Analysis of Laser Cell Response Characteristics under Different Irradiation Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have conducted an interesting research. However the article needs to be strengthened in the light of the following observations to qualify for a journal publication:

1. A list of nomenclature should be included before the introduction section for ease of readership.

2. Figure 1 is not clear in terms of its technical details. It should accompany a schematic diagram of the process being described. Also please ensure permissions have been obtained in case of copyright content. Likewise figure 2.

3. Photovoltaic cells operate in a very narrow range of visible light. The authors should charaterize the laser being used with a proper justification for the benefit of prospective readers. Why an 808 nm  wavelength was selected. Its type, continuous or pulsed should be clearly justified.

4. The authors conclude that the overall energy-conversion efficiency of the LWPT technology system is low. The should discuss this in detail with actual figures the obtain from this research. 

5. It is well known that the efficiency of solar PV cells drops with temperature. What was the trend obtained in this research (preferably in graphical form for output/efficiency vs temperature). A higher incidence angle may actually reduce operating temperature and may improve the working provided all of the incident beam is captured by the PV cell.

6. There is a need to cite past researchers who have worked on the temperature effect on output power of PV devices.

7. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 should be merged and strengthened to include details of the design of experiments (DoE).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for allowing us to revise our manuscript, we appreciate the editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Analysis of laser cell response characteristics under different irradiation conditions”.(ID: sustainability-2081005)

Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made a correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red on the paper.

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Comments:

The authors have conducted an interesting research. However the article needs to be strengthened in the light of the following observations to qualify for a journal publica tion:

Point 1: A list of nomenclature should be included before the introduction section for ease of readership.

Response 1: Thanks a lot for your suggestion. We completely agree with you that adding a list of nomenclature before the introduction section.

Point 2: Figure 1 is not clear in terms of its technical details. It should accompany a schematic diagram of the process being described. Also please ensure permissions have been obtained in case of copyright content. Likewise figure 2.

Response 2: I am very grateful for your comments. According with your advice, I describe the process in detail in Figure 1. Figure 1 is not a published image, but a public image on the Internet, so there is no copyright issue.

Considering the copyright of the pictures, we recreated Fig. 2 to avoid unnecessary disputes.

Point 3: Photovoltaic cells operate in a very narrow range of visible light. The authors should charaterize the laser being used with a proper justification for the benefit of prospective readers. Why an 808 nm  wavelength was selected. Its type, continuous or pulsed should be clearly justified.

Response 3: Thanks to you for your good comment. I added an explanation at the beginning of the second paragraph of section 2.1:

As can be seen from Figure 3, GaAs battery can have higher conversion efficiency under 808nm laser irradiation. And continuous lasers are better at transmitting energy over long distances than pulses of light.

Point 4: The authors conclude that the overall energy-conversion efficiency of the LWPT technology system is low. The should discuss this in detail with actual figures the obtain from this research.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your good advice. In the test results of this experiment, the energy transmission efficiency is all below 40%, and there are also test results on the transmission efficiency in the references of this paper, and the results are relatively low transmission efficiency, which is the research status of this field. Therefore, this paper makes a summary, without analyzing the low transmission efficiency itself, focusing on the influence of irradiation conditions on the efficiency

Point 5: It is well known that the efficiency of solar PV cells drops with temperature. What was the trend obtained in this research (preferably in graphical form for output/efficiency vs temperature). A higher incidence angle may actually reduce operating temperature and may improve the working provided all of the incident beam is captured by the PV cell.

Response 5: Thanks a lot for pointing this out, I added correlation analysis in the 3.2 section:

With the increase of beam deviation and incidence angle, the uneven illumination leads to local heating and temperature rise of the battery, which further reduces the conversion efficiency of the battery.

About “A higher incidence angle may actually reduce operating temperature and may improve the working provided all of the incident beam is captured by the PV cell”, When the incidence angle increases, the reflection also increases, and the light cannot be fully captured. The uneven light received by the battery will lead to local heating of the battery, thus reducing the efficiency.

Point 6: There is a need to cite past researchers who have worked on the temperature effect on output power of PV devices.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your good advice, I've added two references to the third section 3.2 on the temperature effect on output power of PV devices.

