Error analyses of a multistatic meteor radar system to obtain  a three-dimensional spatial-resolution distribution

Zhong, Wei; Xue, Xianghui; Yi, Wen; Reid, Iain M.; Chen, Tingdi; Dou, Xiankang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3973-2021

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3973-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3973-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

Research article

|

31 May 2021

Research article |

| 31 May 2021

Error analyses of a multistatic meteor radar system to obtain a three-dimensional spatial-resolution distribution

Wei Zhong, Xianghui Xue, Wen Yi, Iain M. Reid, Tingdi Chen, and Xiankang Dou

Download

Final revised paper (published on 31 May 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Sep 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review on', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Nov 2020
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wei Zhong, 21 Jan 2021
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Dec 2020
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Wei Zhong, 21 Jan 2021

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Wei Zhong on behalf of the Authors (21 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Feb 2021) by Markus Rapp

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (01 Mar 2021)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (04 Mar 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Error analyses of a multi-static meteor radar system to obtain a 3-dimensional spatial resolution distribution
by

Wei Zhong, Xianghui Xue, Wen Yi, Iain M. Reid, Tingdi Chen, Xiankang Do

General comments:
The reviewer appreciates the changes in the revised manuscript and the replies to the concerns presented in the review. Only the issue of mutual antenna coupling was not picked up in detail. However, the overall impression of the revised manuscript is good, and only minor suggestions or technical corrections are recommended before publication.

The reviewer enjoyed reading the revised manuscript.

Minor suggestions/technical corrections:
Vertical wind (line 33-34):
This statement is not true. There are publications that do not use this assumption, but there is no validation available whether these winds are scientifically useful (see Egito et al., 2016, Stober et al., 2020, Stober et al., 2021, Conte et al., 2021, Chau et al., 2020, etc). Considering the huge systematic issues in stated values, it is recommended to weaken a bit the statement. But vertical winds provide a very good quality assessment of the retrieval and, thus are important.

MIMO, SIMO, etc (line 53-55):
The first statistical MIMO radar was not Chau et al., 2019 a better citation is the French RIAS system. It operated in the meteor wavelength range and consisted of two circular arrays. However, the focus was not directly on atmospheric dynamics, but the concept is rather old. Please add the citation.
J. Dorey, Y. Blanchard, F. Christophe, “Le projet RIAS, une
approche nouvelle du radar de surveillance aérienne”, Colloque
International dur le radar, 1984, Versailles, France.

Discussion of measurement response (line 295-310):
The reviewer provided a statement in his review about the measurement response. The reply of the authors and revising in the manuscript is appreciated. The reviewer apologizes for being not specific enough on that topic. The paragraph requires no changes, although the term measurement response is not used in its mathematical contest. The measurement response describes how much an observation reduces an a priori covariance for a certain state. The measurement response provides a mathematical assessment of the observations, the forward model, and all error contributions intrinsic to the observations. However, this goes beyond the paper.

Conclusion (line 324) :
The statement about SIMO is questionable as the paper does not investigate any advantages or disadvantages between the systems. So please remove the statement advantage. Time will tell which system advantageous.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (04 Mar 2021) by Markus Rapp

AR by Wei Zhong on behalf of the Authors (15 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (15 Mar 2021) by Markus Rapp

AR by Wei Zhong on behalf of the Authors (16 Mar 2021)