Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Design and Analysis of the Composite Stability Control of the Reflective Optoelectronic Platform

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(10), 6064; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106064

by Keyan He^*,†

, Junxun Huang^†, Huajie Hong^†

and Xiangda Yan^†

Reviewer 1:

Wilian Pech-Rodríguez

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Faiz B. Arith

Reviewer 4:

Hock Jin Quah

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(10), 6064; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106064

Submission received: 15 April 2023 / Revised: 7 May 2023 / Accepted: 12 May 2023 / Published: 15 May 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Keyan He et al., (Design and Analysis of the Composite Stability Control of the Reflective Optoelectronic Platform) proposed the composite control system for reflective optoelectronic platforms. The authors achieve theoretical and experimental validation of the adopted method.

Comment 1:

The abstract is too general. The author needs to add relevant information such as the precision stability, advantages over other methods, the effect of uncertain parameters, etc.

Comment 2:

It is unclear to the readers what is the benefits of this method compared to others reported in the literature. What are the challenges of the proposed method concerning others?

Comment 3:

The introduction section needs to be improved by considering relevant and newest references (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2021.06.020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2020.166132, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12051261, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-023-08277-1, https://doi.org/10.3390/s23063182, Active disturbance rejection control for optoelectronic stabilized platform based on model-assisted double extended state observers, etc).

Comment 4.

The novelty of the work needs to be highlighted.

Comment 5.

The section “the preparation of system motion” needs to be improved because it is not easy to read.

Comment 6.

Check the grammar structure of the complete manuscript; there is room for improvement.

Comment 7.

Modify equations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 by adding parenthesis to the sin and cos function: sin(), cos().

Comment 8.

In the section “problem description” the author must further explain the assumptions.

Comment 9.

Please modify Table 1 by comparing the results with the literature (https://doi.org/10.3390/s23063182 and others).

Comment 10.

Please add the limitation and future work.

Check the grammar structure of the complete manuscript; there is room for improvement.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 1’s comments

The authors truly appreciate your comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Design and Analysis of the Composite Stability Control of the Reflective Optoelectronic Platform" (2374940). Based on the valuable and helpful comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to improve the quality of the paper. All improvements/correction in the manuscript are marked in the manuscript by using yellow color, and we do hope the revised manuscript could meet the standards of Applied Science.

The detailed responses to the your comments are as follows, and please contact us if you still have any question about the paper.

(1) The abstract is too general. The author needs to add relevant information such as the precision stability, advantages over other methods, the effect of uncertain parameters, etc.

Response:

We have rewritten the abstract according to your request and analyzed the superiority of this method compared to other methods, the improvement effect of stable accuracy, and specific improvement data.

(2) It is unclear to the readers what is the benefits of this method compared to others reported in the literature. What are the challenges of the proposed method concerning others?

Response:

At the end of the introduction section, we added an explanation of the superiority of our method over other methods.

(3) The introduction section needs to be improved by considering relevant and newest references (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2021.06.020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2020.166132, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12051261, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-023-08277-1, https://doi.org/10.3390/s23063182, Active disturbance rejection control for optoelectronic stabilized platform based on model-assisted double extended state observers, etc).

Response:

The above literature has been added to the text.

(4) The novelty of the work needs to be highlighted.

Response:

At the end of the introduction section, we added an explanation of the superiority of our method over other methods.

(5) The section “the preparation of system motion” needs to be improved because it is not easy to read.

Response:

This part has supplemented a large number of descriptions and pictures of kinematics relations to help readers understand.

(6) Check the grammar structure of the complete manuscript; there is room for improvement.

Response:

The grammar of the entire text has been optimized as required.

(7) Modify equations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 by adding parenthesis to the sin and cos function: sin(), cos().

Response:

Changes have been made as required

(8) In the section “problem description” the author must further explain the assumptions.

Response:

The assumptions in this section have been extensively explained.

(9) Please modify Table 1 by comparing the results with the literature (https://doi.org/10.3390/s23063182 and others).

Response:

We have added the methods of the three references you mentioned to the validation experiments and compared their performance with the methods in this paper. Other methods have not been reproduced in this paper due to their models and data not being publicly available. Please understand.

(10) Please add the limitation and future work.

Response:

We have added limitations and future prospects as required.

Best wishes!

