Next Article in Journal
Thermal Fatigue Properties of Ultrasonically Bonded Copper Joints
Previous Article in Journal
Recent Advances in Femtosecond Laser-Induced Surface Structuring for Oil–Water Separation
Article Menu
Issue 8 (April-2) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Enhancement of ECE SuperPin Curved Reflex Reflector by the Use of Double Pins with Corner Cubes

Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(8), 1555; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9081555
Received: 17 February 2019 / Revised: 3 April 2019 / Accepted: 11 April 2019 / Published: 15 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Optics and Lasers)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose in their manuscript a new “SuperPin” retroreflector to surpass the optical characteristics of the current corner cube/cube corner design. Without necessarily attempting to enter an etymological debate, to the best of my knowledge, the more frequent term used in the field is “corner cube” and not “cube corner”, such that I will recommend the authors to revise their entire text accordingly.

 

In terms of form, the manuscript is generally well written. The only exceptions that require mandatory attention in this category are the references (that are incomplete and extremely poorly redacted – perhaps some inappropriate bibliographic manager was used) and the text on lines 184-192 (different formatting/font).

 

In terms of content, I will indicate few points that will require author’s attention in the revised version of the manuscript:

 

-  I recommend the authors to clearly define somewhere at the end of Section 2 the geometry of their “SuperPin”

 

 Line 62-63: while the theoretical dihedral angle is 90 degrees, the real one is actually different and that because manufacturers are actually attempting to disperse the light, rather than just return it to the source. This happens because the eyes of the driver in the succeeding vehicle are in a different location than the headlights (= light source). This also implies that while we can assume that the dihedral angle is 90 degrees in a commercial retroreflector, the real one is different. Manufacturers will typically not reveal their design target value (value covered by trade secrets) and accurate measurements of the dihedral angle – regardless if performed on pins or end product (= taillight) are difficult to perform.

 

- Line 65: depending whether the deviation from 90 is positive or negative, the reflected beam might converge or diverge so “split” is not necessarily the correct term

 

-  Line 128: the color of the PMMA is important for any reflectivity tests

 

-  Figure 5b: to me, this distribution implies that the reflected pattern is dependent on the orientation of the installed pin which is not desirable. Authors should detail how Superpins were oriented with respect to the direction of the incoming light, meaning what was the order in which the 3 facets of the corner cube were hit and what is the exact dihedral angle associated with each of them. Without this information, the results presented in Fig. 9 are next to impossible to judge. The requested information can be easily added to Fig. 10

 

- Fig. 20: were these tests performed on molded parts of same color (what color?)? Or, were the tests performed on the electroform?

 

-  Fig. 24: it is nearly impossible to believe that commercial CCCR is characterized by a zero return at all angles (posterior region).

 

-  I also find difficult to understand why only 2 reflected dots are present because that implies that just one CC facet is hit by the incident light. To me, the diameter of the laser beam should be large enough to hit all 3 facets and hence produce 6 dots. In real-life applications, the light spreads across all 3 facets of the structure, such that I am not sure what to conclude from the testing presented in this study.

 

-  I recommend the authors to present the size of the laser beam as well as the dimensional characteristics of the SuperPin facets, such that comparisons are possible

 


Author Response

 

REVIEW 1

Question 1: The authors propose in their manuscript a new “SuperPin” retroreflector to surpass the optical characteristics of the current corner cube/cube corner design. Without necessarily attempting to enter an etymological debate, to the best of my knowledge, the more frequent term used in the field is “corner cube” and not “cube corner”, such that I will recommend the authors to revise their entire text accordingly.

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Line 49, 110

Question 2:  In terms of form, the manuscript is generally well written. The only exceptions that require mandatory attention in this category are the references (that are incomplete and extremely poorly redacted – perhaps some inappropriate bibliographic manager was used) and the text on lines 184-192 (different formatting/font).

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Line 175 - 218

Question 3:  I recommend the authors to clearly define somewhere at the end of Section 2 the geometry of their “SuperPin”

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

By using the different angles between each two facets, we can get the three retroreflected rays on the top into one direction and the other three into another direction, shown in Fig 5c. In this way, we dramatically improve the optical performance of a corner cube, because the retroreflected energy in a given direction is tripled. We call this techique as superpin technology. The experiment beam pattern retroreflected from the superpin corner is shown in Fig 9a.

