Electronically Adjustable Multiphase Sinusoidal Oscillator with High-Output Impedance at Output Current Nodes Using VDCCs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this work, the authors presented a proposed current-mode MSO utilizing VDCC-based lossy integrators without an additional amplifier. The frequency of oscillation is electronically tuned without impacting the oscillation condition. The validity of the proposed circuit has been illustrated by Pspice simulation. Further, the feasibility of the proposed MSO has been verified with experiments. The manuscript contains useful work and can be published after major revision. Here are some comments:
1. The analysis presented in Equations (1) and (2) is already given in REF [34]. So, authors are required to cite the relevant references.
2. Also, as Figure 2 represents a well-known Internal construction of CMOS VDCC, I recommend removing this figure from the manuscript and put it in a separate supplementary materials file.
3. Authors are required to revise the figure captions, for instance; Figure 11. Simulated vs theoretical FO by varying IB.
4. Some figures need modifications: Figure 11 x-axis (µA) instead of (uA)
5. The number of figures is not adequate for a research article. I recommend combining some figures together. Also, some figures are published in the literature; so, they can be removed, and authors can collect such figures in a supplementary materials file.
6. It is required to comment on some issues like performance limitations at high frequencies, limited operating range and low voltage swing, …etc. it is recommended to highlight whether the proposed technique alleviate such problems or not.
7. It is required to give a short note about the future work that can be extended from this manuscript.
8. The conclusion should be rewritten to include some quantitative results.
Author Response
We thank your editor and reviewer for giving us valuable comments and suggestions for revision and clarification, enabling the resubmission of our paper for publication. We acknowledge the imperfections in the original manuscript, which are now corrected thanks to the reviewer’s rigorousness.
We have reflected all the reviewers' comments and suggestions in this revised manuscript with our best effort. You can find the details on how we have addressed the comments and suggestions in the text below. We sincerely hope that this revision will meet your requirements for publication.
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Point 1: The analysis presented in Equations (1) and (2) is already given in REF [34]. So, authors are required to cite the relevant references.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. REF [37] (Ref. [34] from the previous version) has been cited in Equations (1) and (2).
Point 2: Also, as Figure 2 represents a well-known Internal construction of CMOS VDCC, I recommend removing this figure from the manuscript and put it in a separate supplementary materials file.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. The internal CMOS construction in Figure 2 has been removed.
Point 3: Authors are required to revise the figure captions, for instance; Figure 11. Simulated vs theoretical FO by varying IB.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. Some figure captions have been revised.
Point 4: Some figures need modifications: Figure 11 x-axis (µA) instead of (uA).
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. Some figures have undergone modifications to improve their correctness. In some figures, the x-axis (uA) has been replaced by (µA) (micro Amp).
Point 5: The number of figures is not adequate for a research article. I recommend combining some figures together. Also, some figures are published in the literature; so, they can be removed, and authors can collect such figures in a supplementary materials file.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. Some figures for the simulated and experimental results have been combined. Also, some figures form previous published papers have been removed.
Point 6: It is required to comment on some issues like performance limitations at high frequencies, limited operating range and low voltage swing, …etc. it is recommended to highlight whether the proposed technique alleviate such problems or not.
Response 6: Thank you for your comment. The limitation at high frequencies causes from the parasitic elements and this issue is discussed below Eq. (18) as follows: “The limitation at high frequencies is mainly caused by this pole. According to CMOS VDCC construction, the parasitic parameters are as follows: RP = 4.38 TΩ, CP = 0.034 pF, RN = 4.3875 TΩ, CN = 0.0344 pF, RZ = 229.426 kΩ, CZ = 0.025 pF, RWP = 186.658 kΩ, CWP = 0.0105 pF, RWN = 175.278 kΩ, CWN = 0.022 pF. At R2 = 2 kΩ, the frequency of the second pole is approximately 1.44 GHz. From Equation (18), to enhance the frequency of the second pole, R2 should be set to a low value.”. For amplitude stabilization, the resistor R1 can be easily realized from a photoresistor. This device is a part of the 3WK16341 (optocoupler with photoresistor). We have added this detail in the revised manuscript.
Point 7: It is required to give a short note about the future work that can be extended from this manuscript.
Response 7: Thank you for your comment. The three-phase sinusoidal oscillator is used to produce directly the generator magnetomotive forces. We have added this detail in the revised manuscript. Also, this paper has been cited. B. Kaplan and D. Kottick, "Use of a three-phase oscillator model for the compact representation of synchronous generators," IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 19, pp. 1480-1486, 1983.
Point 8: The conclusion should be rewritten to include some quantitative results.
Response 8: Some quantitative results have been added in the conclusion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments:
1. The novelty is not good. The present manuscript with no comprehensive knowledge of the topic. Thus, I strongly recommend the authors to carefully revise this manuscript.
2. Furthermore, the quality of Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections are not good. I strongly recommend the authors to carefully revise these sections.
3. In Table 1. Comparison of relevant MSO section, more classic materials and related references should be mentioned.
4. The Figures are unaesthetic. I strongly recommend the authors to check the all figures and make beautiful.
5. The authors should make a comparison with the results in recent publications in Simulation Results section.
6. Finally, there are some grammar mistakes and confusing sentences in the manuscript. The authors need to be corrected. Thorough editing by at least one person with extensive experience in this area is required.
Author Response
We thank your editor and reviewer for giving us valuable comments and suggestions for revision and clarification, enabling the resubmission of our paper for publication. We acknowledge the imperfections in the original manuscript, which are now corrected thanks to the reviewer’s rigorousness.
We have reflected all the reviewers' comments and suggestions in this revised manuscript with our best effort. You can find the details on how we have addressed the comments and suggestions in the text below. We sincerely hope that this revision will meet your requirements for publication.
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Point 1: The novelty is not good. The present manuscript with no comprehensive knowledge of the topic. Thus, I strongly recommend the authors to carefully revise this manuscript.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We made every effort to address the points raised by the reviewers appropriately. The comparison with related publications in table 1 is shown to highlight the advantage features of the proposed MSO. The advantage features of the proposed MSO are as follow:
- Use one ABB per phase
- No need for an additional amplifier
- Use all grounded capacitor
- Independent control of FO and CO
- Electronic tune of FO
- High impedance at output current nodes
Point 2: Furthermore, the quality of Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections are not good. I strongly recommend the authors to carefully revise these sections.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. Some quantitative results have been added to the abstract and conclusion.
Point 3: In Table 1. Comparison of relevant MSO section, more classic materials and related references should be mentioned.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The classic related papers and other MSO performances have been added to the revised manuscript.
Point 4: The Figures are unaesthetic. I strongly recommend the authors to check the all figures and make beautiful.
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. Several figures have changed to enhance their accuracy and beauty.
Point 5: The authors should make a comparison with the results in recent publications in Simulation Results section.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. The revised manuscript has added some quantitative results of the MSO performance in table 1.
Point 6: Finally, there are some grammar mistakes and confusing sentences in the manuscript. The authors need to be corrected. Thorough editing by at least one person with extensive experience in this area is required.
Response 6: The grammar mistakes have been checked and corrected in many parts of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed the raised issues.
The manuscript has been improved and I recommend it be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The response met all my concerns and this manuscript can be accepted.