Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please consider the following comments and suggestions:

(i) replace "high-resolution" by "high spatial and temporal resolution" in the title;

(ii) provide, in the introdution section, some information about the impact of atmospheric phenomena (attenuation, absortion, dispersion and refraction) in the accuracy of long-distance measurements performed with lidar technologies;

(iii) in line 57, express the diameter and lenght intervals in an alternative way;

(iv) in section 2, provide the velocity instrumental measurement uncertainty bugdet related to the SI traceability of the bistatic lidar device, based on the propagation of the uncertainty components related to its geometrical setup, laser wavelength, digital time and others considered relevant;

(v) for the field measurment campaigns described in section 3 please add, if available, information regarding the environmental conditions, namely, air temperature at different heights and the presence or absence of fog, mist, precipitation or other atmospheric phenomena in the optical propagation path;

(vi) in section 3.1 quantify the mentioned "very good agreement";

(vii) in Figure 8, use the same scale for the mean velocity axis shown in Figure 7 and add the legend of the green curves;

(viii) in section 3.4, add the metrological characteristics of the used wind tunnel (stability and uniformity of the velocity field, turbulence factor);

(ix) in section 3.5, indicate the variance or the uncertainty of the calculated regression parameters (slope and intercept);

(x) in the first paragraph of the section 4, mention that the comparative measurements are dependent of filtering operations.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for your effort!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper is focused to high-resolution bistatic wind Lidar for measurement of wind velocity. Paper brings new innovative method for wind velocity measurement with aim to obtain low measurement uncertainties. The introduction contains an overview of the methods used to measure wind velocity with appropriate references to references. Figures 1 and 2 show the principle of the proposed measurement method. The authors also present a prototype of a measuring device suitable for outdoor use. A very useful part of the article are the experimental results and comparative measurements presented in the article. The authors also correctly chose the measurement methodology in the wind tunnel for the verification of the measuring device. In this article, the authors document several years of work and also present older results of measurements, which documents the sequence of scientific activities. The individual experimental activities are well described in detail, which is useful for the reader. Conclusion evaluates the acquired knowledge and also states the shortcomings and room for improvement of the proposed methodology as plans for the future development of this issue.

Comments:

Some images need to be repaired:

Figure 10, 11 and 16 include decimal numbers with decimal comma. Please, use decimal points.

Also legend in figure 17 should be repaired to decimal numbers with decimal points.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for your effort!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the presented manuscript, Wilhelm et al. reported a high-resolution Bistatic Wind Lidar system for wind velocity measurements. The proposed method shows good performance. The theoretical analysis and experimental results seem reasonable, and I recommend it for publishing.

Specific Comments:

1). For Figure 3, the authors may label each unit in the photograph.

2). For Figure 8 and Figure 9, the error bars look large. Is this normal?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for your effort!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I highly appreciate the presented long-term research on the constructed bistatic lidar for wind structure research. The proposal to make it a reference tool for other instruments is interesting to me and fully deserves special attention. The article, written in a clear and accessible way, proves, above all, the quality and usefulness of the research equipment built. I have only reservations about the structure of the literature (in the 28th position there is repeated self-citation). However, I understand that the apparatus is unique and cannot be compared with other authors. However, I suggest including in the literature other authors whose research is similar to the subject of the article. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for your effort!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report