Lightweight Unmanned Aerial System for Time-Domain Electromagnetic Prospecting—The Next Stage in Applied UAV-Geophysics
, Ayur Bashkeev 1, Yuriy Davidenko 1,4, Marina Persova 5, Sergey Iakovlev 1,4, Sergey Bukhalov 1, Nikolay Grebenkin 6 and Marina Tokareva 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It would be interesting to put the meaning of the acronyms used in the text, especially in the first appearance.
Some reference documenting what is narrated from line 161 onwards or documenting the information provided.
Line 461 onwards, I don't think it is important to name brands of cars, I don't think it is necessary, simple observation.
Further enrich the conclusions section with references.
The conclusions of the manuscript must be supported by the experimental work and analysis carried out, and must be specific and clear. Please review it in its entirety.
Author Response
Thank you for the review. We have uploaded a revised manuscript according to your comments and additional reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes an interesting study on how to carry out Time-Domain Electromagnetic prospecting using lightweight Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. This new technology is compared to traditional geophysical technologies (terrestrial and airborne), achieving higher productivity, especially in difficult terrain, as with other physical technologies (magnetic and gamma surveys).
The results obtained with the first prototype developed are very promising. Of course, the authors have found many problems whose solution is already outlined in section 7 further improvements. Despite the problems found in the first prototype, the authors present an analysis of the performance of the system based on the data obtained and a 3D model of the geological environment. From this analysis it is clear that the developed system works quite well.
In my opinion the manuscript is publishable after minor revisions. Some minor errors to correct:
- Line 99: new acronym VLF and GPR, please define (Very Low Frequency and Ground Penetrating Radar).
- Line 129: new acronym MT, please define.
- Line 217: new acronym EMF, please define.
- Line 233-235: this sentence is not well understood, it is a bit confusing for me. Please, can you explain it better?
- Line 302: new acronym EMS-IP, please define and remove definition from line 340.
- Line 478: new acronym DEM, please define (DEM).
- Line 526: Is this reference correct?
- Line 534-537: Could you present a graphical example of signal smoothing and filtering and a reference for Hampel's M estimation method?
- Line 549: Please add reference.
- Line 618: the description of figure 7 (a) is that of (b) and vice versa.
- Line 671: Nº is written twice.
- Line 674: Nº is written twice.
Please, could you increase the clarity of the figures 9 and 10 by putting the point number on the EMF graphs?
- Line 676-695: Please indicate the point number in the description to facilitate the interpretation of the lines / profiles.
- Line 697: Could you add the original geological map from figure 6 (b)?
- Line 723: Figure 12 (c) Please, change the title of the x-axis to Distance for homogeneity with the rest of the figures.
- Line 736: there is a misprint, it would be fig 13 c, d, e, f
- Line 741: there is a misprint, it says 100 us and it would be and 150 us (e,f)
- Line 779-804: In general points 3 and four of this section are unclear. Please could you change your wording to improve clarity?
- Line 801: Please clarify the term “line-loop” array a little more.
Best regards.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments that allowed us to improve the article. We tried to take into account all of them.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I agree with everything that has been done to improve the publication, so I give my approval to continue with the process.
