| 查看: 1099 | 回复: 3 | |||
| 【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 gujianhun 的 5 个金币 | |||
[交流]
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility的返回意见，大家帮忙看看希望多大
|
|||
|
Manuscript ID TEMC-163-2015 entitled "Nonlinear Behavior Immunity modeling of LDO voltage Regulator under conducted EMI" which you submitted to the Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, has been reviewed by the TEMC editorial review board and found to be not acceptable without major revisions. It is recommended that you revise your paper and resubmit it in accordance with the editorial review board comments given below. Please provide written responses to the reviewer comments along with the revised manuscript. To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/temc-ieee and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision. You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or colored text. Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center. When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s). IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission. TEMC policy requires your revised manuscript to be returned within three months. After this date, the manuscript will be considered as a new submission. Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility and I look forward to receiving your revision. Sincerely, Dr. Farhad Rachidi Editor in Chief, Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility Farhad.Rachidi@epfl.ch Associate Editor: Kim, Joungho Comments to the Author: (There are no comments. Please check to see if comments were included as a file attachment with this e-mail or as an attachment in your Author Center.) Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author 1. What is your immunity model, please explain it in detail. 2. How did you get the formula (8) ? 3. How did you get the simulation and measurement results as shown in Fig. 16? And what is the relationship between Fig.16 and your immunity model? 4. At the end of left column of page 5, the last sentence "The expression of B_element output can be obtained in (14)", where is equation (14)? Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author The topic is not new and it has been widely treated as cited in the references. However, the paper can be interesting to engineers dealing with immunity problems in non-linear electronic circuits. Unfortunately, the paper suffers from some weaknesses in the given explanations, as indicated hereunder. Globally, section III part A should be deepened with more explanations on how transfer functions are calculated. Some figures lack of annotations. -in fig. 8, a line is missing on the figure: the power transistor is not driven actually! -p4, in the paragraph under formula (1) Ro and RL have been omitted in the text and in fig.7. -The explanations of the open loop transfer function lack of accuracy ; the bode plot of fig.9 should be discussed more clearly, and the plotting should be anotated. Hemi should be defined by the ratio of quantities indicated in figure 7 or 8. -the comparison between fig.9 and 10 is quite difficult, the first is supposed to be plotted in log scale but not the other. Moreover the scales of the axes are not indicated in both curves. Actually, a full scheme of the prototype should be added in order the reader could understand easily where are the quantities involved in the discussions. Last paragraph of left column in p.5: the family name of Etienne is SICARD, add it please, and cite an adequate reference related to B_element. The way how the parameters (8) of the B_element have been adjusted is not convincing: adjusting parameters to match with experiments is always possible (by increasing the number of parameters ) but has not prediction value ! Can these parameters be extracted apart in a specifically dedicated test bench, using a benchmark protocole? Why the simulation model of the inductor fig.14 c) shows multiple resonances and anti-resonances while the measured curve not? Although the general tendency was respected, the comparative curves in fig.16 show significant differences in 200-300MHz range. Beyond 500MHz, the prediction is under the real immunity curve, what is not satisfying. These behaviors should be discussed and analyzed in order to improve the prediction model of immunity. Please, indicate how to do. 第一次投，前辈给看看，万分感谢！没有金币，只能发交流帖，真诚感谢了。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
0857调剂
已经有5人回复
-
欢迎采矿、地质、岩土、计算机、人工智能等专业的同学报考
已经有5人回复
-
279求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
284求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
材料复试调剂
已经有4人回复
-
本子写完了，给DS兄弟看了，得了92分
已经有7人回复
-
求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
材料学硕318求调剂
已经有13人回复
-
一志愿郑大材料学硕298分，求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
材料化工调剂
已经有13人回复
2楼2015-08-06 02:10:33
3楼2015-08-08 13:28:10
4楼2015-08-09 16:39:28
10