Next Article in Journal
Towards Secure and Intelligent Internet of Health Things: A Survey of Enabling Technologies and Applications
Previous Article in Journal
A V2G Enabled Bidirectional Single/Three-Phase EV Charging Interface Using Modular Multilevel Buck PFC Rectifier
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Wideband High-Gain Dipole with Impedance and Field Control Structures

Electronics 2022, 11(12), 1892; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11121892
by Honglin Zhang 1,*, Haiquan Zhong 1, Jianhao Ye 1, Shaowei Liao 1 and Bing Li 2,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Electronics 2022, 11(12), 1892; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11121892
Submission received: 21 May 2022 / Revised: 11 June 2022 / Accepted: 13 June 2022 / Published: 16 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Microwave and Wireless Communications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors describe a novel dipole antenna utilizing coaxial sleeves at the feed points to improve impedance matching bandwidth, and a bathtub-shaped shroud to improve wideband boresight gain.

The paper is essentially empirical, presenting numerous simulations to optimize dimensional parameters and describing the outcomes of those simulations. Nevertheless, the results are good and the design goals achieved.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

Comment:

The authors describe a novel dipole antenna utilizing coaxial sleeves at the feed points to improve impedance matching bandwidth, and a bathtub-shaped shroud to improve wideband boresight gain.The paper is essentially empirical, presenting numerous simulations to optimize dimensional parameters and describing the outcomes of those simulations. Nevertheless, the results are good and the design goals achieved.

Answer:

We are appreciated for your approval, and your hard work on this paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the abstract the realized average gain of 11.8 dBi is claimed, in the conclusions a 12.4 dBi broadside gain (presumably simulated), and 10.6 dBi as tested result.  Please clarify the difference in the abstract.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

Comment:

In the abstract the realized average gain of 11.8 dBi is claimed, in the conclusions a 12.4 dBi broadside gain (presumably simulated), and 10.6 dBi as tested result. Please clarify the difference in the abstract.

Answer:

We are appreciated for your thoughtful advice and your hard work on this paper. According to your advice, we clarify that the different gain value in abstract and conclusion. The gain mentioned in this paper value is the antenna’s gain in the boresight direction. The gain value of 11.8 dBi in the abstract refers to the simulated averaged realized gain. The gain values of 12.4 dBi and 10.6 dBi in the conclusion refer to the simulated maximum gain and measured averaged realized gain, respectively.Correction:The combination of the two structures creates a wideband high-gain dipole that features an average simulated boresight realized gain of 11.8 dBi in the impedance bandwidth of 64.8%.This paper has presented the simulation results to show that a bent dipole achieves a maximum boresight gain of 12.4 dBi broadside gain and an impedance bandwidth from 4.9 GHz to 9.4 GHz. In the frequency band, the antenna’s boresight gain is 11.8 dBi on average. Results have illustrated that the proposed double-sleeve matching structure and the bathtub reflecting cavity ensure the wideband impedance matching and the high gain performance, respectively. The tested results have verified the antenna’s measured fractional bandwidth is 63% from 4.78 GHz to 9.43 GHz and the measured averaged gain value in the bandwidth is 10.6 dBi. Because the proposed antenna possesses high gain values in a wide frequency band with a relatively simple structure, it is suitable for various wideband and long-range wireless applications.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting and can be accepted, but a few points should be applied. Introduction is very poorly written.

 

The impedance is only given in Figure 3 and is not analyzed.

 

The simulation part of the experimental is not decomposable.

 

There is no analysis frame in the form of impedances for the reader.

 

How did you measure Gain?

 

Figure 9 is not clearly explained.

Author Response

We deeply appreciate the reviewer for his/her thoughtful comments. With your precious advice, we made several major revisions to the paper. Because there are figures and equations in our reply, we uploaded a word file as our response to the reviewer. Please check the uploaded file to see our reply. Thank you!

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The changes are added. I accept this manuscript.

Back to TopTop