Line: 125-129

 Question 4: Line 62-63: while the theoretical dihedral angle is 90 degrees, the real one is actually different and that because manufacturers are actually attempting to disperse the light, rather than just return it to the source. This happens because the eyes of the driver in the succeeding vehicle are in a different location than the headlights (= light source). This also implies that while we can assume that the dihedral angle is 90 degrees in a commercial retroreflector, the real one is different. Manufacturers will typically not reveal their design target value (value covered by trade secrets) and accurate measurements of the dihedral angle – regardless if performed on pins or end product (= taillight) are difficult to perform.

Answer: In the process of manufacturing, there is always an allowable difference occurring between two neighboring reflecting faces in a corner reflector unit. This usually causes the retro-reflected light beam to miss a little in its target direction.

Question 5: Line 65: depending whether the deviation from 90 is positive or negative, the reflected beam might converge or diverge so “split” is not necessarily the correct term

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Line: 64-65

Question 5: Line 128: the color of the PMMA is important for any reflectivity tests

Answer: The color of the PMMA is important for any reflectivity tests. Commonly used colors are red and white.

Question 6: Figure 5b: to me, this distribution implies that the reflected pattern is dependent on the orientation of the installed pin which is not desirable. Authors should detail how Superpins were oriented with respect to the direction of the incoming light, meaning what was the order in which the 3 facets of the corner cube were hit and what is the exact dihedral angle associated with each of them. Without this information, the results presented in Fig. 9 are next to impossible to judge. The requested information can be easily added to Fig. 10

Answer: A picture detailing how Superpins were oriented with respect to the direction of the incoming light is added in Fig.5.b

Line: 124-125

 When the dihedral angle is  δ1 = 0.0950; (α = 90.0950) ; δ2 = 0.0950 ; (β =  90.0950); δ3 = 0.120 (γ = 90.120),  the reflected beams can be found that ε1=  0.33°, ε 2 = ε 3 = 0.31°, which fit EU ECE regulation requirements. The simulation result shown in Figure 5(c).

Line: 108-125

Question 7: Fig. 20: were these tests performed on molded parts of same color (what color?)? Or, were the tests performed on the electroform?

Answer: Figure 20 shows the comparison of simulated results about molded parts with same color.  

Question 8: Fig. 24: it is nearly impossible to believe that commercial CCCR is characterized by a zero return at all angles (posterior region).

Answer: Because the curvature in the posterior region is too large, it causes a height difference between pins. This makes the reflected light can reflect back to a much larger angle than the 0.33 degree value (ECE standard). Moreover, we only measured the reflected light of the returning light rays with a reflection angle of 0.33 degrees. In the case of the posterior region, almost no light returned to 0.33 degrees exactly. Therefore, the value at the last region is zero.

Question 8: I also find difficult to understand why only 2 reflected dots are present because that implies that just one CCR facet is hit by the incident light. To me, the diameter of the laser beam should be large enough to hit all 3 facets and hence produce 6 dots. In real-life applications, the light spreads across all 3 facets of the structure, such that I am not sure what to conclude from the testing presented in this study.

Answer: In Figures 10, 11 and 12, we want to show the influence of each face of a corner cube on the reflected beam patterns, respectively. In consequence, we performed the experiments with the light source come to each face and the results are shown in Figure 10, 11, 12.

If we let the light cover all the planes of the corner cube, there will be 6 beams reflected.

Question 9: I recommend the authors to present the size of the laser beam as well as the dimensional characteristics of the SuperPin facets, such that comparisons are possible

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

The 146 mm x 34 mm sample is made of PMMA and composed of 2.75mm sized corner cubes.  The laser light with an incident angle of 0 degrees with respect to the car driving direction shone on the commercialized CCCR with area 520mm2.

Line 131-143; 156-157 (Fig. 8)

 


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents an advanced design of retro-reflectors, which can be used in the automotive industry. The authors provide the theoretical base for the design, description of the design and modelling procedures and experimental results. In general, the manuscript matches the scope of "Optics and lasers" section of Applied Sciences journal.


In my opinion the main advantages of the study are its high practical significance and presence of a good experimantal section. 

