Design and Analysis of Optomechanical Micro-Gyroscope for Angular-Vibration Detection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Hassan et al proposes theoretically an optomechanical dual-frame gyroscope for angular and vibrational motion detection. With theoretical and finite-element method calculations they suggest that the proposed setup can give better precision compared to existing micro-gyroscopes. I cannot recommend the publication of the manuscript in the current form before the authors clarify the following points:

 

1. Different elements in Fig. 1 should be properly explained in the caption.
2. What the authors mean by central block and outer block, they should indicate these in Fig.1 or elsewhere.
3. Eq. (2) is wrong, there should not be ‘a’ in the terms in the denominator.
4. Before Eq. (3), is it ‘intracavity area’ or ‘intracavity amplitude’?
5. Eq. (4) does not seem right. The authors should recheck and explain how it can be derived from Eq. (2) and (3).
6. The authors should mention what value of \kappa_e/\kappa is considered for Fig. 2(c).
7. In Eq. (6), the expression for the Coriolis force does not match with the definition defined already in line #191. I think the equation is correct, but not the definition in line #191.
8. After Eq. (6), the definition of c_x and c_y are wrong.
9. The authors should check the correctness of Eq. (8) and should provide proper citations for the derivation.
10. The authors should explain Fig. 5 in more detail in the caption.
11. Authors should explain the inset figures in Fig. 6 in the captions.
12. The authors should discuss in very detail the advantages and improvements in comparison to the state of the art such as the works in 23-25, in particular, the limitations of the previous approaches. 
13. In case of its experimental implementation, what are the possible technical difficulties? What would be the factors that might make the implementation non-optimal?
14. There are several typos and grammatical mistakes that should be corrected.

 

Overall, due to the presence of several mistakes in the equations put in the manuscript, I would suggest the authors to check rigorously for the correctness of all the equations, as well as the plots.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several typos and grammatical mistakes that should be corrected.

Author Response

Thanks very much for the reviewer’s high appreciation for the contributions of the research in this manuscript. And thanks for the good concerns that guide us to make the novelty of our manuscript clearer. We would like to address the previous amendments made in response to your questions. The intention behind the detailed explanation was to provide further clarity. However, I understand that it may have inadvertently led to more confusion rather than simplifying the concept.

I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Following, we have addressed all the comments mentioned by the reviewer point by point.

All respect

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract didn't show what problems you have solved clearly and did not point out what's the purpose of your study, the value of the paper did not be expressed properly.  

1、There are no experimental results in the article, and using the simulation results of the designed gyro to compare with the experimental results of the MEMS gyroscope is not comparable. It is recommended to add experimental results; 2、The publication time of the MEMS gyroscope’s articles participating in the comparison in Part 4 is too old, and they are all results from 7 years ago. It is recommended to compare your gyro with the latest MEMS gyroscope, such as ring type MEMS gyroscope. The Figure or Table in Part 4 is not named. 3、In the paper, it claims that the Narrowband actuation and Wide dynamic range of inertial sensing will be a merit of your designed gyroscope. Combined with your design parameters, explain what level it can achieve. 4、What materials are used for the photonic crystal structure and what is the refractive index? It is necessary to specify. 5、Add a coordinate axis in Figure 1 （a）for a better interpretation of your article. 6、Coriolis acceleration equals -2(fxΩz)【line 98】，why? 7、How the fabrication process of the gyroscope is designed and how to achieve the integration of photonic crystal and MEMS structure needs to be explained. 8、There is a significant difference between the photonic crystal structure used for simulation (Fig.4) and the structure used for theoretical analysis in Part 2.2 (Fig.2). How to ensure the correctness of the results? 9、The author used a lot of rare words in writing, and some of them were not used properly. There were grammar errors in some sentences in the article, please revise them.
10、The figure.3(b) is too obscure to show the details. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper's grammar and vocabulary are alright overall.

 

Author Response

Thanks very much for the reviewer’s high appreciation of the contributions of the research in this manuscript. And thanks for the good concerns that guide us to make the novelty of our manuscript more clear. Following, we have addressed all the comments mentioned by the reviewer point by point.

All respect.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf