Next Article in Journal
Comparing the Performance of Pivotless Tracking and Fixed-Type Floating Solar Power Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
A Compact Size Antenna for Extended UWB with WLAN Notch Band Stub
Previous Article in Journal
Performance Analysis of Reinforcement Learning Techniques for Augmented Experience Training Using Generative Adversarial Networks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simulation-Based Selection of Transmitting Antenna Type for Enhanced Loran System in Selected Location
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Design of a Wide-Bandwidth, High-Gain and Easy-to-Manufacture 2.4 GHz Floating Patch Antenna Fed with the Through-Wire Technique

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(24), 12925; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412925
by Marcos D. Fernandez 1,*, Darío Herraiz 1, David Herraiz 2, Akram Alomainy 3 and Angel Belenguer 1
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(24), 12925; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412925
Submission received: 8 November 2022 / Revised: 8 December 2022 / Accepted: 14 December 2022 / Published: 16 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Design, Analysis, and Measurement of Antennas)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present the Design of a wide bandwidth, high gain and easy to manufacture 2.4 GHz floating-patch antenna fed with the through-wire technique. The paper is well written but the structure presented is not a novelty and the contribution is not clear.
In table 2, some works are compared with only one at 2.4 GHz, it is nor enough for a comparison.
Moreover, using two pieces of Rogers substrates, in my opinion, the structure is not low cost.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Nicely written paper, yet it lacks novelty.  Serach the following keywords: suspended patch antenna, air-gap patch antenna, and metallic patch antenna.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors in this research article have presented and investigated Design of a wide bandwidth, high gain and easy to manufacture 2.4 GHz floating-patch antenna fed with the through-wire technique. The topic and concept of the paper are interesting and it includes promising results. Prior to final acceptance recommendation the authors are encouraged to address the following comments.

 

1.      Its language needs some minor modifications.

2.      Figure 6 What does the last figure justify? (radiation patern in XY plane)

3.      Reference 8 is more broadband than the antenna proposed by the authors. What advantage does the proposed antenna have over reference 8?

4.      According to the title of the article (wide bandwidth, high gain and patch antenna), the author should discuss more references about the antenna and fed miccrostrip antenna. The following resources may be helpful.

-“ Wideband linear microstrip array antenna with high efficiency and low side lobe level” Int J RF Microw Comput Aided Eng. 2020”

-  “Design of a 1*4 Microstrip Antenna Array on the Human Thigh with Gain Enhancement, IETE Journal of Research”

- “HIGH GAIN AND WIDEBAND MULTI-STACK MULTILAYER ANISOTROPIC DIELECTRIC ANTENNA, Progress In Electromagnetics Research Letters”

- “HIGH EFFICIENCY X-BAND SERIES-FED MICROSTRIP ARRAY ANTENNA, Progress In Electromagnetics Research C”

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have discussed about the feasibility study for designing a floating patch antenna structure fed with a probe from a microstrip. The authors should resolve below issues:

1.  Describe why using this specific dielectric in detail in the introduction section, however various other better materials are available.

2. Since there are various existing works related to this work, therefore to improve the quality, the authors should add a Fabrication process at this stage.

3. Author claims that a rectangular patch is better, for this, they should add some reason for this used shape of the patch.

4. Mathematical justification should be added in the manuscript to justify the simulation result. Merely simulation doesn't indicate the novelty of work.

5. For a journal paper generally references should be between 25 to 50

6. This work is not related to applied science, it is related to materials/devices, therefore, authors should add 1-2 paragraphs about the science specifically.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments were attended and the manuscript was significantly improved. In my opinion, it is now suitable for publication in the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Nicely written paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have carefully responded to the referees' comments and this article can be published in this journal.

Back to TopTop