The Formation of 2D Holograms of a Noise Source and Bearing Estimation by a Vector Scalar Receiver in the High-Frequency Band

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Remarks to the Authors:

This manuscript shows interesting data results. The authors compare simulated results with experimental results using a method of formation of the 2D-interferogram and 2D- hologram of a noise source and acquired by a vector scalar receiver.

Generally, the work shows good results for source bearing obtained from horizontal components of velocity, but this topic could be more explored.

The receiver used in the experimental data was not described and some issues should be clarified

The topic is useful and very interesting for the research community. In my opinion, it has significance to be published in JMSE, but some parts should be improved with the following suggestions:

Abstract:

The second sentence before the end is incomplete.

Introduction

The Introduction does a good State of Art with enough references.

Global suggestion, the authors should attribute vector v   to source speed in all text and figures and not vector w, just not to mess up with frequency (ω).

The authors consider v on page 8 chapter 3 and the rest of text they change the letter to w.

 Chapter 2

 Section 2.3 –

first sentence: The holographic signal….. distributions:” doesn’t have verb, include “are” or “are given by”:

3^rd paragraph: Explain the sentence “The expression under the modulus sign…”, where is the modulus???

Chapter 3

Trajectory A – B – C is parallel to y-axis in the Figure 4, so the sentence before this Figure should be changed: x-axis to y-axis.

The source trajectory parameters:

Location of receiver: Zr=15m ??? if you compared to Figure 3, the z location is more or less in the middle of water depth, which is 15m. Clarify this.

Source velocity, change to v = 1.5 m/s

Coordinates of points A, B and C – If we use Pythagorean theorem, the hypotenuse is around 691m and not 700m. Clarify this.

Page 11 paragraph after Figure 9:

“The angular ….. in Figure 9. It can be seen that the shapes of Gx and Gy, but the extreme….” This sentence is incomplete, doesn’t make sense.

Chapter 4

It is not mention in the text what type of receivers were used? Vector receivers could be vector sensors obtained from accelerometers or pressure gradient. The authors should clarify this and described the receiver used in the experimental data.

Figure 11 – The authors should include in the figure the Cartesian Referential, x - and y – axes, just to the readers understand the source bearing results presented in Figures 20, 21 and 22. I supposed that the x – axis is from VSR2 to VRS3 and the y-axis is in direction from B to A. If it is, the results make sense, because of equation 20 and Figure 2.

Label t(min) in the figures 12, 13, 14 and others with this label, the authors should mention or change in the Figures that 0 correspond to the real time 14:00h. In the text is mention the time 14h:13min as a start time. The readers could be confused and attribute t=0 to 14h:13min

Why Figure 14, which presents the experimental interferogram of receiver VSR3 is more attenuated when we compared with figures 12 and 13? The location of VSR3 is near the source’s trajectory.

Should be interesting, the authors present and compare here the results obtained for the Ix and Iy components, since it is a scalar vector receiver.

Page 14 – last sentence. Could explain in the text why there are two groups of focal points corresponding to 2 different values of Hz/s.

Page 15 – second paragraph., the authors included 2 different acquisition time 14h:19min and 14h:30 min. Clarify this.

Figure 22 – since the location of VSR3 is in the opposite position of VSR2 related to the straight-line A- B, the results of source bearing Zero should be 180º?

The comment on figure 11, to include a Cartesian Referential, is useful on this conclusion.

Could comment on this?

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is presented satisfactorily in terms of form and substance. I have minor comments.

At the conclusion, please add future works with details.

At the end of the paper, insert the abbreviation section.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 The manuscript elaborates on the innovative technique of forming 2D interferograms and holograms of noise sources using a vector scalar receiver in the high-frequency band within a shallow water waveguide. Particularly noteworthy is the precise angular distribution of holograms resulting in the detection and localization of noise sources in the waveguide. The article underscores the effectiveness of holographic signal processing in enhancing noise filtering and accurately reconstructing bearing source values. While commendable for its clarity and depth, the manuscript offers valuable recommendations to further enhance its publication quality.

The abstract of the article can be further improved by providing an overview of the research problem, aims, and objectives followed by the methodology. The results and findings can be presented, ending with the conclusion, recommendations, and significance of the research for the scientific community.

The introduction is well-written, but it would be better if the techniques used in the related work are grouped and presented in a tabulated form for better comprehension.

The theory is presented well in mathematical equations, but a few explanations would provide much better interest to the reader to grasp the concepts.

It is suggested to use a single section for Results and Simulation, in which two sub-sections can be provided: the first for simulated results and the other for experimental results. Figures 21 and 22 can be moved into the previous section.

In Section 5, Conclusion, the conclusion should be more concise based on the experimental results, using fewer words, as the word "results" is mentioned many times.

Many references are too old, except a few. It is suggested to use current references.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have done research in 2D-Holograms of Noise Source and Bearing Estimation by a Vector Scalar Receiver. The paper has several problems which needs to be addressed.

1. The abstract, conclusion and introduction sections are too general, and also these sections are not in one flow, please re-write it one flow, where the paragraph 1 and 2 have relation with each other. The introduction does not stimulate to go ahead with the remaining of the paper because it does not introduce any really new topic/solution. Furthermore, “the contribution and paper structure” is also too much simple. Please rewrite this section.

The introduction is not in a flow. There should be a story and all sentences should be linked with each other. 

2. The authors have cited enough papers, but the key statements are missing. Eg. The problem of source detection and localization in shallow water has attracted considerable interest in underwater acoustics. There should be citation of key papers. Additionally following key papers should also be cited.

Symmetric connectivity of underwater acoustic sensor networks based on multi-modal directional transducer

3. Explain a short description of each subsection.

4.  How is eq1 formulated? Describe all equations and figures correctly.

5. The authors have failed to define the benefit and purpose of the research.

6. The clarity of English Writing is extremely poor.

The quality of English is not up to mark. It should be enhanced

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have incorporated all the comments however there are still following minor errors.

1. The figures are too small and text is also small. Eg. fig 15 etc. The text of figure should be same as other text.

2. The paper should be proof read and the quality of English writing be enhanced.

The paper should be proofread and the quality of English writing be enhanced.

Author Response

The figures are corrected. Also, we have revised the whole paper again and corrected the english language.