However, some points may be improved before the paper is accepted:

The main concern is connection between sections 2 and 4. Comparing the chart on Fig.17. and the text around it's hard to see that all the theoretical part given in Sect.2 is really necessary for the design. The authors use modelling in OptisWorks and numerical optimization. Is it possible to obtain the desired result starting with a regular grid of corner-cube reflectors and optimizing the numerically? If no, this point needs an extensive explanation and, probably, some proofs (like comparison of the presented design with such a straightforward approach).

Mentioning Ecenomic Comission for Europe in the title af a scientific paper looks quite strange. I guess it's enough to put it in the keywords.

Line 51 and hereafter - what is meant by "ourcommecrial design"? Is it a design made by authors, which is already used by a company? 

Table 1 - the contetnt of this table completely repeats the previous paragraph. Please, leave only one of them.

Section 3, lines 126-139. What is the laser beam diameter in the experiments? How do you deal with the coherency (I suppose that the standard is defined for incoherent illumination)?

Fig. 8 - It would benefit of some dimensions shown on the figure (length, width, spots diameters and separation).

Fig 10-12 are too large and they are not so informative. Please, consider a revision.

I strongly advice the authors to rework Fig 13-15. They could be a,b nad c parts of the same figure with a proper scaling and colors or hatchings used to highlight the key details like zones, groups or shifts. 

Line 171 and below - what is the total number of free parameters in the opimization problem?

Line 174 - should it be "radius of curvature" or "curvature" instead of "level of curvature"?

Fig. 16 and the text around - there is no convergence seen on the optimization prcess diagram. I guess more comments about the optimization algorithm must be given here. Was it only global optimization or combination of local and global ones? Which genetic algorithm was used?

Fig. 19 -  it looks like the a,b and c subfigures repeat fig.8 and 14, so they can be removed.

Lines 229 to 239 - this part looks quite confusign with 5 figures one after another and so little explaining text. 

A comment related to the previous one - please, add more information on the resultant design technological feasability and cost.

It seems that the reference list requires some editing. Some pints in the list contain only DOIs. It may happen because one point was split into two, but then all the reference numbers are wrong. Some authors names are misspelled - I think the "a,b" in the end of some names relate to the affiliations (like "Hamiltona").


In general the manuscript an be acceptedfor publishing, but some work on the text and figures should be done first. I also advice the authors to pay more attention to the balance between sections. 


Author Response

REVIEW 2

The manuscript presents an advanced design of retro-reflectors, which can be used in the automotive industry. The authors provide the theoretical base for the design, description of the design and modelling procedures and experimental results. In general, the manuscript matches the scope of "Optics and lasers" section of Applied Sciences journal.

In my opinion the main advantages of the study are its high practical significance and presence of a good experimental section. 

However, some points may be improved before the paper is accepted:

Question 1: The main concern is connection between sections 2 and 4. Comparing the chart on Fig.17. and the text around it's hard to see that all the theoretical part given in Sect.2 is really necessary for the design. The authors use modelling in OptisWorks and numerical optimization. Is it possible to obtain the desired result starting with a regular grid of corner-cube reflectors and optimizing the numerically? If no, this point needs an extensive explanation and, probably, some proofs (like comparison of the presented design with such a straight forward approach).

Answer: In section 2: We present the mathematical modeling equation of CCR. This is the basis theory for performing the calculation of angles between face of a CCR to achieve the following objectives:

1. Calculate the structure of superpin technology

2. Calculate and optimize CCR to meet ECE standard (0.33 degree).

In section 4: We used genetic algorithms to optimize light reflection performance by controlling the height between PINS groups. The optimization process is started with a regular grid of corner-cube reflectors and through the flow shown in Figure 18.

Question 2: Mentioning Ecenomic Comission for Europe in the title of a scientific paper looks quite strange. I guess it's enough to put it in the keywords.

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

I have revised the tittle of article “ Enhancement of ECE SuperPin Curved Reflex Reflector by use of Double Pins with Corner Cubes”

Line: 1-3; 21-22

Question 3: Line 51 and here after - what is meant by "our commecrial design"? Is it a design made by authors, which is already used by a company? 

