Interference of Echo-Signals from Two Buried Spherical Targets
and Kirill S. Safronov 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please add some comments to the results and strongly develop the
"Discussion" section and add a "Conclusion" section.
Please look at the attached file for detailed comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
/
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article quantifies and models the backscattered field of two spherical targets embedded in underwater sediment. It is expected to provide more accurate and effective theoretical basis for research in related fields. But in general, there are still some problems that need to be revised before the publication of this article.
(1) Ideally, the structure of the abstract we expect should conform to the IMRaD format, which includes four parts: the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. If possible, the authors should provide a structured abstract in the revised manuscripts requested.
(2) This article mainly introduces the formal function of sound scattering, which involves a lot of derivation processes, including a large number of formulas. The author should carefully examine each formula to ensure that its format is correct and its meaning is explained clearly.
(3) In the Section 5 Discussion, the conclusion of the article was not directly presented, which affects the reading of the article. The author should reorganize this chapter to provide a clearer overall conclusion of the article.
(4) In the introduction section, there are too few documents in the past 5 years, which indicates that the practical significance of the article is insufficient. The author should update the references section to make the research of this method more convincing.
(5) The author only mentioned in the introduction that previous researchs have not yet studied buried scatterers, but did not involve a practical significance of this article. The author should reconsider this aspect and make corresponding modifications.
(6) It seems that the discussion only summarized the experimental results and do not provide a description. The author should intuitively provide the contribution and conclusion of this article.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting. But I miss its connection to reality. Of course, looking for objects in the mud under the bottom, without flushing, is intriguing - but why should two spheres be sought? If we were looking for a ship, would two screws be more interesting?
In my opinion, the intuitively interpretable description of a complex of scattering objects (according to Figure 1) are the parameters a, b, d. The description of the location of the monitoring station is defined by the z i y plotted. And then the publication reads pleasantly.
Reading publication I have a some trouble to compare echo-signals from one and from two spherical scatterers. Can you improve text and figures? For example figure 3 looks at first glance as two scatterers, but there is one. Figure 5 gives the distance between scatterers in an acceptable but not intuitive way. I would like to see d parameter from figure 1.
Details:
Is d in eq (3) is the same as in figure 1?
Indicate the dimensions of the axle on the drawings
Figs. 6-9 require legends (I know there is description in the drawing caption)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have provided the main answers requested. Detailed physical and mathematical analysis of the simulated oscillations would have greatly enriched the paper. The paper has been enhanced.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank the authors for their efforts. The authors have adequately addressed all my concerns in the review, and did a good job to revise and improve the paper. The paper now is suitable for publication in Acoustics in its current form.
OK
