Three-Dimensional Broadband Electric Field Sensor Based on Integrated Lithium Niobate on Insulator
, Bao Sun *, Zhiyao Zhang, Shangjian Zhang and Yong Liu
Miao Lu
Shifeng Yu
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript of “Three-dimensional broadband electric field sensor Based on Integrated Lithium Niobate on insulator” exhibits an electric field sensor on lithium niobate on insulator and 3D measurement was realized by packing three sensor chips in a triangular-prism-type clamp. Experimentally, the relative error less than 5.1% for every polarization direction in the range of 10 MHz to 3GHz was demonstrated. This work enriches the strategy of realizing compact 3D broadband electric field sensor.
1. One of the main conclusions of the manuscript is “After calibration, the relative measurement error of the electric field amplitude is smaller than 5.1% for every polarization direction.” (Line 205-206), However, the result is derived by compare the output of the sensor with “The theoretical amplitude vector” (Line 171), As a standard method, the output of the proposed sensor was normally compared with the results form a standard sensor to deduce the error, NOT the theoretical result. Please address. 2. I don’t found the fabrication information and the structural parameters of the sensor chip shown in Fig. 1.3. In Fig.4a, the electric field measurement system was shown seemly only to measure one of the three sensor chips. How does it work for 3D measurement?
Author Response
We would like to thank all the reviewer for careful review and constructive comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors introduced a 3D electric field sensing scheme is proposed and experimentally demonstrated it based on integrated lithium niobate on insulator (LNOI) platform. Overall, the idea is interesting, and the writing is clean. Yet, there are some comments need to be addressed before any further consideration. 1, the authors used a lot of abbreviations in the paper, some are quite confusing, lacking proper introduction. For example, EPS, TEM, what are they stand for? 2, While the authors noticed the interactions between different sensor unit, the further discussion is missed in this paper. So why there are interactions? what the factors that affect the values of those coefficients? coefficients like a31=924 while a13 =0, Solid study is definitely needed to explain these. 3, Further optimization of the relative positions and angles of the 3 sensor chips is recommended to cancel the interaction among the sensors to achieve mutually orthometric.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for careful review and constructive comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Additional English editing is recommended before final submission
