A Bipolar ±13 mV Self-Starting and 85% Peak Efficiency DC/DC Converter for Thermoelectric Energy Harvesting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper showed an interesting bipolar dc/dc converter. The materials and methods chapter is easy to understand and very didactic. I have only concerns about the items below:

• In the introduction lines 49/50/51, when the authors advertise the IC, could be moved to the discussion or ever be cited in the abstract.
• In the results chapter, include a measure of "onset of the operation  as a function of the TEG output impedance", as presented in Energies :: https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092297

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript describes a DC/DC converter for thermoelectric energy harvesting. The topic of the manuscript is appropriately chosen, there are many applications that can be powered by a similar solution.

The paper is based on one specific type of new IO (Matrix Mercury2) – in my opinion, it is look like a application note of the IO – but I do not have any problem with this – there is a lot of products (especially in the IO area) where is not easy to oriented between them - this manuscript shows easy way to propagation itself.

The main part of the manuscript (in my opinion) is measurement – it shows results comparison of efficiency between three solutions.

I have some comments or suggestions for you to improve the article:

- I expect more technical information about used IOs (in table?) and comparison of them (current/ voltage/ power limits, switching frequency, EMC parameters – is there necessary some filter?, etc.).

- Information about measurement could be extended – in form of block diagram of measurement for example.

- The chapter „Results“ has a different spacing of the text.

Thank you.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The paper content is rather interesting and presents good practical contribution. However, the scientific level of the manuscript requires significant enhancements.
2. The Introduction is not very strong in my opinion. The authors have used the references to conference papers and patents, which are mostly fresh and show the topicality of research. However, I suggest to supplement the reference list and Introduction with the stronger overview of the achievements presented in the high-impact scientific journals (e.g. IEEE and MDPI publishers).
3. Based on the deep and thorough overview of existing solutions it would be more appropriate to substantiate the scientific novelty of the presented results, since it requires some clarifications and referencing to existing solutions in the literature.
4. I didn't find any operation waveforms of the converters, that was a bit strange for me. The paper has certain practical orientation. Therefore, it was expected to see some prototype photographs and also operation waveforms of the input/output voltages and currents.
5. The figures 1-5 should be improved. They are black-and-white, also a bit blurry and pale. Therefore they are not exciting and inspiring the readers. I suggest to make the structure and electrical elements/lines more clear and recognizable, also maybe some color background would be appropriate.
6. The conclusions are absent and should be added. The discussions also could be made broader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I really appreaciate a lot the presented manuscript. The necessity of new circuits for energy harvesting is fundamental. Have you evaluated the possibility to use this kind of energy harvester for other  kind of energy soruce like for example piezoeletric ones?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The content and new practical results presented in the paper are interesting and valuable, as I mentioned before. The current version of the manuscript has also improved the presentation of the content, new comments and graphics were added. This made paper stronger and more interesting for readers. All the remarks were addressed and paper should be accepted for publication.