Critical Review of EMC Standards for the Measurement of Radiated Electromagnetic Emissions from Transit Line and Rolling Stock
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a review paper that involved a considerable amount of work, taking into consideration the unique author. Congratulations.
Anyway, the recommendations made in Italian by the colleague you consulted are very reasonable, I suggest you treat them favorably and, of course, in English.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
a complete reply from the point of view of formatting and arrangement is in the attached file. For your prompt reference an only-text copy is pasted here below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Concerns: Critical Review of EMC Standards for the Measurement of Radiated Electromagnetic Emissions from Transit Line and Rolling Stock
General comment:
The paper is a systematic study of the standardized methods and settings, and the representative operating conditions, highlighting areas where improvements are possible and opportune.
An advantage of the paper is that it cites quite a lot of important and recent references on the EMC issue. In particular for the EMC assessment with new Digital Communication Systems, the characterization of time distribution of spectral properties is discussed.
The author have also provided a discussion of the obtained results, in particular they have commented on the problem of determination of site and setup uncertainty and repeatability.
Specific comments:
Probably no reference to item [61].
In lines 597-598 and 601 in my version (pdf) there are an error. I quote "(Error! Reference source not found.]
In lines 603-604 must be removed "<come gestire ref a indutt interna e termini 603 resistivi? ... mettere magari ref a aqualche paper di Sonia Leva? o chi altro?>"
Similarly in lines 850-851 "chiarire il numero di tracce necessarie per avere un certo livello di confidenza come si fa nella 55011"
I line 908 "continuare"
In lines 918-919 " (allungare un po’ le conclusioni e rivederle a seguito dei cambiamenti al testo)"
In lines 854,855 and 856 there are question marks (sec. ??)
Needs to be corrected.
These discussion (in Conclusions) is very short, at least sufficient.
The overall evaluation is positive.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
a complete reply from the point of view of formatting and arrangement is in the attached file. For your prompt reference an only-text copy is pasted here below.
===
Reviewer 2: comments
General comment:
The paper is a systematic study of the standardized methods and settings, and the representative operating conditions, highlighting areas where improvements are possible and opportune.
An advantage of the paper is that it cites quite a lot of important and recent references on the EMC issue. In particular for the EMC assessment with new Digital Communication Systems, the characterization of time distribution of spectral properties is discussed.
The author have also provided a discussion of the obtained results, in particular they have commented on the problem of determination of site and setup uncertainty and repeatability.
Specific comments & replies (in blue):
- Probably no reference to item [61].
Ref [61] was a broken reference that went unnoticed; it has been fixed with a ref to old ref [61] (correcting the broken link) and a newly added ref [62]. Further below, the other broken ref to [61] has been fixed with ref to [43] and [62].
- In lines 597-598 and 601 in my version (pdf) there are an error. I quote "(Error! Reference source not found.]
Yes, caused by broken reference [61], that is now fixed as explained above.
- In lines 603-604 must be removed "<come gestire ref a indutt interna e termini 603 resistivi? ... mettere magari ref a aqualche paper di Sonia Leva? o chi altro?>"
Annotations are in Italian and I use for points to develop (and that should be visible at least as grammar errors with a language set to English). Unfortunately I made a mistake and copied the annotated version onto the final version to submit to MDPI for Your review. Apologies. Text removed and references+comments for line parameters updated.
- Similarly in lines 850-851 "chiarire il numero di tracce necessarie per avere un certo livello di confidenza come si fa nella 55011"
Another annotation in Italian for further development, that was indeed implemented (see eq. (8) and the text below it), but remained in the work-in-progress version, and was transferred by mistake to the final one. Apologies. Text removed.
- I line 908 "continuare"
Another annotation in Italian that told me in point 4.3) to continue adding the two (the added) points 4.4) and 4.5). Apologies. Text removed.
- In lines 918-919 " (allungare un po’ le conclusioni e rivederle a seguito dei cambiamenti al testo)"
This annotation indeed was put at the last minute and is by the way in line with your comment below that says that the discussion in Conclusions is very short, although barely sufficient. The updated version has now a more articulated section “Conclusions”.
- In lines 854,855 and 856 there are question marks (sec. ??)
They were placemarkers for cross reference to section numbers, that needed update. Apologies, the update was lost in the miscopy onto the final version. --> corrected to 3.4, 3.5, and 3.3.
Needs to be corrected.
- These discussion (in Conclusions) is very short, at least sufficient.
I agree, and, as observed above, the new revised section “Conclusions” is now more articulated and informative.
- The overall evaluation is positive.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewed paper is interesting. It is described the problem of measurements of radiated electromagnetic emissions from transit line and rolling stock.
The Author formulated the scientific problem and presented methods and of accurate and repeatable measurements of radiated emission from lines, trams, metro etc. Many aspects of such measurements is discussed.
The paper is well organized and contain valuable results. Some typos were find in this paper, particularly in lines 150, 597, 598, 601, 603, 604, 637, 850, 851, 854, 855, 856, 908, 918, 919.
In my opinion, this paper could be accepted after minor revision. The typos mentioned above should be corrected.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
a complete reply from the point of view of formatting and arrangement is in the attached file. For your prompt reference an only-text copy is pasted here below.
====
Reviewer 3: comments
The reviewed paper is interesting. It is described the problem of measurements of radiated electromagnetic emissions from transit line and rolling stock.
The Author formulated the scientific problem and presented methods and of accurate and repeatable measurements of radiated emission from lines, trams, metro etc. Many aspects of such measurements is discussed.
The paper is well organized and contain valuable results. Some typos were find in this paper, particularly in lines 150, 597, 598, 601, 603, 604, 637, 850, 851, 854, 855, 856, 908, 918, 919.
Reply: Apologies for the leftovers due to a mistake in the selection of the file to upload for submission, as the final version of the Word file was not saved yet.
>Line 150: “thee” corrected
>Line 597, 598, 601: broken ref [61] corrected, including also new ref [62].
>Line 603, 604: leftover in Italian meant as a memo for myself, but unfortunately appeared due to the mistake in the file versions explained above. Corrected.
>Line 637: “ca” corrected.
>Line 850, 851, 854, 855, 856: again leftovers, apologies; in the case of the question marks, the reason is that section numbering in MDPI style is not suitable for automatic crossref fields, so I put a placeholder to fix at last when the numbering is stable and will not change any longer.
>Line 908, 918, 919: other leftovers, apologies. Corrected by removing them. The changes I annotated were already implemented, only the memos were forgotten inside the file.
- In my opinion, this paper could be accepted after minor revision. The typos mentioned above should be corrected.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
