A Proposal for Optical Antenna in VLC Communication Receiver System
, Hamit Mirtagioglu 3 and Peyman Mirtaheri 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
To avoid the receivers bring severe difficulties, this research article demonstrates a novel shape of LSC with advantages such as inexpensive, fast response time, small antenna area for VLC purposes with significant geometrical gain, FOV, and ultra-broad bandwidth. In particular, Numerical simulation is done using Monte-Carlo ray-tracing. However, the analysis and the corresponding interpretation do not yet meet the standard for publication in Photonics. If the authors can properly address the comments below, this work should be suitable for publication.
- In Line204, the authors claimed that "thereis a small probability that the newly-emitted photon escapes from LSC due to escape-cone loss", In some literature (for example, Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 011905 (2021), Nano Energy 70, 104470 (2020)), In the case of n0=1.0, n1=1.5, The isotropic emission of photons has about a 25% chance of escaping from the escape cone. However, in the simulation results of Figure 7(b), about half of the photons are escape-cone loss, which is not a low proportion. Why is it small probability? Please clarify.
- In Line 387, "With all this, the optical efficiency of our structure is much better than the reported ones in[37] and[38]". To the best of our knowledge, the optical efficiency of LSC as defined in references 37 and 38 is measured using: , and in this paper, the optical efficiency is the ratio of the number of photons: , Is this similar to the authors' definition? Please address the similarity or difference.
- InLine 434, "we have recorded the number of the harvested photons to make the bandwidth of our proposed structure evident",and can I understand this as " The effect of optical communication is simulated by controlling the light and shade of the 450 nm blue LED incident on LSC (cos function is used to control the light and shade). Meanwhile, the MC model mentioned above is used to count photons at the receiver area, study the spectrum obtained at the receiver at different light and shade frequencies, and calculate their SNR and gain."? But in Figure 9, why is the spectrum of 450 nm (about 6.67*1014 Hz) obtained only by changing the frequency of cos function (or scintillation frequency)? This is only changing wm in formula 16 (Set it to 100 GHz, 100 MHz ...) to draw Figure 9? This seems to have nothing to do with the previous research, right? Using the formula to draw the graph shows that the author's device still has a good SNR at THz level, which is far better than other people's work at MHz level. …this is an obvious example of a conceptual shift. In other words, the flicker frequency set by the author at the back of the figure is already higher than the frequency of the light itself. What's the significance? Please clarify this?
- Some minor issues are listed below:
1) Typo in Line 222, "LSC" not "LCS";
2) Typo in Line 365, "105" not "105";
3) Typo in Line 389, "30.286%" not "30.286";
4) Please re-check the captions of all Figures.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor
Enclosed is our revised version of the manuscript as well as a response to reviewers submitted for your consideration.
Bests
Ali Rostami
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Kindly find the attached review report.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor
Enclosed is our revised version of the manuscript as well as a response to reviewers submitted for your consideration.
Bests
Ali Rostami
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to the authors:
The overall quality of the revised manuscript has been greatly improved and I would like to commend the authors on their efforts so far. However, there are still some key parts to be clarified, and some necessary data that still needs to be provided. If the authors can address these comments below, this work will meet the standard for publication in Photonics.
We understand the author's research goal of “extract the transfer function of the optical antenna”, but we believe that the author still needs to ensure the continuity of the research in the paper. It was, in the new optical antenna structure proposed above, it is shown that there exists a certain Stokes-shift between the light input from the upper surface and the light output from the side of this antenna (the antenna contains graphene quantum dot, which absorbs light of shorter wavelength and then photoluminescence of longer wavelength). However, we did not see this in the study in Figure 9, that is, the spectral response of antenna has the same wavelength as that of the output light. We can assume that the author wants to ignore the wavelength of light and only study the quantized transfer function of the optical antenna. However, since the author proposes the MC model constructed using the above mentioned in revised manuscript. Moreover, we have also seen in the author's previous research that MC model has the resolution and statistical ability of different light wavelengths. Why is it not reflected in Figure 9?
Author Response
Dear Editor
Enclosed is the revised version of the manuscript submitted for your consideration.
Bests
Ali Rostami
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made satisfactory revisions.
Author Response
Dear Editor
Based on the comments, it is Ok and we do not need to do something.
Bests
Ali Rostami