Point 7: Sections 2.2 and 2.3 should be merged and strengthened to include details of the design of experiments (DoE).

Response 7: Thank you very much for your good advice, I merged and strengthened sections 2.2 and 2.3 in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, To address the problem of low energy conversion efficiency of existing laser cells with high irradiance, this paper designs and builds a laser cell response test platform, simulates the possible non-vertical laser incidence under different laser irradiation conditions, tests the response characteristics and system energy conversion efficiency of laser cells when irradiated with different incidence angles and different beam coverage, and analyzes the experimental results. However, the authors still need to make minor revises and explanations. Some comments are as follows:

1.English is readable but falls short of the standard required for a journal publication. There are many grammatical and spelling errors throughout the whole manuscript, for example, there are instances where articles (i.e. a, the, an) are missing from a sentence, some linguistic errors (agreement of verbs) that at times make it difficult to follow. etc. Therefore, language needs a serious round of revision to improve.

2. Please list a few research advances from 2018 to 2022 in the introduction.

3. On page 5, line 154, please explain the reason for choosing this beam coverage range. Why not choose the range of 100%, 95%, 90%-5%. On page 5, line 155, “The values of 39.1%, 31.66%, 25.22%, reflect where beam coverage = beam coverage area / laser cell plate area.” What is the basis of this statement? Please explain in detail

4. Please improve the quality of all figures in the manuscript, including the clarity of the font in the figure.

5. In Figure 9, please mark the 75° dividing line for a more direct analysis of Figure 9.

6. In Figure 10, please mark the 50% beam coverage dividing line for a more direct analysis of Figure 10.

7. The conclusion is too long, please delete the useless words and condense the conclusion, with three to four points as the best.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

  Thank you very much for your comments on our paper, all your comments are very important, these suggestions are constructive to the structure of my paper and the enrichment of the content, and are very important for my future scientific work and the writing of the paper.

Comments:

In this manuscript, To address the problem of low energy conversion efficiency of existing laser cells with high irradiance, this paper designs and builds a laser cell response test platform, simulates the possible non-vertical laser incidence under different laser irradiation conditions, tests the response characteristics and system energy conversion efficiency of laser cells when irradiated with different incidence angles and different beam coverage, and analyzes the experimental results. However, the authors still need to make minor revises and explanations. Some comments are as follows:

Point 1: English is readable but falls short of the standard required for a journal publication. There are many grammatical and spelling errors throughout the whole manuscript, for example, there are instances where articles (i.e. a, the, an) are missing from a sentence, some linguistic errors (agreement of verbs) that at times make it difficult to follow. etc. Therefore, language needs a serious round of revision to improve.

Response 1: Thanks a lot for your comments. I am very sorry for the grammatical problems in the article. I have read through the whole article many times to improve the spelling mistakes.

Point 2: Please list a few research advances from 2018 to 2022 in the introduction.

Response 2: Thanks a lot for your comments. According to your suggestion, I referred to the relevant literature from 2018 to 2022 and added the content in the introduction:

In recent years, under the background of increasing demand for battery life capability of UAV, domestic research institutes such as Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Wuhan University, Shandong Institute of Aerospace Electronics Technology, the 18th Institute of China Electronics Science and Technology Corporation have vigorously carried out research on laser energy supply mechanism, moving target tracking, etc.[12-16]. The above units are also committed to the research of laser energy transfer target tracking technology, first using attitude, GPS, machine vision and other methods of initial alignment, and then combined with laser accurate alignment. In the part of laser reception and conversion, photovoltaic cells are used to convert the received laser energy into electricity. At the same time, power management is considered. For example, the maximum power point tracking and charging technology, some researchers add optical signal acquisition and conversion circuit at the receiving end, which can realize the simultaneous transmission of signal and energy[17-18].

Point 3: On page 5, line 154, please explain the reason for choosing this beam coverage range. Why not choose the range of 100%, 95%, 90%-5%. On page 5, line 155, “The values of 39.1%, 31.66%, 25.22%, reflect where beam coverage = beam coverage area / laser cell plate area.” What is the basis of this statement? Please explain in detail

Response 3: Thanks a lot for your comments. On page 5, line 155, I have corrected some typographic errors. The photovoltaic cell is a circle with a diameter of 10cm, so I set the beam offset distance to 0, 5, 10, 15-60mm respectively. Considering that the change of the offset distance is not as straightforward as the change of the beam coverage rate, I defined the calculation method of the beam coverage rate, that is, the change of the beam coverage rate is controlled by the change of the offset distance. Therefore, when the beam offset distance is 0, 5, 10, 15-60mm, the calculated coverage rate is 100%, 93.63%, 87.29%, 80.97%, 74.71%, 68.5%, 62.38%, 56.36%, 50.46%, and the calculated coverage rate is 100%, 93.63%, 87.29%, 80.97%, 74.71%, 68.5%, 62.38%, 56.36%, 50.46%. 44.7%, 39.1%, 31.66%, 25.22%.

My oversimplified description of experimental conditions made the experimental methods difficult to understand. I added a supplement and explanation in the first paragraph of section 2.2:

According to the beam coverage formula and the laser cell area calculation, the beam coverage corresponding to 0mm-60mm offset is 100%, 93.63%, 87.29%, 80.97%, 74.71%, 68.5%, 62.38%, 56.36%, 50.46%, 44.7%, 39.1%. 31.66%, 25.22%.

Point 4: Please improve the quality of all figures in the manuscript, including the clarity of the font in the figure.

Response 4: Thanks a lot for your comments. According to your suggestion, we have adjusted the resolution of some figures so that they can be seen more clearly.

Point 5: In Figure 9, please mark the 75° dividing line for a more direct analysis of Figure 9.

Response 5: Thanks a lot for your comments. I mark the 75° dividing line of Figure 9.

Point 6: In Figure 10, please mark the 50% beam coverage dividing line for a more direct analysis of Figure 10.

Response 6: Thanks a lot for your comments. I mark the 75° dividing line of Figure 10.

Point 7: The conclusion is too long, please delete the useless words and condense the conclusion, with three to four points as the best.

Response 7: Thanks a lot for your comments. I truncated the conclusion to keep the language as concise as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper designs and builds a laser cell response test platform, simulates the possible non-vertical laser incidence under different laser irradiation conditions, tests the response characteristics and system energy conversion efficiency of laser cells when irradiated with different incidence angles and different beam coverage. In my opinion, it is acceptable after revision. The comments and suggestion are listed below.

1、  There are some unit errors in the article. e. g. Page 3，line74 0.049 W/cm2

2、  Fig.3 The ordinate of the graph lacks the title.

3、  Fig.11.The font size of the chart is too small to read.

4、  The format of references is not uniform.

5、  Fig.9 Fig.10 The font size in the diagram is not uniform.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for allowing us to revise our manuscript, we appreciate the editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Analysis of laser cell response characteristics under different irradiation conditions”.(ID: sustainability-2081005)

Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made a correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red on the paper.

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Comments:

This paper designs and builds a laser cell response test platform, simulates the possible non-vertical laser incidence under different laser irradiation conditions, tests the response characteristics and system energy conversion efficiency of laser cells when irradiated with different incidence angles and different beam coverage. In my opinion, it is acceptable after revision. The comments and suggestion are listed below.

Point 1: There are some unit errors in the article. e. g. Page 3，line74 0.049 W/cm2.

Response 1: Thanks a lot for pointing this out. I fixed unit errors in the article.

Point 2:  Fig.3 The ordinate of the graph lacks the title.

Response 2: I am very grateful for your comments. I modified the ordinate of Fig. 3

Point 3: Fig.11.The font size of the chart is too small to read.

Response 3: Thanks a lot for pointing this out. We have modified the size of the text in Fig.11 in the revised manuscript.

Point 4: The format of references is not uniform.

Response 4: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have modified the format of references in the revised manuscript.

Point 5: Fig.9 Fig.10 The font size in the diagram is not uniform.

Response 5: Thanks a lot for pointing this out. We have modified the size of the text in Fig.9 Fig.10 in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this article, the authors measured and analyzed a laser cell response characteristics. The results show that the increase in the 13 incident angle intensifies the reflection on the irradiated surface.