Answer: "our commecrial design" is corrected as "our optimized design"

Question 4: Table 1 - the content of this table completely repeats the previous paragraph. Please, leave only one of them.

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Line :57-60 ( deleted table 1)

Question 5: Section 3, lines 126-139. What is the laser beam diameter in the experiments? How do you deal with the coherency (I suppose that the standard is defined for incoherent illumination)?

Answer:

Line : 135-143

In the optical setup, a 532 nm Diode-Pumped Solid State (DPSS) laser operated with  5mW output acted as the light source. The distance between the laser and the curved reflex reflector was set to be 30.5 meters for measuring the reflected light spot. Based on the laser spectrum specification, its coherence length is calculated to be about 0.5mm, which is less than  the corner cube dimension 2.75 mm in the experiments. Therefore the retro-reflected output spots were spatially incoherent, and the laser can be considered as an incoherent light source for the following retro-reflector testing experiments.

The laser light with an incident angle of 0 degrees with respect to the car driving direction shone on the commercialized CCCR with spot area 520mm2.


 

Question 6: Fig. 8 - It would benefit of some dimensions shown on the figure (length, width, spots diameters and separation).

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Line: 156-157

Question 7: Fig 10-12 are too large and they are not so informative. Please, consider a revision.

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Line 162-163


 

Question 8: I strongly advice the authors to rework Fig 13-15. They could be a,b and c parts of the same figure with a proper scaling and colors or hatchings used to highlight the key details like zones, groups or shifts. 

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Line: 174-175 (Fig 13)

Question 9: Line 171 and below - what is the total number of free parameters in the opimization problem?

Answer:

In order to get the primary CCCR improved further, the add-on ray tracing simulation tool OptisWork, embedded in SolidWorks mechanical design software was used to search suitable variable parameters - di to elevate its performance and Di to fit smoothly the reference curve of the outlook of CCCR.  The constraint of each variable parameter is determined by the curvature of the CCCR surfaceThe lighting performances, such as intensity distributions, illumination uniformity and optical efficiencies of CCCR can be accomplished to meet targets by using optimization.  In the study, luminous intensity function serves as the object function, and the value RI at upper 0.33° is targeted to be maximum in the solution searching process.

For rapid finishing optimization, Di are initially set to be constants and each double pins group was assigned a value of di as variables. Based on the extent lengthwise and bend of the mention of curved surface, dual pins had 15 groups that comprised 15 variables di (from d1 to d15), this is illustrated in Figure 13.

Line:  185-192; 203-205

Question 10: Line 174 - should it be "radius of curvature" or "curvature" instead of "level of curvature"?

Answer: "level of curvature" is corrected as “curvature”

Line: 188-189

Question 11: Fig. 16 and the text around - there is no convergence seen on the optimization process diagram. I guess more comments about the optimization algorithm must be given here. Was it only global optimization or combination of local and global ones? Which genetic algorithm was used?

Answer: In order to set the target value of the optimization, the simulation experiment with a flat regulated CCR was exercised to find the reflected light power as the reference by 1000 lumen incident beam. The resulted power was 850lm and which was used as the target for subsequent searching of optimized CCCR. Through running the scheme in optimization steps, manually limited to 500 searching steps for fast finding better solution, the best results were determined in the step 139, as shown in Figure 14. The final intensity sensor data was shown as 810.27 lm, which was also the output power reflected by the optimized CCCR.The maximum value is 810.27lm.

Line: 212-218

Question 12: Fig. 19 -  it looks like the a,b and c subfigures repeat fig.8 and 14, so they can be removed.

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Line 242-243

Question 13: Lines 229 to 239 - this part looks quite confusing with 5 figures one after another and so little explaining text. 

Answer:  According to regulations of ECE (Economic Commission for Europe), vehicle signage needs to  return light back to the observer located 0.33 degrees above the light source , and the coefficient of luminous intensity RI should be more than threshold values within 20 degrees angles of light incidence .The vehicle signage performance RI is evaluated by the ratio of the strength of the reflected light (retro-reflected light intensity) to the amount of light that falls on the retro-reflector (incident light illuminance), as shown in Figure 1. RA is the measure of retro-reflection efficiency, defined as the ratio of the flux of incident light to the total flux of reflected cone. A vehicle signage would be observed brighter as its RI value increases

The aim of EU ECE standard is to reduce traffic accidents, deaths, and injuries resulting from traffic accidents by providing adequate illumination of the roadway and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on public roads so that their presence is perceived, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility. A white reflex reflector shall provide, at an observation angle of 0.330 degree (EU ECE regulations) not less than 1680 millicandela/lux at light entrance angle of 0 degree and not less than 1120 millicandela/lux at light at 10 degrees up and 10 degrees down , not less than 560 millicandela/lux including the entrance angle at 20 degrees left and 20 degrees right.

