Thermal Time Constant of PV Roof Tiles Working under Different Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper deals with thermal analysis based on RC equivalent circuit for rooftop PV.
In Fig3, 3 and 4 have same material, is it correct?
In equation(10), symbol for wind speed is different from the one in test 1,2 and 3.
In Fig 4, what is P_D? there is no definition
This approach only touched simulation without any experimental proof.
It would be hard to find novelty of the paper due to the lackeness of original modeling method and proof.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the right observations.
I have written the remarks in the article file and attached file with the exact indication of their changes and location in the text or commentary
Regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It seems that this article is applying a methodology that was before proposed by other authors. This should be stressed in the introduction, where the literature review, although sufficiently extensive in the number of articles, does not clarify the state of the art and the contribution of the authors. The RC method applied by some other authors should be explained, and the particular contribution of the authors clarified.
The objective of the article is not clear.
The conclusions are quite irrelevant and they don't reflect the content of the article (they could have been obtained without any research from the authors). They should include the achievements of the work performed. Additionally, the first sentence of the conclusions is confusing and should be rephrased.
Other issues:
1. All acronyms should be explained the first time they appear in the document. For instance RC, ETFE (Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene). The acronym PET is not at all explained (line 257).
2. Reference numbering: Figure 1 caption includes references [3], [4] and [5]. It should be [1], [2] and [3], as they are the first references of the article.
3. Line 41: “the lack of natural air movement (air)”. “on the back of the PV module” should be added.
4. Line 58: Instead of “height of the gap” it should be “width of the gap”.
5. Line 78: “including” means that there are other possible ways, but there are not. This term should be removed.
6. Line 88: The term “construction” is not appropriate here. Better options: “composition”, “construction details”, “description”.
8. Equation (10) should be explained. Also how equation (11) is obtained from preceding equations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the right observations.
I have written the remarks in the article file and attached file with the exact indication of their changes and location in the text or commentary
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are still 2 questions that have not been answered clearly.
P_D is referred as "power" and the author redefiend it as P_pv which would be correct if it is.
P_pv expressed in Fig.4, equivalent circuit, however, shows current, not power.
Which one is correct? Doesn't it matter to the final conclusion?
2. Experimental results could be, definitely and officially uploaded to this manuscript to verify the assumption suggested by the author regradless of the personal situation. It would be better for the readers to see the comparison results.
Author Response
I introduced the suggested changes
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed the comments and suggestions. Nevertheless, what was the first line of the former conclusions should have been rephrased. The following sentence is suggested for line 320:
The item’s temperature (roof tile PV cells) does not change abruptly as a result of rapid change in ambient conditions, and this is related to heat energy accumulation in the item’s mass.
Author Response
Line 320: Thank you for your attention, I changed it according to your suggestion.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Final comment to the auhor
-In the equivalent circuit, the author should use Ipv(meaning current because the author used arrow to express the current). No Ppv or Vpv(not U) could be used in the curcuit academically.
-Well, still the output of the thesis could be published first in the paper and then you could refer it to your dissertation. It is quite common approach for the students and researchers to upgrade and confirm the manuscript submitted at this time to this society. If there any internal regulation, it would be decided by the author at this time
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be accepted in the present form.