Although the manuscript presents an interesting topic in laser wireless energy transmission tech, I do not understand why did the authors submit this topic to the special issue "climate change and sustainability" under "Air, climate change and sustainability" section? To me this is a very odd choice. Nevertheless, I also found some serious issues in the manuscript:

1- There is a lack of clear motivation and contribution in the introduction.

2- I noticed that figures 1 and 2 were taken straight from previous publications. Those figures should be cited and the authors must have some sort of a written permission (if required) from the original publishers.

3- I understand that LWPT is more of an industry/military tech, however, it can be found in the literature. All references in the manuscript are at least 6-7 years old. Some even older. This is unacceptable.

4- The literature did not cover all aspects of LWPT. Only 16 references were cited.

5- Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 look pixilated. Figures quality is poor in general in the manuscript.

Based these points, I urge the authors to fix these issues and resubmit the manuscript to a more relatable journal or at least to a relevant special issue.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for allowing us to revise our manuscript, we appreciate the editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Analysis of laser cell response characteristics under different irradiation conditions”.(ID: sustainability-2081005)

Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made a correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red on the paper.

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Comments:

In this article, the authors measured and analyzed a laser cell response characteristics. The results show that the increase in the 13 incident angle intensifies the reflection on the irradiated surface.

Although the manuscript presents an interesting topic in laser wireless energy transmission tech, I do not understand why did the authors submit this topic to the special issue "climate change and sustainability" under "Air, climate change and sustainability" section? To me this is a very odd choice. Nevertheless, I also found some serious issues in the manuscript:

Point 1: There is a lack of clear motivation and contribution in the introduction.

Response 1: Thanks a lot for your suggestion. We completely agree with you and add a couple of sentences in the introduction.

Point 2: I noticed that figures 1 and 2 were taken straight from previous publications. Those figures should be cited and the authors must have some sort of a written permission (if required) from the original publishers.

Response 2: I am very grateful for your comments. Figure 1 is not a published image, but a public image on the Internet, so there is no copyright issue.

Considering the copyright of the pictures, we recreated Fig. 2 to avoid unnecessary disputes.

Point 3: I understand that LWPT is more of an industry/military tech, however, it can be found in the literature. All references in the manuscript are at least 6-7 years old. Some even older. This is unacceptable.

Response 3: Thanks a lot for pointing this out. We have added some research status from 2018 to 2021.

Point 4: The literature did not cover all aspects of LWPT. Only 16 references were cited.

Response 4: Thanks a lot for pointing this out. I added 9 references.

Point 5: Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 look pixilated. Figures quality is poor in general in the manuscript.

Response 5: Thanks a lot for your comments. According to your suggestion, we have adjusted the resolution of some figures so that they can be seen more clearly.

I think laser energy transmission can be classified into the category of sustainable development, so I have to choose the "Air, climate change and sustainability" section. In addition, I have revised the article according to the suggestions of four reviewers, hoping that the revised article can better meet the requirements of your journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. While all other observations have been addressed, the response to the first observation is inadequate. A list of nomenclature should not just have one term but should be exhaustive to cover the entire article including abbreviations and acronyms like Gθ , Go, Um, Im, GaAs, UAV, UAS, LWPT, GPS etc.

2. Figures 3, 5, and 9-11 are quite blurred. The quality should be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

  Thank you very much for your comments on our paper, all your comments are very important, these suggestions are constructive to the structure of my paper and the enrichment of the content, and are very important for my future scientific work and the writing of the paper.

Comments and Suggestions:

Point 1: While all other observations have been addressed, the response to the first observation is inadequate. A list of nomenclature should not just have one term but should be exhaustive to cover the entire article including abbreviations and acronyms like Gθ , Go, Um, Im, GaAs, UAV, UAS, LWPT, GPS etc.

Response 1: Thanks a lot for your comments. I am very sorry for my oversight. I have added other terms to the list of nomenclature. UAS is a text error, we have corrected it in the article.

Point 2: Figures 3, 5, and 9-11 are quite blurred. The quality should be improved.

Response 2: Thanks a lot for your comments. According to your suggestion, I changed the clarity of Figure 3,5,9,10,11 and re-uploaded it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I have no further comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments and recognition