Next Article in Journal
Lessons from the Ionised and Molecular Mass of Post-CE PNe
Next Article in Special Issue
Detecting Gravitational Waves with Advanced Virgo
Previous Article in Journal
On the Evolution of the Hubble Constant with the SNe Ia Pantheon Sample and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: A Feasibility Study for GRB-Cosmology in 2030
Previous Article in Special Issue
Seismic and Newtonian Noise in the GW Detectors
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Optimization of Design Parameters for Gravitational Wave Detector DECIGO Including Fundamental Noises

by Yuki Kawasaki 1,*, Ryuma Shimizu 1, Tomohiro Ishikawa 1, Koji Nagano 2, Shoki Iwaguchi 1, Izumi Watanabe 1, Bin Wu 1, Shuichiro Yokoyama 3,4 and Seiji Kawamura 1,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 25 December 2021 / Revised: 21 January 2022 / Accepted: 22 January 2022 / Published: 1 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Present and Future of Gravitational Wave Astronomy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper studies the parameter optimisation for the space based DECIGO, aiming to observe primordial GWs. It optimises the SNR considering thermal noise and quantum noise as the noise sources and signal above typical cutoff frequency of GWs from double white dwarfts. The method is adequately described and results are clearly presented. I recommend the paper for publication after the authors consider below minor comments, 

  1. It would be better if the authors can state the outcomes more specifically in the abstract.
  2. In Equation 2, the speed "v" is not defined.
  3. Below line 118, in the sentence "In our simulation,...", is the "except" a proper word here, or the authors want to say "when R is very large".
  4. In line 236, should it be Figure 3(b) and (d)?
  5. In Figure 6, the two captions are the same.
  6. In line 249, "The increase of...". Is there constrain for this statement? I suspect this is true.
  7. In Figure A2, the start radius is 0.5m, while in above optimisations, the start radius is 0m. It is better to keep consistent. 
  8. In terms of the results, when R=1m, will further optimising the thickness give better SNR. If Yes, what is the reason this is not considered? It is better to discuss the possibilities beyond the two models chosen in this paper. 
  9. I suggest to add some discussions on the mirror mass and radius limit.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached commented PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop