Multivariable Control of Solar Battery Power by Extremum Seeking: Starting from Linear Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the concerns I raised in the initial manuscript.
However, there are still grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.
I list additional errors below.
There is a typesetting error on Line 281.
What is Figure X referred to in the Appendix in Line 292?
Do the authors mean to take the partial derivative with respect to G in Equation (13)?
Equations (14) do not follow from Equation (12).
Do the authors need to set the derivative to 0 on Line 407.
I recommend that the authors proofread the manuscript thoroughly.
Author Response
Good evening!
I carefully looked at the additional comments and prepared an answer to them in the following form:
Point 1: The error is fixed, the correct designation of derivatives and the display of the formula in the editor are present.
Point 2: Instead of Figure X, we should write Figure 19 - this is a typo.
Point 3: Formula 13 (as in the rest of the work) contains such Greek symbols as θ, γ and their uppercase analogues Θ and Γ, which indicate the azimuth and zenith angles of the solar panel and the Sun, respectively. We investigate the nature of the extremum achieved in the case θ = Θ and γ = Γ. Therefore, it is required to search for critical points at angles θ, γ, and Θ and Γ are simply the free parameters of the function that vary in time. Those. there should be no derivatives with respect to Θ and Γ. The rest of the calculation is the calculation of the coefficients A, B and C in accordance with the Sylvester criterion.
Point 4: Previously, there was a mistake in the formulas, now it has been fixed. I searched for derivatives "on paper" and tested using Mathcad Prime.
Point 5: Yes, this is a typo, it is now fixed.
No other comments were received from Reviewer No. 1.
Apparently, we will use the service to adjust the English language in the article to improve it.
Thank you for your attention to our work!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article focuses on to the linear analysis of a multiparameter system of extremum seeking of the system of tracking the sun. The corresponding experiments on the calculation and construction of current-voltage and voltage-watt characteristics were carried out.
Some problems need to be clarified as follows.
The improved values or outstandingly data need to show in the sections of ABSTRACT and CONCLUSIONS. Although the content of the article is more plentiful, the subjects need to be focused and condensed. The superfluous words need to be deleted as the description of the future study. The length of ABSTRACT is too long. These are to present a disorderly and confused article. The ordinal numeration is disorder and reiterative. In page 21, Figures 6 and 7 are not described in the article. It needs to describe the legend text of sub-figure. All symbols can be arranged in a Table for clearly presentation. Although six experiments are used to verify the model, the outcome can not be converged. Experiment 3 is diverged. The theoretical model is not appropriate, which is dependent on the range of parameters. Although this preliminarily study uses a multi-parameter system for searching for maximum power, it can use the big data concept to correct the theoretical model to converge the outcome.
Author Response
Good evening!
I carefully looked at the additional comments and prepared an answer to them in the following form.
Point 1: I tried not to upset the balance between the brevity and content of the annotation and conclusion, as recommended by the reviewer. What I did can be seen in the final version of the publication. At the same time, I tried to reflect the most significant results and the general conclusion in such a way that they fit appropriately in the corresponding sections of the article.
Point 2: Regarding the volume of publication, it presents a single and concrete design of the study, each of the items that are not considered individually or in a very concise form, which is ultimately aimed at solving the issue at hand. I reduced each of the points as much as I could, but it is not possible to reduce the total volume significantly.
Point 3:. At the same time, the remark on the ranges of parameters of the theoretical model and the application of the concept of "Big Data" seems to me very useful.
Our results are based on only 6 experiments. I mentioned the need to include these elements in future research and put this in the “Conclusion” section. Thus, we will accumulate a diverse and voluminous database in order to improve results in the future.
Point 4:. Deficiencies associated with the signature of drawings, their mention in the text, etc. I fixed it too. I didn’t notice the incorrect numbering of formulas.
Point 5:. As for the symbol table, I did not add it to the final version, because this will increase the volume. If necessary, then I can turn it on.
No other comments were received from Reviewer No. 2.
Apparently, we will use the service to adjust the English language in the article before publication in order to improve it.
Thank you for your attention to our work!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Nil
article needs to be checked in english grammar and words.
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
First of all this paper is clearly the result of a large body of work, perhaps a postgraduate thesis. As such it contains a great deal of information. However the presentation is not currently likely to stimulate the interest of many readers. Therefore it is in the best interests of the authors to consider carefully the following points:
What are you main, novel results? Even if these results are negative ones, they must be clearly identified and presented very clearly. At present they are not, and the Discussion and Conclusions are vague. The detailed results presented are not in themselves very innovative or illustrative. They could easily be summarized into a small number of plots to show the significant results/effects of your procedure.
2. Who are you intended audiences? It is likely that this paper should be broken up into two or more smaller papers, and published in journals that directly address the likely audiences. For example the overall topic of MPPT tracking for solar photovoltaic inverters is very large, and has a large literature in specialist solar energy journals. Do you want to address that audience? Do you have anything novel to show to people who design perturb-and-observe electrical or mechanical systems? If so, state exactly what. Are your results general to both inverter MPPT tracking or only mechanical tracking systems (which make up a very small minority of solar power systems)? The Conclusion seems to restrict the results to solar tracking systems but some references to apparently irrelevant works are listed - please make it clear exactly what your motivation is and who your target audience is.
Tracking systems are greatly in the minority, but if that is the only aim then a journal that focuses on those technologies should be selected. The more general problem of optimization/minimization is perhaps the more significant part of the work. However it is not clear to me what innovations in this area are being claimed. Such innovations, if any, must clear very clearly identified and articulated and probably written up in a much shorter paper for a journal with such specialist interests in such algorithmic work.
3. What is the motivation of this research - who are you trying to help? This is absolutely unclear from the introduction and must be addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments are included in the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
