Next Article in Journal
Research on Subdivision System of Sin-Cos Encoder Based on Zero Phase Bandpass Filter
Previous Article in Journal
The Young Interferometer as an Optical System for a Variable Depolarizer Characterization
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Analysis of Beamforming Antenna for Practical Indoor Location-Tracking Application

Sensors 2019, 19(14), 3040; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19143040
by Sun-Woong Kim 1 and Dong-You Choi 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sensors 2019, 19(14), 3040; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19143040
Submission received: 18 May 2019 / Revised: 28 June 2019 / Accepted: 9 July 2019 / Published: 10 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Sensors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have synthesized a Butler matrix BFN for a 4 element UWB array. There are two main issues in the paper that do not allow its publication in present form.

1) Butler matrices are not suited for UWB systems, in these cases you should use a true-time-delay BFN. As it is possible to see from  your results, the maxima of the scanned beams point in different directions for a variable frequency.

2) There are almost no information on the elaboration of the four port signals to achieve the target range detection of fig. 28. Why the detected distance is 2m when the target is not present?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

How about Figure x or Fig. x.? There are not corresponed each other in the expression in the inner text and figure description.

The proposed algorithm shall compare with the other methodology within recently five years journal papers to prove the paper contributions.

It’s not only to derive the mathematical expressions for the proposed method system but also implemented by applications for getting more comparisons.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Although addressing an important issue and with some interesting results, I cannot recommend its publication in its present form. When revision the paper, the authors should have in mind the following issues:

- The writing needs a careful revision.

- It is not clear what is new and what comes from the literature.

- The performance results are not presented in a concise way.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have answered my previous concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors improved substantially the paper. 

Back to TopTop