Design of High-Order Resonator HTS Diplexer with Very Different FBW

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript, the SIR structures are employed in the proposed circuit. The analysis of the coupling between the resonators is presented thoroughly. However, some shortcomings can be seen in the manuscript in regards to some data descriptions and text. Listed below are some suggestions.

1. Please do not confuse the word diplexer (L14) with duplexer (L16). In the manuscript, the two terms are mistakenly used interchangeably, which isn’t appropriate. From the structure illustrated in Fig. 1 and the overall specification of the circuit listed in Table 4, the circuit is categorized as diplexer, not duplexer.
2. Please define abbreviations at first mention. The term “ YBCO/MGO/YBCO” in L16 is not clearly defined.

3. The center frequencies (30MHz and 800MHz) of the two passbands that shown in L18 are totally different from the data (~2.4 GHz and 2.9GHz) listed in Table 1 and Table 4. In addition, the return losses stated in L20 are not quite the same as the data listed in Table 4.

4. In L15, “two 12-order HTS filters” is mentioned as the major backbone of the proposed circuit. However in L339, “ten-order Chebyshev filter” is adopted in the circuit. Which one of the two is correct?

5. Is the “fractional bandwidth” in L331 the same as the “related bandwidth” in L18? Please clarify it!

Author Response

Dear  reviewer,

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript with an opportunity to address the comments.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (AUTHOR RESPONSE) and (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting with tracked changes (REVISED MANUSCRIPT).

 

Best regards.

Liguo Zhou

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Its is difficult to find what is the novelty in this manuscript. 

It's a working device, as shown by measurements, but not much more than that.

It's hard to understand how close the measured data is from the simulated.

Measured data should be on the same plot, so it can be easily compared.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript with an opportunity to address the comments.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (AUTHOR RESPONSE) and (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting with tracked changes (REVISED MANUSCRIPT).

 

Best regards.

Liguo Zhou

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to the authors:

1. The authors should add more explanation about new techniques, main contribution and difference between the proposed method and the existing ones.

2. The reference list should be updated with new references.

3. Some equations in this paper should be cited appropriately

4. In equations (4a) and (4b), please define the operator @.

5. “Figure 11. The layout of the HTS duplexer” should be placed at the same page with the figure.

6. The conclusion section should be improved with discussion/recommendation about the obtained results or useful design.

7. The authors should carefully check all the typos and grammatical errors in this paper.   

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript with an opportunity to address the  comments.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (AUTHOR RESPONSE), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting with tracked changes (REVISED MANUSCRIPT).

 

Best regards.

Liguo Zhou

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments for the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version is more solid in technique and contribution. The Reviewer have no further comment.