Next Article in Journal
Unconstrained Monitoring Method for Heartbeat Signals Measurement using Pressure Sensors Array
Next Article in Special Issue
Modeling the Influence of Oil Film, Position and Orientation Parameters on the Accuracy of a Laser Triangulation Probe
Previous Article in Journal
Performance Enhancement of Pedestrian Navigation Systems Based on Low-Cost Foot-Mounted MEMS-IMU/Ultrasonic Sensor
Previous Article in Special Issue
Development of a Micro/Nano Probing System Using Double Elastic Mechanisms
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Improving Angular Accuracy of a Scanning Mirror Based on Error Modeling and Correction

Sensors 2019, 19(2), 367; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19020367
by Yue Fan *, Wenli Ma, Ping Jiang, Jinlong Huang, Kewei Chen and Nian Pan
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sensors 2019, 19(2), 367; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19020367
Submission received: 14 December 2018 / Revised: 15 January 2019 / Accepted: 15 January 2019 / Published: 17 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensors for Precision Dimensional Metrology)

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review comments for Sensors-417283:

The authors propose an angular error correction method to improve the angular accuracy of the eddy current sensors in a scanning mirror. Finally, the experimental results show that the angular accuracy of the scanning mirror is dramatically improved by using the corrected calculated angles as the feedbacks of the position closed-loop control system.

In my opinion, this paper can be accepted for publication after minor revisions according to the suggested comments.

#1 In an ideal case, the axis of the rotational mirror shall be located in the center of the two eddy current sensors, please comment the variations of the center on the nonlinear errors.

#2 As you mentioned that the values of n are important for the angular error fitting…, whether the best n-values and a-parameters are also dependent on the initial maximum deflection angles for the calibration principle?

#3 In line 202, the “deference” needs to be corrected to “difference”.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well organized and theresults are clearly presented. Approach is adequate an is confirmed both theoretically and by experimental studies.

At the same time the approach used in the paper looks as a straightforward application of the well known methods to specific problem. My opinion is that the manusript presents more engineering rather than scientific work.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

see the attached pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop