Analysis and Experiment of Laser Wireless Power Transmission Based on Photovoltaic Panel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors responded to my queries.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper is on an important topic, but the paper is long winded and not clearly conclusive.  Too much repetition and experimental setup not explained properly. Plots do not have clearly defined captions and text sizes on plots are too small. The results and simulations go all over the place with no clear direction or conclusion. The fact that laser intensity distribution over PV panel is nonuniform and an issue is well known but authors do not clearly show what is new about their solution which is also not clear, i.e., What is their new solution? Also some original important prior art citations are missing such as papers from Chiba and Tokyo, Japan (Optimization for Compact and High Output LED-based Optical Wireless Power Transmission System by Mingzhi Zhao  and Tomoyuki Miyamoto, MDPI 2021 and Optical Wireless Power Transmission Using a GaInP Power Converter Cell under High-Power 635 nm Laser Irradiation of 53.5 W/cm2, Yiu Leung Wong, Shunsuke Shibui, Masahiro Koga, Shunki Hayashi and Shiro Uchida, MDPI 2022 and important refs within these papers on original prior art on efficient optical wireless link design such as )Marraccini, P. J.; Riza, N. A. Power smart in-door optical wireless link design. Journal of the European Optical Society-Rapid 287 Publications (EOS-JEOS), 2011. 6. 288).

This paper needs a lot of work before it is ready for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have improved their paper as suggested making it now publishable, but some English language checks would make it better. I leave that up to the authors.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Analysis and Experiment of Laser Wireless Power Transmission Base on Photovoltaic Panel” submitted by Tiefeng He et al. have in most paragraphs nonscientific language; consequently, the manuscript offers a terrible reading experience.

 

The authors did not care about presenting the figures (plots) and equations, which they insisted on calling only “formulas” during the text.

Regarding the photovoltaic cells subject, the authors did not present any novel arguments or discussions. The LASER used as a wireless power transmission itself is not something new. Still, it is an exciting subject to be discussed with promising potential applications. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge of the LASER subject is evident in the language used to describe the spatial characteristic of a LASER beam and its propagation.

 

With all respect, I wish to emphasize that publishing scientific papers is not only a process of direct translation of a technical subject, regardless of the issue being interesting or showing potential. Nowadays, in my opinion, a scientific paper could have many goals. Still, the primary goal, since the early years of scientific publishing, remains the same, i.e., to collaborate with the scientific community by showing relevant (and correct) results with decent figures, equations, and well-written scientific text. The authors did not achieve such a goal!

 

Unfortunately, the submitted manuscript is not well-written and does not have the correct scientific language, besides the lack of care in the presentation. Moreover, the scientific analysis and results do not seem novel or entirely accurate. Therefore, I must reject the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract can be shorter and must contain remarkable results, not generalities.

The authors have to avoid lumped references. Each cited paper must be shortly described.

L59 The maximum power depends on the area of the PV. For example, a PV with sizes 15.6x15.6 generates more than 4 W. Which is the area?

L61 The ideal equivalent circuit for the photovoltaic cell is without parasite resistance (series and shunt). Please correct it.

From L73 to L100 are very known things and the text can be condensed.

L 316The open circuit voltage cannot be 4V, for silicon (mono or poly). the Voc is 0.6 Please correct it.

Please explain better fig.12 in comparison with fig.11.

Fig 6,7,8, and 9 have to be corrected. The current is measured in ampere.

"Figure 8.    V–P curve under laser irradiation" in the graph is represented V-I

The current and the voltage depend on the connections. Please explain better the output of the panel.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper aims at the practical application of optical wireless power transmission and describes the results of a panel's actual conversion efficiency under laser light.

It's a good paper demonstrating specific calculations and experiments on the effects of non-uniformity in laser light intensity. However, I think the following points need to be drastically revised for publication.

 

1) Overall, the Reviewer thinks the sentences are too long because there are many results of simulations and experiments.

I think the author should reduce the data or focus on the main points.

For example, Figure 6 and Figure 8 are the same. Therefore, Fig 8 seems unnecessary.

 

2) Silicon solar cells are irradiated with three types of lasers. The intensity distribution of the lasers explained why the photoelectric conversion efficiencies are low under 532 nm and 1030 nm irradiation. However, other factors (EQE and heat loss) also should be explained.

 

3) This paper discussed the non-uniformity of laser light intensity distribution as a problem of laser power supply.

Many data are provided for irradiation experiments using three wavelengths. However, focusing only on 808nm will deepen the reader's understanding. Because 532nm and 1030nm irradiations gave too inefficient results.

 

4) There are many description errors, so I wrote it in pdf. Leave a space between the figure and the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The second version of the manuscript does not have significant modifications. Therefore, the authors could not persuade me to change my opinion regarding the first version of the manuscript.

My final decision is to reject the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is improved.

I don't believe that a silicon solar cell generates 4 V. Please verified again and correct it.

Reviewer 3 Report

The second paper was revised according to the reviewer's comments.

However, there are still a lot of data and figures. Especially, discussions using 532nm and 1030nm are lengthy due to the introduction of too many results, making the reader lose the will to read to the end. The reason for this is that the three wavelengths are compared and ranked, but the reason for this is not discussed in detail, and the results are only introduced in the experimental report. Therefore, instead of clarifying the reasons for testing the three wavelengths and listing the results for each, the author should present only an easy-to-understand graph with the parameters to be compared on the vertical axis and the incident wavelength and light intensity uniformity on the horizontal axis to give more impact.