Next Article in Journal
Design Optimization Methodology for Diversion Structure with Concrete Cofferdam Using Risk-Based Least-Cost Design Method
Next Article in Special Issue
Design of an S/X-Band Single-Layer Shared-Aperture Array Antenna Using a Mutual Complementary Configuration
Previous Article in Journal
Pulsed Thermography Dataset for Training Deep Learning Models
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Closed-Loop Devices on Omnidirectional Beam Patterns Radiated from WAVE Monopole Antennas
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Conductive Ink Printed Fabric Antenna with Aperture Feeding Technique

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(5), 2902; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13052902
by Philip Ayiku Dzagbletey and Jae-Young Chung *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(5), 2902; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13052902
Submission received: 28 January 2023 / Revised: 20 February 2023 / Accepted: 21 February 2023 / Published: 24 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Collection Electromagnetic Antennas for HF, VHF, and UHF Band Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of this paper reported screen-printed and inkjet-printed conductive fabric antennas. This work was done with good effort; however, the authors should put their work in context and compare it with other similar work, I recommend the paper to be accepted. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comment

Kindly find attached our comments in the author notes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1.    “Simulated S11 was recorded 208 at 2.38 to 2.42 GHz (40 MHz) and 2.39 to 2.46 GHz for measured results at -10dB S11.”, Correct it.

2.    Explain the method of measurement related to radiation efficiency gain.

3.    The all simulated parameters (gain, radiation efficiencies, front-to-back ratio, etc.) related to proposed antenna should be compared by measured. Also put the snap shot of measurement.

4.    Author should add recent papers. Improve the comparison table by adding recent papers.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. Please find attached the pdf of our response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In Fig. 10, the Measurement results are better than the simulation data, which is not normal. Why? Please comment on the issue.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. Please find attached our response note.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop