A Preliminary Anti-Glare System for Traffic Vehicles Using Polarizing Filters and a Polarizing Flip Plate
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author(s) describe an approach to reducing headlight glare that is based on the concept from Edwin Land (the author(s) did not cite any work by Land, but this is a "glaring omission" and should be corrected) to use polarized headlights. In addition, he concept of a polarized analyzed similar to the flipscreen described in this paper was discussed in a 1938 Journal of Applied Physics review (see Fig. 8 of that paper, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1710411).
Aside from additional prior literature of this type, the author(s) should discuss concerns about power usage for lighting in an era where electric vehicles and reducing energy use is increasingly critical. Is 30 W for an LED low beam headlighting system sufficient given the very rapid advances in LED light source efficacy? Could this be a barrier to widespread use of the system? Some discussion is needed.
Author Response
Please refer to the uploaded letter for our response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled "An anti-glare system for traffic vehicles using polarizing filters and a polarizing flip plate" concerns the issue of glare from the approaching vehicle. Severe reservations about the research and analyzes were noticed, although the work raises essential road safety issues. The main is connected with the need for a more transparent methodology of the proposed study, which needs to consider the crucial aspects of automotive lighting.
- This study does not include recognizing a vehicle that arrived from the opposite direction. Will the driver be able to observe any vehicle approaching from the opposite way in a short time? What if the car's lights from the opposite direction are dirty or depleted?
- There needs to be more data connected with the particular analyzed headlight systems (including its construction, basic technical parameters, and illuminance distribution on the test screen). There needs to be more reference to specific requirements related to the car headlights, as the analyzed headlights needed to be correctly measured and verified before the experiment.
- There needs to be more description of what measuring instruments (particular specifications, calibrations, accuracy) were used and how exactly the measurements were performed. Once, the authors write about illuminance, and once about luminance. It has yet to be discovered precisely how it was measured. It needs to be apparent where the illuminance of 32.000 lux was obtained. After all, the lighting intensity depends on both the light of the car headlight in a given direction and the distance between the reflector and the driver driving in the opposite direction. So, the figure presenting the measurement case (geometry) is highly required.
- The literature study needs to be more. The polarizing filters have been known and used for at least 40 years. Indeed, there are problems connected with the efficiency of car light using polarizing filters and how temperature influences its performance. However, the technology has developed so much that polarizing filters have achieved satisfactory results. Filters dedicated to drivers have also been used. So, the novelty of this specific solution proposed by the Authors needs to be clarified by the comparative analysis with other
Considering all issues mentioned above, this work should not be published in the current character.
Author Response
Please refer to the uploaded letter for our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
it is interesting research work for headlight.
The author test the unpolarized light, with one filter, and with filter and flip plate.
the 30W LED with one filter has the same light output as halogen lamp. It will be nice to control glare in many applications.
However, for vehicle lighting, the light distribution is very important. the low beam and the high beam has its own fuction
for near and farway lighting respectively. If the light distrition can be listed, expecially how much the low beam or high beam
will change. It is very important for headlight, if the hight beam change too much, the driver can not detect far away target.
it will be also dangelous.
Figure 2: the left light and right light has differnt light distribution, I suggest the comparision should use same light with and without
filter.
Line 171-172, the color rendering index of Halogen usually near 100, similar as incanscent lamp.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In the manuscript, the authors show a new polarized lighting system for decreasing the intensity of headlights, aiming to make traffic safer. This approach seems to be novel. However, the manuscript is unreadable and this may affect its impact. The way of presenting the introduction, methods, results and discussion needs to be substantially improved. I recommend to the authors think outside of the box in order to make it easy to communicate their ideas, following a step-by-step approach. Some examples of the issue to be corrected are listed below.
• Line 24: Please include a reference to the study of Stanke et al.
• Line 25-26. This sentence and the link with the previous one are not clear. What ‘light sources’ are you referring?
• Line 37. What ‘screen system’ are you referring?
• Line 41. You are citing some studies, please include their references.
• Line 50. TC is a coefficient. Why is it expressed in %?
• Line 58. What ‘flip plate’ are you referring? Where is it located? This is the first time that you mentioned it, and some information is missing.
• Line 71. What filters are you referring?
• Line 71. The TC of the filters is 44%. How did you measure it? Is it a nominal value? If it was measured by you, it a result!
• Line 76-86. This should be the first paragraph of this section.
• Line 79. Where the polarizing flip plate was located??
• Line 115. “therefore need not concern about glare.” You cannot conclude this because you didn’t ask the drivers. This phrase is not supported by your measurements. Remove it.
• Figures 4, 5 and 6. Replace wattages by powers.
• Line 121. Figure is not demonstrating something. It is only showing.
• Line 123. What is the difference between this measurement with the previous ones?
• Line 144. First, you have to define what is the idea of this analysis. It was put there without a clear link with the previous text.
• Line 148. Should the reader suppose that k is related to the lifespan. This analysis is unclear because a short introduction about what the authors want to demonstrate is missing.
• Line 152. This is not actually shown in Figure 7.
• Equation, Line 154. Ea has different notations. Ea and EA are the same or different??
• Line 164-174. This paragraph doesn’t correspond to the presentation of results. Move it to the discussion.
• Line 186. The reference for Hemion studies is missing.
• Line 191-197. This paragraph fits better after line 184.
• Line 199. What past research are you referring? A reference is missing here.
• Line 207. The reference for Hemion studies is missing.
• Line 209-212. This paragraph fits better in the introduction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author(s) appear to have addressed the reviewer comments and the paper, while very modest and limited in scope, seems suitable for publication. I suggest adding the word "preliminary" in the title to describe the proposed anti-glare system.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the Authors have slightly improved their article, I am still against its publication. Moreover, more objections have arisen:
1. Konica-Minolta LS-100 is not accurate luminance meter (spectral correction error up to 10%).
2. Wrong terminology "luminescence efficiency" (L.156-157).
3. The description of generally used polarizing filters and the literature review are still insufficient.
4. The comments related to the detailed description of the technical parameters of the tested headlights and the methodology (where 32.000 lux was measured) were not taken into account at all.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
it is much better. One suggestion for author is to test the light distribution accoding to car regulations. It will have bright future.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors significatively improved the manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your answer. I still think that this paper should not be published. The main concerns are included in my first review. In general the paper has not been significantly improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
