A Photon Imaging Detector Model with High Resolution and High Counting Rate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript focused on proposing a new electronic signal processing system scheme using digital trapezoidal shaping filter instead of traditional Gaussian filer. This is because the detector is able to maintain high resolution at high counting rate. Although the topic is interesting, this manuscript must be improved.

1) The writing of this manuscript must be improved. There are a lot of typos, grammar errors, misuses of singular and plural nouns, and misuses of articles. 

2) For line 71, why is a 5-7 strips coverage optimal? Please explain more.

3) For line 120, why does the shaping error Es decrease when the shaping time increases? Why does the shaping error go up at 20 samples shaping time? In addition, at 20 samples shaping time, all shaping errors under different RMS are similar, why?

4) In Fig. 6, what is the unit of the shaping time (ts)? Why did authors use 3, 5, 7, and 10?  

5) For line 159, why could authors say that FWHM increases exponentially with the increase of counting rate? Did authors fit the results? Please show the fitting results.

6) For line 163, 1000 RMS or 1000e RMS? Please verify.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an electronic signal processing system that, as informed by the authors, replaces the traditional Gaussian filter 

The advantages are not clear and more detailed information should be given 

The real importance of the investigation to be reported in a  scientific paper is not clear                                                                                       

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper claims that the new method is superior compared to Gaussian filter. Unfortunately it is not given in a convincing quantitative way and only based on simulations.

The citation is strange - see e.g. line26, 27. There should be a blank before the citation and since the cited papers are subsequent it could be written like [1-3] and [4-7]...

In the bibliography some papers are not fully give like e.g. 5,18,22

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript is much better than the original one. However, I think the writing can still be improved a little bit.

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comments that helped us with the improvement of our manuscript. Guided by the kindly suggestions and valuable comments, careful modifications have been made to the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are marked up using the “Track Changes” function. We hope the revised manuscript will meet your standard.

Reviewer 2 Report

A model of photon imaging detector is proposed with better performance when compared to the traditional one; then a new electronic signal processing is presented using trapezoidal filter with advantages with respect to   the Gaussian filter

 

The authors improved the paper and the questions raised by the reviewer were explained and  presented clearly 

All the corrections are marked and appear in the new version as follows:

1-Introduction with new references to support the state of art

2-The detector structure is now very well explained with  figure1 ; there is a long section -section 2- dedicated to it

3-Schematic diagram with traditional processing system with analog Gaussian is presented to compare with new signal processing related to the  new detector that is proposed (figures 2 and 3) . So now it is possible to see the real contributions of the proposal

4-The model descripition is improved and equations are presented to support the model-section 3

5-Section 4 presents now the simulation results in a detailed way

Based on the points exposed above, and considering all the improvements performed by the authors , I consider the paper adequate for the broad audience of Applied Sciences

Author Response

We feel lucky that our manuscript went to you as the valuable comments helped us with the improvement of our manuscript. Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

The modified version is fine.

Author Response

Thank you.