Calibration of a Rotary Encoder and a Polygon Using a Two-Autocollimator Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to endorse the publication of this manuscript.
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report
Journal: applied sciences
Article ID: applsci-2160062
Title: Calibration of a rotary encoder and a polygon using a two-autocollimator method
Corresponding Author: Tsung-Han Hsieh
Dear Reviewer,
This letter responds to the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions. Per those comments and suggestions, we made corrections, as shown in the following pages. Many contents have been added in the revised manuscript, including:
- In the Abstract section, we modified this section by adding quantitative data.
- We separate the Discussion and Conclusions sections into two different sections.
- In the Discussion section, we compared the proposed two-autocollimator method and related previous studies described in a table.
Thank you for allowing us to improve this manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Tsung-Han Hsieh
Precision Mechanical Metrology Research Laboratory, Center for Measurement Standards, Industrial Technology Research Institute
321, Sec. 2, Kuang Fu Rd., Hsinchu, 30011, Taiwan Taiwan(R.O.C.)
Tel: 886-3-5743762
E-mail: [email protected]
2023.1.26
Comments and suggestions from the reviewer and responses from the authors
Comments and suggestions are sequentially numbered, and responses or corrections are indicated by the word “Answer” following each numbered paragraph. All the corrections and modifications are referred to in the revised manuscript and can be tracked by the “Track Changes” function of Microsoft Word.
I would like to endorse the publication of this manuscript.
Answer: Thank you for your support.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper studies calibration of a rotary encoder and a polygon, which has potential application value in engineering. In order to meet the requirements of high-quality publication of the journal, it is recommended to consider the following suggestions,
1) There is no quantitative data in Abstract Section.
2) The number of keywords is too small.
3) In the first section, a table should be added to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of previous literature research.
4) There is an obvious defect in the paper that it is not compared with other studies.
5) The discussion needs to be divided into a separate section.
6) There is no quantitative data in the Conclusion Section.
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report
Journal: applied sciences
Article ID: applsci-2160062
Title: Calibration of a rotary encoder and a polygon using a two-autocollimator method
Corresponding Author: Tsung-Han Hsieh
Dear Reviewer,
This letter responds to the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions. Per those comments and suggestions, we made corrections, as shown in the following pages. Many contents have been added in the revised manuscript, including:
- In the Abstract section, we modified this section by adding quantitative data.
- We separate the Discussion and Conclusions sections into two different sections.
- In the Discussion section, we compared the proposed two-autocollimator method and related previous studies described in a table.
Thank you for allowing us to improve this manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Tsung-Han Hsieh
Precision Mechanical Metrology Research Laboratory, Center for Measurement Standards, Industrial Technology Research Institute
321, Sec. 2, Kuang Fu Rd., Hsinchu, 30011, Taiwan Taiwan(R.O.C.)
Tel: 886-3-5743762
E-mail: [email protected]
2023.1.26
Comments and suggestions from the reviewer and responses from the authors
Comments and suggestions are sequentially numbered, and responses or corrections are indicated by the word “Answer” following each numbered paragraph. All the corrections and modifications are referred to in the revised manuscript and can be tracked by the “Track Changes” function of Microsoft Word.
1) There is no quantitative data in Abstract Section.
Answer: The Abstract Section was modified at the reviewer`s suggestion. We add quantitative data such as, “The difference in pitch angle deviations is smaller than ± 0.28". The maximum En-value is 0.58.” and “The difference in angle errors is smaller than ± 0.27". The maximum En-value is 0.59.” and so on.
2) The number of keywords is too small.
Answer: We add two keywords, angle standards and angle calibration. The revised manuscript has five keywords: angle standards, angle calibration, two-autocollimator, 24-faced polygon, and rotary encoder.
3) In the first section, a table should be added to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of previous literature research.
Answer: As the comment, we compared the proposed two-autocollimator method and related previous literature as described in a table in the Discussion section.
4) There is an obvious defect in the paper that it is not compared with other studies.
