Designing and Modeling of a Dual-Band High-Efficiency Rectenna Using Dielectric Resonant Antenna Array
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a Dual-Band High-Efficiency 2 Rectenna Using Dielectric Resonant Antenna. The overall quality of the paper is good still there is a room for improvements. Thus, authors are requested to revise the manuscript carefully and after revision final decision will be made.
Please found below the comments:
It is better to add the complete S-parameters results from 2 -6 GHz. Figure 3 a and b should be converted in to single graph instead of using two different figures for xz- and yz-plane. The authors should add a comparison of proposed antenna with state of the art antenna not limited to a compact dual-band flexible antenna for applications at 900 and 2450 MHz, design and realization of a frequency reconfigurable antenna with wide, dual, and single-band operations for compact sized wireless applications. Why there is difference between simulated and measured results at upper pass band in Fig. 6. Authors are requested to explain the difference in the E_theta value in Fig. 7. The surface charge distribution of the antenna at both resonance should be added and summarized to better explain the radiation principle of antenna.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, a design of a dual-band rectenna at 2.45 GHz and 5.8 GHz for energy harvesting application. The rectenna has the potential for wireless energy harvesting (WEH) technology. The proposed method is also validated through measurement results. However, the article cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. Several modifications and concerns must be addressed before resubmission.
1. Some parts of the manuscript show similarities in texts with the previously published literature (e.g. 1st paragraph of Introduction, line 63 to 65, line 174 to 192). To reduce the similarities in writing, the authors should check the similarities of the manuscript with the standard similarities-checking software and rewrite the paragraphs/lines where necessary.
2. Figure 1 should be on the same page for a better understanding. The authors also can put the axis inside the antenna geometry for Figure 1 (a) and Figure 1(b).
3. It will be better to denote the E-plane and H-plane of the radiation pattern in Figure 3. And please provide a higher resolution radiation pattern graph.
4. Explain the Wilkinson power divider in the manuscript with proper references, as the name is only used in line 107 without any explanation and reference.
5. There is a significant difference between the simulation and measurement results for the upper band S11 results presented in Figure 6 of the proposed DRA array. Please comment on that.
6. Please, provide the continuous S11 results from 2.3 GHz to 6 GHz in Figure 6. The data representation of Figure 6 seems there is another resonance.
7. The legends in Figure 7 should be more clear, and the font size of the legends should be larger than the current size.
8. Explain the significance of this work through the comparison table (Table 3). And add more recently published state-of-the-art works to the comparison table.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a dual band rectenna for wireless energy harvesting. The paper is interesting, however some matters need to be addressed before publication.
1. A better explanation of your contribution needs to be added in the Introduction Section. Please set differences of your work with respect to previous work. Please highligh the advantages, benefits and contributions of the new tecnique and results.
2. Provide more details of the methodology used.
3. There is a lot of paper dealing with this topic. Please cite references dealing with this topic.
4. It is needed a better description of the results. Please highligh the benefits, the advantages and contributions of your proposal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the comments, paper is recommended for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
All comments have been addressed in this version, though they have some weak explanations. It has merit to be published in Applied Sciences by checking grammatical errors and typos.
