Design and Evaluation of Uniform LED Illumination Based on Double Linear Fresnel Lenses
, Tran Quoc Tien 2,3,* and Ngoc Hai Vu 5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and suggestions are given in the attached PDF file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate the time and efforts by the editor and referees in reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all issues indicated in the review report, and we believe that the revised version can meet the journal publication requirements. Please refere to revised manuscript and Authors’ Response to the Reviewer' Comments in attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find my comments in the attachement.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate the time and efforts by the editor and referees in reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all issues indicated in the review report, and we believe that the revised version can meet the journal publication requirements. Please refere to revised manuscript and Authors’ Response to the Reviewer' Comments in attached file .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Your paper is very impressive to “Design and Evaluation of Uniform LED Illumination Based on Double Linear Fresnel lenses”. The following comment suggests authors the revision in order to upgrade the readability to readers before the paper is published.
Introduction:
Line 46, please specify what kind of equations are engaged in the lens surface calculation in the methods?
Model Design and Simulation
Line 80, please specify the reason why to choose a double lens in the task.
Line 120, what is the forward voltage of the 5W high power LED?
Line 123, can the authors provide a related norm for 2m*2m receiver? Or any reference about working distance of 2m?
Line 125, does the author calculate each illumination of 3 by 3 grid of Fig.5?
Line 140, how can the author figure out the efficiency at 77.09%? please specify the process while reply to the reviewer.
Line 153, it is awkward about the efficiency to keep 90% compared of Line 140 the efficiency 77.09%. Please explain the definition by mutually.
Line 164, please indicate the F focal line.
Experiment
Line 195, please specify the detailed specification of the photodiode.
In the end, the paper looks good writing skills and provides a scientific experiment except the above questions to be clarified next reply.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and efforts by the editor and referees in reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all issues indicated in the review report, and we believe that the revised version can meet the journal publication requirements. Please refere to revised manuscript and Authors’ Response to the Reviewer' Comments in attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In the revised manuscript, it can be seen that the authors have taken good care to address the concerns expressed in the reviews of my colleagues’ reviewers and me. Most of the recommendations for technical correction have also been accounted for. To my opinion, the changes made considerately improve the clarity and scientific soundness of the manuscript. Therefore, I believe it can be published in Applied Sciences as it is.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been greatly improved based on your comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for taking into account all of my comments and your effort to revise the manuscript.
The explanations you made in your response and the corresponding changes in the manuscript are very helpful tor the potential readers.
Though I still have a few minor points regarding the design procedure details:
1. It seems that the subelement surface shape is represented directly by an array of datapoints without any analytical expression. How big is this data array and how many points are computed for each element?
2. I would recommend yet to add a comment explaining the assumptions about the input beam explicitly. At some point it is assumed that the Fresnel lens is mounted in an ideal collimated beam, but later (line 162) the divergence is taken into account. Also, please state clearly in the text why the intensity distribution in the collimated beam is not included in the initial parameters (Fig.5)
3. Would it be possible to integrate the illumination, measured in a scanning mode in Section 3.2 and obtain the actual efficiency?
In general I think that the revision has helped to clarify the design and calculation methods as well as the main claims. I can recommend your article for publication in Applied Sciences, though I would be glad if you considered the points listed above.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been greatly improved based on your comments. Please refer to attached cover letter (round 2) for more details of our revision and explanation.
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised paper seems a great improvement. However, Line 118: Revised Figure 5 appearance esthetics issue, because the font is too small and the typesetting needs an improvement.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion improved our manuscript much Following your instruction, we have revised Figure 5. Please refer to page 4 Fig. 5 in revised manuscript.
Comments:
The revised paper seems a great improvement. However, Line 118: Revised Figure 5 appearance esthetics issue, because the font is too small and the typesetting needs an improvement.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion improved our manuscript much Following your instruction, we have revised Figure 5. Please refer to page 4 line 120 in revised manuscript.
