FW: JRSE: MS #RE-120614 Decision Letter

[Veton Kepuska]

Need to do some work ...
Could you help?

Regards,

--Dr. Kepuska

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jr...@aip.org [mailto:jr...@aip.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 11:10 AM
> To: Veton Kepuska
> Subject: JRSE: MS #RE-120614 Decision Letter
>
> Dear Prof. Kepuska,
>
> Your manuscript, referenced below, has been reviewed and found to be of
> potential interest:
>
> "Energy Savings from Using Mobile Smart Technologies"
>
> Unfortunately, the manuscript is not acceptable in present form for
> publication in Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. The reviewers
> have delineated several deficiencies and recommend major revisions which
> may render the work suitable for publication.
>
> If you are willing and able to respond to each of the reviewer's critical
> comments, we would consider a revised manuscript.
>
> Revisions must be submitted in the proper file formats. Manuscripts should
> be in either MS Word or LaTeX format. Upload each figure separately if you
> did not already do so during the original submission (those figures will move
> forward with the revision). Acceptable figure file formats are PDF, TIF, EPS or
> PS. For detailed instructions go here: http://jrse.aip.org/jrse/submit.jsp
>
> Please include a cover letter that addresses each point and indicates how the
> manuscript has been revised.
>
> The revision is due no later than November 26, 2012.
>
> Please go to the URL below to submit the revised version:
>
>
> <http://jrse.peerx-press.org/cgi-
> bin/main.plex?el=A5BQ1us6A3CbL1I1A9gdQk7um8NTCJ16rw2NXuYAZ>
>
>
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to examine this work. If you have any
> questions, feel free to contact us at jr...@aip.org.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> P. Craig Taylor
>
> Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy (jrse.aip.org) P. Craig Taylor,
> Editor John A. Turner, Editor
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Manuscript #RE-120614:
>
> Editor's Comments:
>
>
> Reviewer Comments:
> Reviewer #1 Evaluations:
> Overall Rating: Publish with revision required
>
> Reviewer #1 (RemarksRequired):
>
> I have reviewed the paper "Energy Savings from Using Mobile Smart
> Technologies" and am very pleased to see someone is exploring that mobile
> devices could have an energy savings impact. The paper is very well written
> as I could not identify any significant reading or English errors.
>
> The two major scientific concerns with this paper are the significant figures
> and the lack charging efficiency being included in the overall power
> estimations. The conclusion contains numbers related to total power
> consumption of 92.56666667 kWh/year compared to 92.15311 kWh/year. The
> difference with such long numbers without an error analysis, especially for
> experimental efforts, can often negate or confuse findings. I encourage the
> authors to explore more statistical methods and an error analysis.
>
> The second issue I have with this paper is the lack of charging efficiency
> included in the power calculations. Batteries are not 100% efficient and
> anywhere from 10-80% of the energy transferred may not be stored. The
> authors need to address this as it could significantly impact their findings,
> especially with such a small kWh/year savings difference.
>
> Also, a few minor issues are the wireless transmission power needed and
> invasive power measurement methods. Modern cell modems and WiFi
> (802.11) devices will receive back their signal to noise levels from cell towers
> and access points so that the lowest power levels can be used for
> transmission. I suspect that separation distance from towers and access
> points could have another significant impact on power usage levels.
>
> The method for measuring battery usage should only be considered usable
> when a mobile device is directly powered from a battery. Modern operating
> systems know when they are hard powered (from a DC supply) and will use
> the highest brightness and fastest CPU setting since battery drain is not an
> issue during charging. The authors should really make sure that this does not
> with direct power measurements through a DC supply.
>
> Overall, I enjoyed the ideas presented in this paper and believe that with a
> small effort it can become a more valuable contribution. Also, the authors
> clearly have a great concept to further explore and present findings for new
> devices and methods that could shape a conscious decision that users might
> adopt for energy and monetary savings.
>
>
> Reviewer #1 (Good Science):
>
> 1|Yes
>
> Reviewer #1 (Original Work):
>
> 1|Yes
>
> Reviewer #1 (New Results):
>
> 1|Yes
>
>
> Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
> Overall Rating: Publish with revision required
>
> Reviewer #2 (RemarksRequired):
>
> This paper addresses the power consumption issues of smart devices. It
> therefore treats a current issue with important implications. The reported
> results are useful and interesting. However, I have problems with the claims
> made and the conslusions reached. Specifically:
>
> 1. How did the authors come up with the figures for the average analog TV
> yearly consumption, and how did they use the measurements for smart
> device consumption to compute their usage over the same time period? The
> results seem very unrealistic. Using those numbers, the daily smart phone
> usage is 0.2584 kWh/365 = 708 mWh, which corresponds to using a smart
> device for just 708/0.137 = 5.16 5-minute intervals or for only 25.8 minutes
> per day! Surely, that does not compare average daily TV usage and so the
> stated figures are not totally realistic.
>
> 2. The typical case of multitasking with several conventional
> devices/appliances, such as watching TV, talking on the cordless phone,
> playing a game on a console or a computer, listening to background music
> through some player, is not preferred or even possible. So smart devices are
> not yet a realistic complete replacement of conventional devices/appliances
> and therefore making such a comparison is not realistic.
>
>
> 3. So, in conclusion, although the results of this study regarding the energy
> usage of smart devices are quite informative on themselves, the stated claim
> that they "save consumers up to $150 annually" cannot, in my opinion, be
> supported by the results.
>
>
> The authors should reconsider whether their results justify their conclusions
> and if indeed they do not then they should rewrite those conclusions as well
> as a revised Abstract.
>
>
> Additional minor remarks:
>
> 1. iPad2 battery specs in Table III should show 6757 mAh instead of the stated
> 4400 mAh.
> 2. In Table IV, changes in Voltage reading do not correspond to changes in
> battery level, indicating that changes in battery level provided by the device
> may not be reliable.
>
>
>
> Reviewer #2 (Good Science):
>
> 1|Yes
>
> Reviewer #2 (Original Work):
>
> 1|Yes
>
> Reviewer #2 (New Results):
>
> 1|Yes
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Christopher Kovalik]

