Near-Field Magnetic Shielding in the Frequency Range from 20 Hz to 100 MHz

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript  Low Frequency Near Field Magnetic Shielding by Mihai Bădic et al. try to addresses the experimental validation of theoretical predictions for electromagnetic shielding in the low-frequency range (20 Hz–80 MHz), focusing on magnetic near-field conditions. By using an new proposed measurement methodology that with an adapted zero-gauss chamber and compare experimental results with theoretical models for analytically calculable materials (copper, aluminum, Monel, graphite, carbon paper). The authors claim a good agreement between the theory and experiment and this research may apply to more complex systems. This research is to some extent, may have some applications and the description of the experiments and theoretical analysis is detailed. But at the current stage, the research is limited to simple case, if the research could extend to  composite and multilayer materials, this would be a significant improvement. Also, the research is focused on the frequency up to 100 MHz, but the key points of the research is within the low frequency regime, which is confused for the scope. For the methodology part, while the setup is described in detail, the reproducibility could be improved by providing schematics with dimensions and calibration procedures. And second, for the choice of sample sizes (disk diameter 185 mm) should be justified in terms of standardization or practical constraints - why choose this dimension, could this method apply to other dimension with similar output. For the data analysis, part, error analysis is presented, but confidence intervals or statistical significance are missing. Including these would strengthen the validation claim. Last, all the figures presented are of low quality or resolution. Please revise the figures for next round submission.

 

Based on the comments above, I would not recommend for publication at current stage.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed response in the uploaded document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript systematically investigates the low-frequency near-field magnetic shielding performance and proposes an experimentally validated measurement methodology. The study compares theoretical and experimental shielding effectiveness of several materials over the frequency range of 20 Hz–100 MHz. The research is well designed, the experimental data are comprehensive, and the theoretical analysis is solid. Overall, the work makes a positive contribution to the study of electromagnetic shielding materials. In summary, the paper demonstrates certain strengths in methodological innovation and experimental validation; however, minor revisions are necessary to further enhance its readability and academic rigor. The following comments are provided for the authors’ consideration:
1. Introduction improvement:
It is recommended to clarify in the Introduction the specific applicability conditions of the proposed model under low-frequency near-field magnetic shielding scenarios. Additionally, a brief comparison with relevant studies on low-frequency magnetic shielding published in the past five years would help highlight the distinctiveness and value of the present work in terms of material selection and underlying mechanisms.
2. language improvement：
A comprehensive language edit is recommended. Certain expressions are overly verbose, particularly in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections. Ensure clarity and conciseness in all formulations.
3. Clarification of error sources:
Although the manuscript reports the average relative error, the main sources of experimental uncertainty are not clearly described. It is suggested to add a brief analysis of error sources in Section 2, including possible factors such as antenna alignment errors, environmental magnetic noise, and current fluctuations.
4. Details on the steel–copper multilayer experiment:
Figure 12 presents the shielding performance of the steel–copper laminated samples, but the order of the layers and the possible existence of air gaps between them are not specified. It is recommended to provide a more detailed description in the Experimental Methods or Discussion section, for example: the orientation of the lamination relative to the magnetic field direction, the contact condition between the samples (tight contact or presence of air gaps), and whether interfacial resistance or eddy-current coupling effects were considered.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed response in the uploaded document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript and addressed most of the concerns. I would not object for publication.