Characterization of a Large Area Hybrid Pixel Detector of Timepix3 Technology for Space Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents some important studies on reducing the power consumption of a large area the Timepix3 chip, which is important for space applications where removal of heat is a difficulty. It reads well and is of general interest to the community. I suggest to publish after only minor corrections, which are listed below.

Line 34: Remove the word "also".

Line 41: While the measured temperature range is specified below, the expected range in space applications is not listed. It could be nice to specify the temperature range expected here for completeness.

Lines 51-52: I am not really sure what is meant by ..."where only the pixel triggered by ionizing radiation is read out, while all other pixels are capable of measuring". Measuring what? If they are not read out what do they measure? Please elaborate or re-word.

Lines 54-55: A reference to the flip-chip bump bonding would be nice for the unfamiliar reader. 

Line 68-69: Besides the thickness (and pitch presumably), there are no specifications of the sensor being used. Please provide more details.

Line 76: "oeptions" -> "options"

Line 80: Need a space before mW, i.e. 800mW -> 800 mW

Line 81: The acronym "DAC" needs to be defined "Digital to Analog Converter (DAC)"

Lines 82-83: Same comment as Line 80. Actually, this is a general comment for all units used, please provide a space between the unit and number in all instances.

Line 89: should read "... THE ToA clock,"

Table 1: This table is never introduced in the text.

Line 99: "LP" acronym needs to be explicitly defined (used first in table 1). I assume it is "Low Power".

Line 124: "with chip temperature" -> "with a chip temperature of"

Figure 2: The z-axis needs a label.

Figure 2 label: "... energy deposition (left and ..." -> "... energy deposition (left) and ..."

Line 151: "figs." -> "Figures". This is a general comment, use the same wording when referencing all figures.

Line 157: "Table3" -> "Table 3"

Line 158: remove ","

Figure 5: Needs to be higher quality, it is slightly blurry

Line 164: "Figures 7(a),7(b), and 7(c) show" -> "Figure 7 shows"

Figure 9: Can the binning be finer? It seems the fit would be very different with small bins. Also the right side it is not clear where the peak is.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Small corrections need to be made. I recommend a quick read through by someone who is not on the author list, preferably an English native speaker.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

you will find our reply in the attached pdf.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Instruments. You will find the review comments in the attached file.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of English needs to be raised, to not impair nor undermine the logic under the analysis or conclusions. In addition, a lot of sentence need to be more elaborate to include linking words, verbs...

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

you will find our reply in the attached pdf.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is much improved, although I would still like to see finer binning in Figure 6d (old figure 9). If the authors can increase the binning, to get a sense of the peak, then it should be published. Otherwise a justification is needed why this is not possible.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review and feedback.

In the new revision, we have addressed some typos and mainly concerns from the editor about citations. We have added more in the Introduction to provide a little bit more context for the Timepix detector in space. And 2 references about Timepix temperature measurements.

As for your comment about the binning we have added a note under the Fig.6: 

The time binning was chosen to resemble the sampling frequency of the selected clock frequency.   We would like to thank you again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for your efforts in improving your article.

The manuscript has been greatly improved in general. It is reading better, and is much clearer. Most comments have been taken into consideration.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Still a few minor typos to look for.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review and feedback.

In the new revision, we have addressed some typos and mainly concerns from the editor about citations. We have added more in the Introduction to provide a little bit more context for the Timepix detector in space. And 2 references about Timepix temperature measurements.

We would like to thank you again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is ready for publication.