Keyan He, Junxun Huang, Huajie Hong and Xiangda Yan.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

- In the paper, there is a gap between the modeling and the experimental part. For the reader is unclear, how the model assesses the error ranges and what are the theoretical limits of these errors. This would let to compare them with the experimentally obtained values for the anti-rotational (0.048 mkrad) and anti-flat (2.2 mkrad in azimuth, 1.9 mkrad in pitch) vibration motion disturbance. The comparison with the traditional control systems is just the comparison of the older systems but not showing the result in the context of the theoretically achievable. The reasons for that should be discussed.

- A more clear correlation between the text and the scheme is needed when reading the “…As shown in Figure 6, the mechanism with a transmission ratio of 2:1 had a rotation error of 0.1...” on Page 7.

No particular concern.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 2’s comments

The detailed responses to the your comments are as follows, and please contact us if you still have any question about the paper.

(1) In the paper, there is a gap between the modeling and the experimental part. For the reader is unclear, how the model assesses the error ranges and what are the theoretical limits of these errors. This would let to compare them with the experimentally obtained values for the anti-rotational (0.048 mkrad) and anti-flat (2.2 mkrad in azimuth, 1.9 mkrad in pitch) vibration motion disturbance. The comparison with the traditional control systems is just the comparison of the older systems but not showing the result in the context of the theoretically achievable. The reasons for that should be discussed.

Response:

At the end of section 2.3 of the revised version, we have provided a detailed explanation of the definition and acquisition method of the error range, defined its calculation formula (7), and explained in detail the connection between the above definition explanation and the analysis content of this paper. Please refer to it.

(2) A more clear correlation between the text and the scheme is needed when reading the “…As shown in Figure 6, the mechanism with a transmission ratio of 2:1 had a rotation error of 0.1...” on Page 7.

Response:

At the end of section 4.1 of the revised version, we provided a detailed explanation of the overall simulation model of the system, as well as the correlation between each module and other analysis content in this paper. Please refer to it.

Best wishes!

Keyan He, Junxun Huang, Huajie Hong and Xiangda Yan.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript introduces a composite stability control for the high-precision stability of a visual axis (LOS) optical detector. This work combines theoretical studies with the following experiments to further strengthen the proposed method, which is found to be very interesting and convincing. However, after reading the article carefully, we have concluded that the article has shown effort. However, it still needs some changes before it is ready to be published.

1. In the abstract section, please describe the results obtained quantitatively and the improvements that have been achieved.

2. For the experiments analysis section, please state how many measurements have been conducted. To be statistically acceptable, 5 measurements with different samples/measurements are required. Then, please include the error bars in Table 1.

3. Please redraw Figure 7 with the appropriate font size and in the space provided. The font size in the figure should be almost similar as the text.

Please check the grammar and sentence structure as a whole. In addition, values and units should be spaced, and make sure the spelling of each word is correct.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 3’s comments

The detailed responses to the your comments are as follows, and please contact us if you still have any question about the paper.

(1) In the abstract section, please describe the results obtained quantitatively and the improvements that have been achieved.

Response:

(2) For the experiments analysis section, please state how many measurements have been conducted. To be statistically acceptable, 5 measurements with different samples/measurements are required. Then, please include the error bars in Table 1.

Response:

In the experimental validation section of the revised version, we emphasized that each method has been repeatedly validated more than 5 times, using the average value to measure the performance of the method. All experimental results are listed in the new Table 1.

(3) Please redraw Figure 7 with the appropriate font size and in the space provided. The font size in the figure should be almost similar as the text.

Response:

We have made modifications to this picture as required.

Best wishes!

Keyan He, Junxun Huang, Huajie Hong and Xiangda Yan.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Ms. Ref. No.: applsci-2374940

Title: Design and Analysis of the Composite Stability Control of the Reflective Optoelectronic Platform

Article type: Full Length Article

Reviewer's Comments:

(1) I would suggest the authors to avoid using the word “We, Us” in the write up.

(2) In section 2.3, the authors have provided a list of assumptions in this work. Is it possible for the authors to provide citations on assumptions being taken into consideration in this work.

(3) The authors mentioned about ZEPTC, XPC real-time simulation method, optimized adaptive Kalman filtering method, and high-speed target tracking method in the introduction, I would suggest the authors to provide comparison between the results obtained in this work with these methods.

(4) The authors can consider to provide more information about ZEPTC, XPC real-time simulation method, optimized adaptive Kalman filtering method, and high-speed target tracking in the introduction and why the current work will provide benifical effects when compared with other methods.

(5) Please refer to link 281 as there is some error.

(6) I noticed that there are quite a number of references referring to publish thesis. Is it possible for the authors to look for the published manuscript from this thesis? I would suggest the authors to provide more references from published journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 4’s comments

The detailed responses to the your comments are as follows, and please contact us if you still have any question about the paper.

(1) I would suggest the authors to avoid using the word “We, Us” in the write up.

Response:

We have made modifications to the subject of the article sentences as required.

(2) In section 2.3, the authors have provided a list of assumptions in this work. Is it possible for the authors to provide citations on assumptions being taken into consideration in this work.

Response:

We have provided detailed explanations and citations for the assumptions in this section as required.

Response:

In section 4.2.3 of the paper, we provide comparative results between our method and other methods and list experimental results data.

Response:

At the end of the introduction section of the revised version, we have added explanations for the reasons for using these methods as comparison objects. Please review.

(5) Please refer to link 281 as there is some error.

Response:

This error has been corrected.

Response:

All thesis have been replaced with relevant journal papers.

Best wishes!

Keyan He, Junxun Huang, Huajie Hong and Xiangda Yan.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

no comments the authors address all the issues.

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

In this manuscript, the authors have proposed a composite stabilization technology of overall stability and reflector stability, aiming at the problem of high-precision stability of the LOS of the optical detector. The experimental results showed that the composite stabilization mechanism could effectively improve the stabilization accuracy of the system in terms of suppressing the fixed-frequency rotation disturbance and flat vibration disturbance. This topic is interesting and the work can provide reference for the development of new products of high-precision optoelectronic stabilization platform. The main results are clearly presented. In my opinion, this paper can be accepted to be published in Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Thank you for your understanding and support.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the composite stability control system of the reflective optoelectronic platforms is designed to improve the Line of Sight (LOS) stability precision. The study is interesting and practical. However there exist some expository short comings as detailed in the follows. 1) In Fig1(b), where is optical detector put? Could you please show it in the Fig1(b)? 2) in Line 190-191 “the two-axis stabilization error amplitude is about 1.6µrad”, and “0.024µrad”, how to get the value “1.6µrad” “0.024µrad”, could you please explain it in Fig9 and Fig. 10? The same is the explanation of “3.5µrad” “3.0µrad” in the Line 199-201.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 2’s comments

The authors truly appreciate your comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Design and Analysis of the Composite Stability Control of the Reflective Optoelectronic Platform" (2011431). Based on the valuable and helpful comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to improve the quality of the paper. All improvements/correction in the manuscript are marked in the manuscript by using yellow color, and we do hope the revised manuscript could meet the standards of Applied Science.

The detailed responses to the your comments are as follows, and please contact us if you still have any question about the paper.

(1) In this paper, the composite stability control system of the reflective optoelectronic platforms is designed to improve the Line of Sight (LOS) stability precision. The study is interesting and practical. However there exist some expository short comings as detailed in the follows. 1) In Fig1(b), where is optical detector put? Could you please show it in the Fig1(b)?

Response:

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions. We have added the optical detector to the Fig 1(b) in the revised manuscript as required.

2) in Line 190-191 “the two-axis stabilization error amplitude is about 1.6µrad”, and “0.024µrad”, how to get the value “1.6µrad” “0.024µrad”, could you please explain it in Fig9 and Fig. 10? The same is the explanation of “3.5µrad” “3.0µrad” in the Line 199-201.

Response:

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions. We have added the optical detector to the Fig 1(b) in the revised manuscript as required.

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions. We have deleted the blur expressions of “amplitude” and “peak error”, and replaced those to “error range”, which means the value ranges of the results. Furthermore, the Fig. 9 to Fig.12 are all modified by adding the explanation of those values.

We tried our best to improve the quality of the manuscript and many changes were made. These changes were listed and marked in yellow in the revised paper. We sincerely appreciate for your hard work, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes!

Keyan He, Junxun Huang, Huajie Hong and Xiangda Yan.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

My overall assessment is based on the following topics:

- The novelty of the article should be better presented in both the abstract and the introduction.

- The whole section 2 should be better referenced. Method comparison with others should be demonstrated.

- The authors should compare their results with others in the literature, starting their presentation by validating the method and the experimental set-up with other results

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 3’s comments

The authors truly appreciate your comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Design and Analysis of the Composite Stability Control of the Reflective Optoelectronic Platform" (2011431). Based on the valuable and helpful comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to improve the quality of the paper. All improvements/correction in the manuscript are marked in the manuscript by using yellow color, and we do hope the revised manuscript could meet the standards of Applied Science.

The detailed responses to your comments are as follows, and please contact us if you still have any question about the paper.

