Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a high power polarization reconfigurable monostatic transceiver system with the operating frequency lies within the X-band. The results are convincing and positively supporting the operation of the system -- the isolation is good (around 29 to 52 dB), the gain is high (around 16.7 dBi), and the VSWR is low (less than 2.1 which indicates good impedance matching).

 

However, before the paper could be considered for publication, the reviewer hopes that the authors could try to address the following comments:

1. The length of the paper is relatively short. It may fit "short communication" better than "article".
2. When citing, the authors should place a space between the word and the square bracket -- for eg. "work[3]" should be written as "work [3]", instead.
3. The paper presents an X-band polarization-reconfigurable monostatic transceiver system. Perhaps the authors could explain why they chose X-band.
4. Since ports 1 and 6 are rectangular wavguides, while ports 2 to 5 are circular waveguides, does the author require to apply mode-matching when designing the system?
5. Leave a space between the value and the unit -- for eg. instead of "30dB", write "30 dB" or instead of "500kW", write "500 kW".
6. At lines 101 and 102, shouldn't it be 5.2 x 10^6 and 8.9 x 10^6 (i.e., the number 6 should be supercripted) instead of 5.2 x 106 and 8.9 x 106?
7. The rotary septum regulator is the key design part. The authors could consider showing the field plots and illustrate them.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and the professional, constructive comments on our manuscript. We are highly encouraged by your positive evaluation of our system's isolation, gain, and impedance matching. We have carefully studied your feedback and made the corresponding revisions to improve the quality of our paper.

Below is our point-by-point response to your comments.

 

Comments 1: The length of the paper is relatively short. It may fit "short communication" better than "article"

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have significantly expanded the length of the paper to provide a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of our work, particularly regarding the physical mechanisms and theoretical analysis of the system.

 

Comments 2: When citing, the authors should place a space between the word and the square bracket -- for eg. "work[3]" should be written as "work [3]", instead.

Response 2: We apologize for this oversight. We have carefully checked the entire manuscript and added a space before all citation brackets according to your suggestion.

 

Comments 3: The paper presents an X-band polarization-reconfigurable monostatic transceiver system. Perhaps the authors could explain why they chose X-band.

Response 3: Thank you for this insightful question. We chose the X-band because the proposed polarization-reconfigurable monostatic transceiver system is specifically designed to serve as a crucial subsystem for a larger, established X-band high-power transmitting system.

 

Comments 4: Since ports 1 and 6 are rectangular wavguides, while ports 2 to 5 are circular waveguides, does the author require to apply mode-matching when designing the system?

Response 4: Thank you for your precise observation. In our design, the rectangular waveguide is perfectly and smoothly converted into a circular waveguide directly within the polarization direction regulator itself. Because this internal transition structure inherently accomplishes the necessary field transformation, additional external mode-matching structures are not required.

 

Comments 5: Leave a space between the value and the unit -- for eg. instead of "30dB", write "30 dB" or instead of "500kW", write "500 kW".

Response 5: We apologize for the formatting errors. We have thoroughly reviewed the text and ensured that a space is correctly placed between all numerical values and their respective units throughout the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 6: At lines 101 and 102, shouldn't it be 5.2 x 10^6 and 8.9 x 10^6 (i.e., the number 6 should be supercripted) instead of 5.2 x 106 and 8.9 x 106?

Response 6: We sincerely apologize for this error. The superscripts were inadvertently lost due to a typesetting issue during the document generation process. We have corrected these values to  and  in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comments 7: The rotary septum regulator is the key design part. The authors could consider showing the field plots and illustrate them.

Response 7: We completely agree with this valuable suggestion. To better demonstrate the working mechanism of this key component, we have replaced the original simplified model diagram with detailed electric field vector plots. Furthermore, we have added comprehensive explanations in the text to illustrate the field distribution and the dynamic mode conversion process.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors present a high‑power polarization‑reconfigurable monostatic waveguide transceiver system. It achieves shared aperture for transmitting and receiving, arbitrary polarization adjustment, high power‑handling capacity and decent radiation performance, which are validated by both full‑wave simulation and prototype measurements. With minor revisions, the reviewer considers this manuscript suitable for publication in Electronics. Detailed comments are provided below:

1. Please elaborate in greater detail on the working principle that enables high isolation between the transmit and receive channels.
2. Where exactly does the maximum electric‑field strength occur under high‑power simulation conditions? Supply this positional information.
3. Polarization reconfiguration relies on the polarization regulator. Is it realized by a rotatable metal septum? Please clarify how its rotation angle is controlled. Is manual adjustment adopted, or is remote control supported?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for the rigorous, professional, and insightful comments regarding our manuscript. Your constructive feedback has been extremely valuable in enhancing the technical depth, clarity, and overall presentation of our work.

We have carefully considered all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide our point-by-point responses to each of the comments.

 

Comments 1: Please elaborate in greater detail on the working principle that enables high isolation between the transmit and receive channels.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive comment. To clarify the high-isolation mechanism, we have updated Section 2 of the revised manuscript to explain the exact role of the λ/2 path. Specifically, we detailed that when P1 is excited, the additional λ/2 routing introduces a 180° phase shift to the minor energy leaking from the two hybrid couplers. This ensures that the leaked signals undergo complete destructive interference before they can couple back into P6, fundamentally elevating the TX-RX isolation.

 

Comments 2: Where exactly does the maximum electric‑field strength occur under high‑power simulation conditions? Supply this positional information.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We agree that specifying the exact location of the maximum electric field is necessary for a complete evaluation of the structure's power handling capabilities.

In the revised manuscript, we have updated the text to clarify that the peak electric field is concentrated on the inner conductor of the regulator (Penultimate paragraph of Section 3):

 

Comments 3: Polarization reconfiguration relies on the polarization regulator. Is it realized by a rotatable metal septum? Please clarify how its rotation angle is controlled. Is manual adjustment adopted, or is remote control supported?

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this highly practical point. We agree that clarifying the mechanical operation and the scalability of the rotation control is essential for demonstrating the system's practical applicability. To address this, we have added a detailed explanation in Section 4 (Experiment) of the revised manuscript. Specifically, we explained that a specialized 180° track is designed at the rotary interface to ensure accurate and convenient manual rotation. The rotating dividing line can be seen in Fig.2.