Answer: As the comment, we made a table in the Discussion section to describe the proposed two-autocollimator method, other developed standard methods like Self-calibration and Cross-calibration, and previous studies using two-autocollimator configuration.
5) The discussion needs to be divided into a separate section.
Answer: As the suggestion, we separated the Discussion and Conclusions into two sections.
6) There is no quantitative data in the Conclusion Section.
Answer: As the suggestion, we added the quantitative data in the Conclusion section, such as, “to evaluate the expanded uncertainty of the proposed two-autocollimator method is 0.46". For a 95 % confidence level, the coverage factor is 2.00.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is devoted to the two-autocollimator method of encoder calibration. Compared to a traditional method, cross-calibration calibrates a rotary encoder and a polygon. The expanded measurement uncertainty is calculated.
There are comments on the manuscript.
1. There is a contradiction in the abstract. Is one measurement cycle required or does it depend on the number of polygon faces?
2. It is advisable to compare the developed method with the standard method.
3. Can the developed calibration method be applied to polygons with different numbers of faces? A generalization would be useful.
4. Section 4 is desirable to be supplemented.
5. In the annotation and conclusions, you need to indicate the confidence level for the measurement uncertainty.
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report
Journal: applied sciences
Article ID: applsci-2160062
Title: Calibration of a rotary encoder and a polygon using a two-autocollimator method
Corresponding Author: Tsung-Han Hsieh
Dear Reviewer,
This letter responds to the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions. Per those comments and suggestions, we made corrections, as shown in the following pages. Many contents have been added in the revised manuscript, including:
- In the Abstract section, we modified this section by adding quantitative data.
- We separate the Discussion and Conclusions sections into two different sections.
- In the Discussion section, we compared the proposed method and related previous studies described in a table.
Thank you for allowing us to improve this manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Tsung-Han Hsieh
Precision Mechanical Metrology Research Laboratory, Center for Measurement Standards, Industrial Technology Research Institute
321, Sec. 2, Kuang Fu Rd., Hsinchu, 30011, Taiwan Taiwan(R.O.C.)
Tel: 886-3-5743762
E-mail: [email protected]
2023.1.26
Comments and suggestions from the reviewer and responses from the authors
Comments and suggestions are sequentially numbered, and responses or corrections are indicated by the word “Answer” following each numbered paragraph. All the corrections and modifications are referred to in the revised manuscript and can be tracked by the “Track Changes” function of Microsoft Word.
1.There is a contradiction in the abstract. Is one measurement cycle required or does it depend on the number of polygon faces?
Answer: As the comment, we modified the Abstract section to reduce this contradiction. The revised sentence is “A polygon with any number of faces can be calibrated. Any face of the polygon is that the measurement cycle is one.”
2.It is advisable to compare the developed method with the standard method.
Answer: Thank you for your opinion. Self-calibration and Cross-calibration are well-developed and approved standard methods for calibrating a rotary encoder or a polygon. Therefore, we used self-calibration to verify the angle errors of the rotary encoder for the proposed two-autocollimator method. The shift-angle method, based on cross-calibration, verifies all pitch angle deviations of the polygon for the proposed two-autocollimator method.
3.Can the developed calibration method be applied to polygons with different numbers of faces? A generalization would be useful.
Answer: The proposed two-autocollimator method can apply to polygons with different numbers of faces. In the modified version, we emphasize this property in the Abstract section, the Discussion section, and the Conclusions section, such as, “A polygon with any number of faces can be calibrated.”
4.Section 4 is desirable to be supplemented.
Answer: As the comment, we modified Section 4, the Discussion and Conclusions, into two sections. In the Discussion section, we added the comparisons between the proposed two-autocollimator method and related previous studies. In the Conclusion section, we added the quantitative data.
5.In the annotation and conclusions, you need to indicate the confidence level for the measurement uncertainty.
Answer: As the suggestion, we added the confidence level for the measurement uncertainty, such as, “the expanded uncertainty of the proposed two-autocollimator method is 0.46". For a 95 % confidence level, the coverage factor is 2.00.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all my concerns.