(1) The novelty of the article should be better presented in both the abstract and the introduction.

Response:

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestion.

We have added the innovative description of this paper in both the abstract and introduction, and compared it with other classical control methods to highlight the differences and improvements in this study. Please see these changes in the revised manuscript.

(2) The whole section 2 should be better referenced. Method comparison with others should be demonstrated.

Response:

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestion.

We have added the innovative description of this paper in the introduction part, and compared it with other classical control methods to highlight the differences and improvements in this study. The whole part has been almost rewritten. Please see these changes in the revised manuscript.

(3) The authors should compare their results with others in the literature, starting their presentation by validating the method and the experimental set-up with other results.

Response:

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestion.

We have added the innovative description of this paper in the literature review part, and compared it with other classical control methods to highlight the differences and improvements in this study. The whole part has been almost rewritten. In the part of experimental verification, the performance comparison with other classical methods is added to illustrate the progress and improvement made in this study. Please see these changes in the revised manuscript.

Best wishes!

Keyan He, Junxun Huang, Huajie Hong and Xiangda Yan.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors describe a method to improve the stability precision of an optical device for detection and track of objects.

I have found the manuscript reading very difficult. The main problem authors attempt to address is barely drawn. Figures are poorly discussed and do not report the angular parameter mostly discussed in the manuscript. The model introduced is unclear and makes very difficult to understand the goal of authors. The manuscript should be rewritten from bottom up.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 4’s comments

The authors truly appreciate your comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Design and Analysis of the Composite Stability Control of the Reflective Optoelectronic Platform" (2011431). Based on the valuable and helpful comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to improve the quality of the paper. All improvements/correction in the manuscript are marked in the manuscript by using yellow color, and we do hope the revised manuscript could meet the standards of Applied Science.

The detailed responses to your comments are as follows, and please contact us if you still have any question about the paper.

(1) Authors describe a method to improve the stability precision of an optical device for detection and track of objects.

Response:

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestion. We have seriously considered your suggestions and made repeated major revisions to the article from the following aspects:

Improved English expression, many unclear and vague expressions were abandoned, and clear definitions and expressions were used instead.
As for the stability precision index, since the definition of the comparison precision index commonly used in the industry is the mean value of the absolute angular velocity of the final visual axis changing over time, this paper uses the change of angular velocity over time as the final source of error calculation. If we want an angle value, we just integrate the angular velocity and can easily get it. Please understand.
Clearer explanations and explanations are added to the chart of experimental verification results to facilitate readers' understanding.
We have added the innovative description of this paper in both the abstract and introduction, and compared it with other classical control methods to highlight the differences and improvements in this study. The whole introduction part has been almost rewritten. Please see these changes in the revised manuscript.
In the part of experimental verification, the performance comparison with other classical methods is added to illustrate the progress and improvement made in this study.

Best wishes!

Keyan He, Junxun Huang, Huajie Hong and Xiangda Yan.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

My overall recomendation is based on the following topics:

- Even after asking the authors to report the novelty of the article, there are issues that have not been remedied. For example, I asked for section 2 and 3 to be referenced so that I can compare it with other authors. There is not a single reference. It is necessary that the authors compare the methodology applied with others and to present the problem with references (hence the request for references). I am not able to analyse the authors' work if the methodology is not referenced (even if it is totally novel).

- In the abstract it is, in my point of view, necessary to present results (namely quantitative), in order to show the novelty found.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 3’s comments

The authors truly appreciate your comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Design and Analysis of the Composite Stability Control of the Reflective Optoelectronic Platform" (2011431). Based on the valuable and helpful comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to improve the quality of the paper. All improvements/correction in the manuscript are marked in the manuscript by using yellow color, and we do hope the revised manuscript could meet the standards of Applied Science.

The detailed responses to your comments are as follows, and please contact us if you still have any question about the paper.

Even after asking the authors to report the novelty of the article, there are issues that have not been remedied. For example, I asked for section 2 and 3 to be referenced so that I can compare it with other authors. There is not a single reference. It is necessary that the authors compare the methodology applied with others and to present the problem with references (hence the request for references). I am not able to analyse the authors' work if the methodology is not referenced (even if it is totally novel).

Response:

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestion.

We cite those literature in Part 2,3, which illustrates the relationship between our model and theirs, as well as our improvements. Please see these changes in the revised manuscript.

Best wishes!

Keyan He, Junxun Huang, Huajie Hong and Xiangda Yan.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Article Menu

Design and Analysis of the Composite Stability Control of the Reflective Optoelectronic Platform

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI