Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

greetings

 

following the review the following recommendations are made

 1. Explain the problem to be solved in a more comprehensive way, supported by facts and figures, with their corresponding references.

2. Include a diagram or block diagram explaining the components of the solution and their corresponding explanation.

3. Improve the resolution of the graphs and eliminate grey backgrounds (fig 1).

4. Use appropriate fonts to write the units of measurement.

5. In Figure 5, panel a) and b) can be placed in order to better describe, include it in the description of the figure.

6. Figure 7: Placing the units on the axes and their corresponding scales

7. Include an overall conclusion of the experiment and its contributions. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Manhole cover detection is s well-researched problem. Please include a separate related work section

2) The paper's title is misleading. There does not seem to be any intelligent algorithm proposed. Figure 2 has a flow chart but there does not seem to be any intelligence in this algorithm.

3) Figure 1 has a circuit diagram. This is just a simple circuit layout diagram and also the integrated circuit that is being used is readily available in the market. So what is the novelty here? 

4) Please explain the novelty of this paper. Please explain the research problem in the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present an energy efficient solution for manhole cover monitoring. The authors combine some low power components in order to identify critical events that may occur in the lifetime of a manhole cover. The basic idea is to use an acceleration sensor that have the ability to generate interrupts to a MCU if the acceleration exceeds some limits. So the MCU will work (and consume power) only when it is necessary.

Good points: the proposed solution can extend the lifetime of a device up to 9.5 years; the proposed solution is simple

Weaknesses: the solution is just a combination of some "of the shelf" components

- the authors does not give too much details about the "intelligent" program in the MCU that can make the difference between true and false alerts

- it is not clear if the 82% small current discharge efficiency is for a period of 9 years; some similar batteries have a loss of 20%  after 12 month (data from the Internet)

- there is no general scheme that would show all the components of the device in one place

- the authors does not discuss about the resistance of the device to the external elements (e.g. water, dust, vibrations, etc.) which are as critical as the power consumption issue; measurements made on field (e.g. for 1-6 month) would be relevant for the feasibility of the solution

The authors solution has a more pragmatic importance and it has less innovation on theoretical level

The first sentence in  the introduction has no sens.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf