Mitigation of Electro Magnetic Interference by Using C-Shaped Composite Cylindrical Device

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of the article deal with passive shielding combined with an active shielding methodology to mitigate the magnetic field on target space. In the experiments, the authors created a C-shaped opening in the permalloy tube to guide the propagation of the electromagnetic field. The authors used MagNet Simulation program to calculate and visualize the shielding of the magnetic field around the tube without an opening and a C-shape cylindrical device. The magnetic field is monitored using an isotropic magnetic field probe at different distances. In conclusion, the authors state that 43.64% of energy can save with C-shaped permalloy materials to mitigate the same magnetic field.

POSITIVE ASPECTS

1. Based on a literature review, the authors made an overview of the issues related to problems with EMI in nanometer technologies, sensitive devices, and high-performance tools.
2. The authors prepared the C-shaped cylindrical device combined with the passive shielding method and active shielding method to counteract the environmental electromagnetic field.

ISSUES

The presented work is useful but has some issues that need to be removed. I have a few comments that can be used to improve the article.

Major issues
1. The vertical axis in Figure 2 indicates the electromagnetic field, but the physical unit is mG. Is this the correct label? If the description of the vertical axis is not marked correctly, make an appropriate correction.
2. The results from the MagNet simulation are too thick (10 m step). For a better results interpretation, use a shorter division step, 1 cm or even less, especially around the 0 cm point. The same applies to the graph in Figure 4. In addition, the distance values in Figure 2 are given in centimeters, while in Table 1, the distance values are in meters. It is a big difference.
3. In Table 2, the authors give values for the electromagnetic field, but the physical unit is nT. Is this the correct label? The physical unit nT is given for the magnetic field. If the description in the table heading is not marked correctly, make the appropriate correction.
4. The authors use Gauss and Tesla units. SI units must use.
5. The intensity of the magnetic field around the conductor depends on the magnitude of the current. It is not clear to me why the authors list the voltage in the graph in Figure 3? It's pretty confusing and unnecessary. The dependence of the magnetic field on the current flowing through the conductor must specify (graph in Figure 4).
6. In the legend in Figure 5, the measured values of the magnetic field are incorrectly assigned. Make an appropriate correction.
7. With what accuracy was the distance of the measuring probe set at defined distances from the conductor? The authors need to supplement the information about the location accuracy of the measuring probe in the prescribed distances. That is when the magnetic field probe is positioned in the x-axis direction, what is the positioning accuracy in the x-direction, and at the same time in the y-direction. Positioning accuracy is essential because it has a significant effect on the measured quantities.

CONCLUSION

I find this article helpful. The authors of the present manuscript have to correct the issues. There are fundamental errors and inaccuracies in the presented manuscript. The experimental part must be repeated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is devoted to actively shielding an extremely-low-frequency environmental magnetic field including the electromagnetic radiation. The topic is interesting and it seems to be of potential importance. However, the manuscript is not written clearly. Upon many readings, I do not feel to understand the content and the guilt is not necesserily on the reader's side.

The major ideas of passive and active shieldings of the magnetic field using c-shaped magnet should be explained to non-specialized readers in terms of the following issues. Since passive shielding is related to making the lines of the magnetic field rare, how are the magnetic-field lines distributed in space inside and around the c-shaped magnet. What area of space is actually shielded? What is red line inside the tubular (c-shaped) magnet is (a wire or a long coil)? If wire, where are coils mentioned just above Fig. 1? What is directed through the gap in the c-shaped magnet, the flow of an electromagnetic radiation or the vector of a magnetic field? 
In the pictures, the authors plot an "electromagnetic field" (in nano-Tesla units). What do the authors mean by value of the "electromagnetic field"? Is it just value of the magnetic component of the electromagnetic field? 
The area plots in Fig. 2 are not readable at all. 

In my opinion, the text requires substantial changes in order to be readable and I recommend rejection with the possibility of sending the manuscript once againg as a new submission. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

OVERVIEW

The authors of the article deal with passive shielding combined with an active shielding methodology to mitigate the magnetic field on target space. In the experiments, the authors created a C-shaped opening in the permalloy tube to guide the propagation of the electromagnetic field. The authors used MagNet Simulation program to calculate and visualize the shielding of the magnetic field around the tube without an opening and a C-shape cylindrical device. The magnetic field is monitored using an isotropic magnetic field probe at different distances. In conclusion, the authors state that 43.64% of energy can save with C-shaped permalloy materials to mitigate the same magnetic field.

POSITIVE ASPECTS

1. Based on a literature review, the authors made an overview of the issues related to problems with EMI in nanometer technologies, sensitive devices, and high-performance tools.
2. The authors prepared the C-shaped cylindrical device combined with the passive shielding method and active shielding method to counteract the environmental electromagnetic field.

ISSUES

The presented work is useful but has some issues that need to be removed. I have a few comments that can be used to improve the article.

Major issues
1. The authors in the Cover letter state the change in units in cm in Table 1, but the meter unit is still used in the revised article. Physical units need to be repaired. This means that the values of the magnetic field at centimeter distances must be measured again.
2. The authors state in the Cover letter that the changes are marked in yellow in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3. I do not see the changes in the numerical values in Table 1, although they are marked in yellow. Once again, only the changes in the tables need to be marked in yellow.
3. I do not see changes in the numerical values in Table 2, although they are marked in yellow. Once again, only the changes in Table 2 from the previous version of the manuscript should be highlighted in yellow.
4. I do not see changes in the numerical values in Table 3, although they are marked in yellow. Once again, only the changes in Table 3 from the previous version of the manuscript should be highlighted in yellow.
5. In Table 2, the authors give values for the electromagnetic field, but the physical unit is nT. Is this the correct label? The physical unit nT is given for the magnetic field. If the description in the table heading is not marked correctly, make the appropriate correction.
6. With what accuracy was the distance of the measuring probe set at defined distances from the conductor? The authors need to supplement the information about the location accuracy of the measuring probe in the prescribed distances to the manuscript text. That is when the magnetic field probe is positioned in the x-axis direction, what is the positioning accuracy in the x-direction, and at the same time in the y-direction. Positioning accuracy is essential because it has a significant effect on the measured quantities. The sketch maps of the experiment with C-Type permalloy materials given in the cover letter do not provide information on the positioning accuracy of the measuring probe. The numerical value of the positioning accuracy of the measuring probe in millimeters must be given.

CONCLUSION

I find this article helpful. The authors of the present manuscript have to correct the issues. There are fundamental errors and inaccuracies in the presented manuscript. The experimental part must be repeated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not taken into account my negative opinion about the presentation of their results. Almost nothing is changed in the current version of the manuscript. Even visiblity of Figs. 2(a), 2(b) is not improved, (for instance, the color scale is not readable). The misleading term "value of the electromagnetic field" remains unexplained nor exchanged, so as the term "emitting the magnetic-field lines". Formulating the boundary conditions (fifth sentence of Subsec. 3.1) does not make sense. I guess, there is a misprint in the caption to Fig. 3(d) ('Y-axis' instead of 'X-axis'). I think, the above are the points which are necessary to be addressed in order to make the manuscript readable.

Let me notice that, for a non-specialized reader, at first sight, the electromagnetic wave emitted from the shielding system under consideration seems linearly polarized, but this seems justified only upon understanding that the intention of the authors is to form the C-shaped composite into a screening cage (as explained just in the response to the referee report not in the manuscript).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

OVERVIEW

The authors of the article deal with passive shielding combined with an active shielding methodology to mitigate the magnetic field on target space. In the experiments, the authors created a C-shaped opening in the permalloy tube to guide the propagation of the electromagnetic field. The authors used a simulation program to calculate and visualize the shielding of the magnetic field around the tube without an opening and a C-shape cylindrical device. The magnetic field is monitored using an isotropic magnetic field probe at different distances. In conclusion, the authors state that 43.64% of energy can save with C-shaped permalloy materials to mitigate the same magnetic field.

POSITIVE ASPECTS

1. Based on a literature review, the authors made an overview of the issues related to problems with EMI in nanometer technologies, sensitive devices, and high-performance tools.

2. The authors prepared the C-shaped cylindrical device combined with the passive shielding method and active shielding method to counteract the environmental electromagnetic field.

CONCLUSION

The authors have addressed all the reviewers comments properly and this present revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

OVERVIEW

The authors of the article deal with passive shielding combined with an active shielding methodology to mitigate the magnetic field on target space. In the experiments, the authors created a C-shaped opening in the permalloy tube to guide the propagation of the electromagnetic field. The authors used a simulation program to calculate and visualize the shielding of the magnetic field around the tube without an opening and a C-shape cylindrical device. The magnetic field is monitored using an isotropic magnetic field probe at different distances. In conclusion, the authors state that 43.64% of energy can save with C-shaped permalloy materials to mitigate the same magnetic field.