Dr. Kepuska, 

I would love to help, but I will not have time with my current job (14 hour work days) until the week of Thanksgiving. Let me know if it still needs work then, and I will try and help with the editing. 

Best, 

Chris

--
Christopher Kovalik

B.S. Marine Biology

Florida Institute of Technology

E-mail: ckoval...@my.fit.edu

Phone: (734)-560-1460 

[Guinevere Shaw]

I could help mainly in the mornings every Tuesday and Thursday until 1pm.

--
Guinevere Shaw

Solar Earth and Planetary Sciences
Florida Institute of Technology '12
Phone: (865) 243-5446
Email: gsha...@my.fit.edu

[Paul Karaffa]

What is the status?

Sent from my iPhone

[Veton Këpuska]

I am working on the paper.

[Paul Karaffa]

You may want to tell the reviewers we are working on it but need a week extension.

Paul

Sent from my iPhone

[Veton Kepuska]

Hi Paul,

Sorry for being a bit cryptic regarding the paper.
I have gotten ill (common cold) recently and it a came at the words time.
Nevertheless I feel that we are safe because the deadline is 26 of November not 16'th as I initially understood.

Regards,

--Veton

[Veton Kepuska]

Hello "Smart Devices" folks:

 

I am including the draft of the corrected paper.

In it you will see:

 

1. Matching with specification of the publisher.

2. Confidence scoring that I did apply that alleviates the major deficiency of the paper. The confidence socring is included in the abstract of the paper as well as on figures 1 and 2 as well as tables VII and IX.

 

For you who are inclined in checking my work I have included the spreadsheet.

 

I will be submitting the manuscript no later then end of the day Wednesday.

 

 

Thanks

 

 

-- Dr. Këpuska

SmartPhoneE

Visit this group

The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant. - Plato

"Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, A Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Veton Këpuska, Associate Professor
ECE Department
Florida Institute of Technology
Olin Engineering Building
150 West University Blvd.
Melbourne, FL 32901-6975
Tel. (321) 674-7183
Mob. (321) 759-3157
E-mail: vkep...@fit.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

[Karaff...@epamail.epa.gov]

Veton,

Attached you will find 2 documents. I will be calling you to discuss. The first doc are my edits to the paper. The second is a document which is the response/cover letter to the reviewers when we resubmit. In their comments to us, they asked for a cover letter with a response to each comment. I have laid out the comments and responded to the ones I could. However, it still needs the actual letter and the rest of the responses. Several of their concerns I didn't see changed in the paper. That is fine, but we need to explain why we didn't change them in this response doc/cover letter.

Best,


(See attached file: Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy_paper_pauls edits.docx)(See attached file: Response to Reviewer Comments.docx)


"Veton Kepuska" ---11/19/2012 12:49:29 PM---Hello "Smart Devices" folks: I am including the draft of the corrected paper.

(See attached file: Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy_paper_final.docx)(See attached file: DataSheet Final.xlsx)