Line: 35-42. 54-60

Question 14: A comment related to the previous one - please, add more information on the resultant design technological feasability and cost.

Answer:  The yield rate of the mold production of the optimized design is less than the commercialized one, because through pins composition method, the precision of the pins height control is required even more. In order to overcome the technical problem, the study of mold by ultar-high precision casting is under conducting.

Line: 278-282

Question 15: It seems that the reference list requires some editing. Some pints in the list contain only DOIs. It may happen because one point was split into two, but then all the reference numbers are wrong. Some authors names are misspelled - I think the "a,b" in the end of some names relate to the affiliations (like "Hamiltona").

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Because the format was pulled when the editor opened on different MSOffice versions.

Line 290 - 329

In general, the manuscript can be accepted for publishing, but some work on the text and figures should be done first. I also advice the authors to pay more attention to the balance between sections. 

 


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The abstract should be enriched with more details about the proposed reflector and about the aims of the research. In particular if some results are cited, please add details about the comparison component (line 18 “comparing with a commercial one”).

Regarding the results of the comparison “with conventional retro-reflectors” (line 49), only one sample is examined (Fig. 6), but the experimentation needs other tests on different samples to have reliable results.

 

In general, it is extremely difficult to read the text, due to multiple English errors, and as a result it is very difficult to understand the text. English needs a complete and accurate review. The aspects that require corrections are the use of articles, verbal forms, use of prepositions, singular/plural, and even punctuation. Examples of corrections: “Using the double….” (line 17); “composed of” (l.24); “but with a direction opposite to the incident light” (l.25)….

 

The description of the methodology and the illustration of the new reflector are confusing and inaccurate.

The figures should be better explained.

 

The conclusion report only few characteristics of the reflector and some numerical results of the experimentation.

The conclusion should clearly explain the purpose of the work, the advantages of new reflector and methodology, and maybe also the disadvantages of the proposed reflector and of the methodology.

Author Response

REVIEW 3

Question 1: The abstract should be enriched with more details about the proposed reflector and about the aims of the research. In particular if some results are cited, please add details about the comparison component (line 18 “comparing with a commercial one”).

Answer: A new highly efficient curved reflex reflector is proposed to meet the requirement of EU ECE (Economic Commission for Europe) regulations based on the commercial design provided by an automotive company, which has been in mass production. We used the double pins with corner cubes serving as the building element of a SuperPin curved retro-reflector to enhance performance of reflectivity. Our experiment outcomes indicated that 46% higher retro-reflection efficiency and 33% larger working areas, compared with the commercial design.

Line: 15-20

Question 2: Regarding the results of the comparison “with conventional retro-reflectors” (line 49), only one sample is examined (Fig. 6), but the experimentation needs other tests on different samples to have reliable results.

Answer: Commercial design, which was designed by us, has been used by OWL company. However, the posterior region of  commercial design cannot work. Therefore, the optimized design was designed by using optimization software (OptisWork). The results presented a comparison of each design.

In order to investigate the property of a curved reflex reflector, a commercialized CCCR (curved corner cube retroreflector) for car was used for testing, shown in Figure 6. The 146 mm x 34mm sample is made of PMMA and composed of 2.75mm sized corner cubes arrays. The product is provided by OWL LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE MFG. CORP and it has been in mass production for automotive in EU.

Line: 131-144, Fig 6

Question 3: In general, it is extremely difficult to read the text, due to multiple English errors, and as a result it is very difficult to understand the text. English needs a complete and accurate review. The aspects that require corrections are the use of articles, verbal forms, use of prepositions, singular/plural, and even punctuation. Examples of corrections: “Using the double….” (line 17); “composed of” (l.24); “but with a direction opposite to the incident light” (l.25)….