POSITIVE ASPECTS

1. Based on a literature review, the authors made an overview of the issues related to problems with EMI in nanometer technologies, sensitive devices, and high-performance tools.
2. The authors prepared the C-shaped cylindrical device combined with the passive shielding method and active shielding method to counteract the environmental electromagnetic field.

ISSUES

The presented work is useful but has some issues that need to be removed. I have a few comments that can be used to improve the article.

Minor issues
1. The numerical value of the physical unit and its symbol shall be separated by a space according to ISO 80000-1: 2009 standard (e.g. page 3, line 107). Correct accordingly throughout the text.
2. The authors use a double notation for the same term, for example, lines 109 and 120. Correct accordingly.
3. It is not clear from the description of the efficiency calculation how results in dB are obtained. Specify the formula for calculating the efficiency.

Major issues
1. It is not clear why the authors used a conductor length of 200 m in the simulations when the length of the pipe is 50 cm with the boundary condition of -1 m to 1 m in the Z-axis? It is necessary to justify why the authors used the length of the driver by adding a comment to the text in the present article.
2. The vertical axis in Figure 2 indicates the electromagnetic field, but the physical unit is mG. Is this the correct label? If the description of the vertical axis is not marked correctly, make an appropriate correction.
3. The results from the MagNet simulation are too thick (10 m step). For a better interpretation of the results, use a finer step, 1 cm or even less. The same applies to the graph in Figure 4.
4. The distance given in Table 1 is in meters. The 100 m distance seems too long to me. It is necessary to justify why the authors measured the magnetic field up to a distance of 100 meters.
5. In Table 2, the authors give values for the electromagnetic field, but the physical unit is nT. Is this the correct label? If the description in the table heading is not marked correctly, make the appropriate correction.
6. It is not clear from Table 2 whether this is a probe measurement. It is also not clear at what distance the measurements were performed. The same applies to Table 3.

REMARKS

1. It is debatable, perhaps even speculative, to claim that a material such as Mu-metal emits a magnetic field from an aperture at such a low frequency. The only source of the magnetic field in the simulation is a current conductor. The generated magnetic field has two barriers. One barrier is Mu-metal, the other barrier is air. The justification for the penetration of the magnetic field from the tube must supplement or corrected.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Usually, a different procedure is used to calculate efficiency. First, the value of the magnetic field without a barrier is measured at a defined point. The value of the magnetic field is then measured at the same point as the barrier used. The magnetic field values are then divided and logarithmized. The procedure is repeated with various barriers. I recommend taking repeated efficiency measurements.

QUESTIONS

I have one question for the authors of the article.

1. The length of the tube is 50 cm. How do the authors guarantee that at distances more than the length of the tube, the contribution of the magnetic field from the bare current conductor is negligible? It is necessary to add a comment to this fact in the text.
2. The intensity of the magnetic field around the conductor depends on the magnitude of the current. It is not clear to me why the authors list the voltage in the graph in Figure 3? It's pretty confusing. The dependence of the magnetic field on the current flowing through the conductor must specify.
3. With what accuracy was the distance of the measuring probe set at defined distances from the conductor? The authors need to supplement the information about the location accuracy of the measuring probe in the prescribed distances. That is when the magnetic field probe is positioned in the x-axis direction, what is the positioning accuracy in the x-direction, and at the same time in the y-direction.

CONCLUSION

Regretfully, the paper cannot be accepted in its present form. Deficiencies need to be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The specific application for reducing the EM interference during CMOS manufacturing is only mentioned in the Introduction without being recall and analyzed in the paper. Specific and more recent references should be added. An English review is necessary. The proposed method for reducing the EM emission from power cable is not so innovative, and no clear evidence of its usefulness is provided. Other specific comments are given below:

