[4] It should also be discussed how stable the measurement results are to small deviations in the alignment of the interferometer?

Author Response

Thanks very much for reading the manuscript thoroughly and kind words of appreciation. Our point wise response to the comments are attached. The corrections incorporated in the manuscript are in blue colors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting but it does need work to improve its readability and accessibility. I have attached a few comments in the first 5 pages,  that may be of value. Similar issues continue in teh subsequent papges.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors could benefit from a typesetting platform such as overleaf to enter equations in text. The quality of English is good overall.  There are several corrections I have pointed out just in the first 5 pages.

Author Response

Thanks very much for reading the manuscript thoroughly and kind words of appreciation. Our point wise response to the comments are attached. The corrections incorporated in the manuscript are in blue colors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised copy seems to address the issues I raised.