Answer: We will revise English of the manuscript and check it carefully again.

In addition, we will ask for the help of MDPI English editing service.

Line: 16-18; 23-24; 46-49;54-60;62;103;108;110; 113-122

Question 4: The description of the methodology and the illustration of the new reflector are confusing and inaccurate.

Answer: The methodology of this research is based on the theory of CCR. In particular, the beam spread at normal incidence when all dihedral angles are offset by the same amount given by the formula ε1 =  n δ1 , ε2 =  n δ2 , ε3 =  n δ3, where δ is the angle by which the dihedral angles exceed 90 degrees and ε is the angle between the incident and the reflected rays. When the light passes through CCRs, there will be a change in the direction of reflection. The direction of the incident beam is determined by θ′ and ϕ′ in the primed coordinate system. Based on the above mathematical theory, the optical simulations through TracePro software show that CCRs with the same dihedral angle can reflect six beams with the same reflection angle ε with respect to the incident beam. When the dihedral angle is δ1 = 0.0950; (α = 90.0950) ; δ2 = 0.0950 ; (β = 90.0950); δ3 = 0.120 (γ = 90.120), the reflected beams can be found that ε1= 0.33°, ε 2 = ε 3 = 0.31°, which fit EU ECE regulation requirements. The simulation result shown in Figure 5(c).

Line: 115-124

Question 5: The figures should be better explained.

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

Line: 125 – 129 ; 171-174;185-193; 212-218

Question 6: The conclusion report only few characteristics of the reflector and some numerical results of the experimentation.

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

In conclusion, we proposed a curved reflex reflector with a new cube-corners structure. By using genetic algorithms for optimization, the angles and the positions of the pins considered as building elements of corner cube reflectors can enhance the performance of a curved reflex reflector. Compared with conventional retro-reflectors, it is found that 46% higher retro-reflection efficiency and 33% larger working area can be accomplished with our commercial design.

Line: 274-282

Question 7: The conclusion should clearly explain the purpose of the work, the advantages of new reflector and methodology, and maybe also the disadvantages of the proposed reflector and of the methodology.

Answer: Revised according to the comments of reviewer

In conclusion, we proposed a curved reflex reflector with a new cube-corners structure. By using genetic algorithms for optimization, the angles and the positions of the pins considered as building elements of corner cube reflectors can enhance the performance of a curved reflex reflector. Compared with conventional retro-reflectors, it is found that 46% higher retro-reflection efficiency and 33% larger working area can be accomplished with our optimized design. The yield rate of the mold production of the optimized design is less than the commercialized one, because through pins composition method, the precision of the pins height control is required even more. In order to overcome the technical problem, the study of mold by ultar-high precision casting is under conducting.   

One of the most important advantages of this research outcome is that the new design of SuperPin CCCR can enhance transportation safety. On the other hand, to produce our proposed design with the highest accuracy and optimal efficiency, it is essential for a highly technology of CNC. Consequently, the commercial price of this design will be slightly higher than previous ones.

Line: 274-286


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved considerably compared to its previous version. 

However, I cannot recommend it for publication until the authors will not perform a thorough check of all of their references because many of them have author names misspelled or missing and this is not acceptable. 

Author Response

I have revised my references based on your previous comments. Thanks for your valuable recommendations. Please help me to see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

To have reliable results the experimentation would need other tests on different commercial samples. The comparison with commercial samples considers only one reflector (in Fig. 6) so the scientific content of the article cannot be considered acceptable.

 

Instead of adding new material to enrich the scientific content, several figures and a table have been canceled. Avoiding also the suggestion of better explaining the figures originally included in version V1.

 

Some modifications of the text have been done, but in general English still needs several corrections. The aspects that need to be corrected are the use of articles, verbal forms, use of prepositions, singular/plural, and even punctuation. An example of amendment on the V2 text is “outcomes include 46% ….” (line 20).

 

The presentation of development and outcomes of the work still needs to be improved in order to clearly explain the research.


Author Response

I have revised my manuscript based on your previous comments. Thank for your valuable recommendations. Please help me to see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Same comments as in my two previous revision reports

Appl. Sci. EISSN 2076-3417 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top