1. English grammar:
   • Abstract. "Combining" should be "combined"
   • Abstract. "deducts" should be "reduces"?
   • Abstract. "deduction" should be "reduction"
   • Introduction, line 61. "Convertor"?
   • Many others throughout the manuscript...
2. Abstract, first sentence. Do you mean that the ELF EM emission from these instruments employed during the manufacturing process may affect the CMOS process reliability? Please clarify which is the specific cause generating the ELF EM radiation.
3. Introduction. Refs 3 and 5 seem not very appropriate to your context. Also Ref4 is not clear how good it fits here.
4. Line 44. It is not clear the Units mG for field strength.
5. Line 45. These references are more than 10 years old, so it should be clarified whether the given limit is still applicable.
6. Section 2. Before describing the setup you may clarify with a brief description and drawing how you could use your proposed method within the environment where the CMOS is manufactured, since your main claim is that the proposed method is suitable for this specific application.
7. You may add a picture of the experimental setup.
8. Fig. 2. You may add more point around the distance of 0m to better identify the curve trend and the values of the peak. It seems that the black curve may have a peak around 0m that may show and increase of the EM field also at +-10m, and it cannot be identified with the given coarse spatial sampling.
9. Fig. 2. Is the distance expressed in m or cm?
10. Line 135. These efficiency values seem quite limited and negligible, especially when very close to the current source. 
11. Line 144. This may be wrong since, as long as there is any non-linearity in the material response, the expected EM reduction should be the same no matter which is the value of the current.
12. Table 2. At which distance are the field values for both tubular structure and C-opening structure computed?
13.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Mitigation of Electro Magnetic Interference by Using C-Shaped Composite Cylindrical Device

OVERVIEW

The authors of the article deal with passive shielding combined with an active shielding methodology to mitigate the magnetic field on target space. In the experiments, the authors created a C-shaped opening in the permalloy tube to guide the propagation of the electromagnetic field. The authors used a simulation program to calculate and visualize the shielding of the magnetic field around the tube without an opening and a C-shape cylindrical device. The magnetic field is monitored using an isotropic magnetic field probe at different distances. In conclusion, the authors state that 43.64% of energy can save with C-shaped permalloy materials to mitigate the same magnetic field.

POSITIVE ASPECTS

1. Based on a literature review, the authors made an overview of the issues related to problems with EMI in nanometer technologies, sensitive devices, and high-performance tools.
2. The authors prepared the C-shaped cylindrical device combined with the passive shielding method and active shielding method to counteract the environmental electromagnetic field.

ISSUES

The presented work is useful but has some issues that need to be removed. I have a few comments that can be used to improve the article.

Minor issues
1. The numerical value of the physical unit and its symbol shall be separated by a space according to ISO 80000-1: 2009 standard. Correct accordingly throughout the text.
2. It is not clear from the description of the efficiency calculation (page 4, lines 136 o 138) how results in dB are obtained. Specify the formula (equation) for calculating the efficiency. From Table 1, for a distance of -100 m: (186 nT – 170 nT) / 186 nT = 0.086022; but not -0.78 dB.

Major issues
1. The vertical axis in Figure 2 indicates the electromagnetic field, but the physical unit is mG. Is this the correct label? The physical unit is mG. It is the physical quantity of the magnetic field. If the description of the vertical axis is not marked correctly, make an appropriate correction.
2. In Table 2, the authors give values for the electromagnetic field, but the physical unit is nT. Is this the correct label? The physical unit is mG. It is the physical quantity of the magnetic field. If the description in the table heading is not marked correctly, make the appropriate correction.

CONCLUSION

Regretfully, the paper cannot be accepted in its present form. The authors of the present article have to correct the issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have only slightly improved the manuscript since some of the most relevant comments have not been addressed appropriately. Moreover, the changes made into the revised manuscript are not marked with a different text or highlight color, so they are impossible to identify. Please refer to the previous comments:

2) A more clear reply is necessary, and a discussion to be included into the manuscript, rather than just replying with a paragraph already included in the Abstract, to provide evidence of the problem causes.

3) These references are still not adequate and appropriately commented in the Introduction.

4) Although mG may be used, maybe uT or T may be more appropriate. This Unit refers to magnetic field strength, not electromagnetic field.

5) You have to demonstrate by clear references that the maximum field of 0.3 mG still holds.

6) It seems that no discussion and the figures are included into the revised manuscript

7) Same as before.

8) Adding more points to the plot will demonstrate the validity of your method. Without this additional data, your conclusions are not adequately supported. This is a must-to-do issue.

9) You didn't explain the reason for having a so long cable (200m?). Also, any discussion on this should be included into the manuscript.

10) Reply not satisfactory, and no discussion included into the paper.

11) Reply not satisfactory, no discussion included into the paper, and no evidence (simulation or measurement data) supporting your statement ("If the electric current were increased, the shielding efficiency and the EMI reinforcement would be more significant") is provided.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

See attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf