Shadow Effect of Human Obstacles on Indoor Visible Light Communication System with Multiple Light Sources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of the paper "Shadow effect of human obstacles in indoor multiple light sources visible light communication system" is interesting and neatly written. Some comments are useful to increase the quality of this paper.

1. In the introduction the original contribution of this paper should be more accurately expressed. For this the number of references should be substantially extended.

2. Basically it all boils down to a 2/3D geometry that does not involve too much effort. There is nothing experimental to validate the geometrical simulations.

3. More references will allow a comparative study with other approaches to the subject to compensate for the lack of experimental validations.

4. Existence of obstacles/shadows is obviously a cause of performance degradation in communication systems - why did you consider standard/predefined situations for LED position and is not considered an adaptive solution for LED position.

5. The conclusions are well written in relation to the approach, I suggest a comparative study for a real upgrade of the article.

I recommend at least a comparative study with other solutions present in the literature to make up for the lack of an experimental setup.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for specific reply

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is devoted to the study of shadow effects in rooms.

The authors have done considerable modeling work and presented the actual results of their research in the Manuscript, but the introductory and final parts of the Manuscript need to be finalized.

 

1. It is desirable to improve the overview of publications on the subject of the study by adding more links. In the Introduction of this Manuscript, out of 10 references, only 3 are not older than 5 years.

2. Section 2.1 do not start immediately with the Figure.

3. Line 150: It is desirable to confirm with a specific reference "geometric optics theory".

4. Conclusions do not contain specific results, but only general phrases. There is not a single numeric value in them. The conclusions need significant improvement.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for specific reply

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the authors have responded in detail to the observations and recommendations relating to the initial version. This version of the article highlights the contribution made by this study. I consider that the paper has interesting elements and is useful for developing applications based on the presented simulations. I recommend acceptance for publication of the article in revised form.