Research on Low-Spurious and High-Threshold Limiter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors propose a low-spurious and high-threshold limiter designed for C-band applications, which is primarily realized through the innovative integration of multi-path synthesis and phase cancellation techniques. The relevant principles, structural design, platform simulation, experimental configuration and experimental results of the limiter are elaborated in detail. This work is interesting with good potentials in limiters, and the manuscript is written clearly.

This is a good work that could be published with some revisions. The reviewer has the following comments for the authors to further revise their work:

 

Comments:

1. A clear supplement of the current development status of existing literature concerning low-spurious and high-threshold limiters is recommended in the introduction part, which would help effectively position the paper's proposed methods as innovative approaches for developing such limiters. Furthermore, the systematic comparative analyses with previously published related works are suggested in the discussion section, specifically, detailed comparisons of key performance indicators (such as harmonic suppression ratio, threshold power, insertion loss, and device size), to more clearly demonstrate the innovation points and relative advantages of this work.

 

2. The paper provides a detailed analysis of how to utilize multi-path synthesis and phase cancellation techniques to achieve harmonic suppression. Further in-depth analysis or explanation is needed to elucidate how multi-channel power synthesis elevates the threshold performance by up to 3 dB.

 

3. The experimental testing primarily analyzes the 3rd harmonic, while higher-order harmonics (e.g., 5th, 7th) require a detailed analysis or provide an explanation for the reason; The discrepancies between simulated and measured transmission characteristics under small-signal conditions warrant a cause analysis.

 

4. Please check and correct the formatting error in the citation on line 7 of page 5 of the manuscript.

 

5. The introductory remarks at the start of the reference list need to be deleted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a multi-branch, phase-cancellation limiter design. While the results are promising, further quantitative analysis, comparative evaluation, and discussion of practical deployment considerations would strengthen the work:

1. A deeper quantitative analysis of the interaction between insertion loss, limiting threshold, and harmonic suppression is recommended, particularly examining how phase-setting deviations influence overall performance across the specified frequency range.

2. The work would be strengthened by a comparative study against state-of-the-art limiter designs, summarizing key metrics such as threshold level, harmonic suppression ratio, bandwidth, and power handling, to better position the proposed architecture within the current literature.

3.The manuscript should address the thermal stability and long-term reliability of the limiter under sustained high-power pulsed and CW operation, as these factors critically affect suitability for real-world deployment.

4. Expanding the discussion on the adaptability of the multi-branch phase-cancellation concept to other frequency bands, device technologies, or integrated front-end modules would enhance the generality and potential impact of the proposed approach.

5. The authors should discuss the potential applicability of the proposed high-threshold, low-spurious limiter in C-band beam-scanning antenna systems, including doi: 10.1109/TVT.2025.3580083.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the questions, and the current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has been effectively revised and is now suitable for acceptance.