Erratum to “Steady-state analysis of PV supplied separately excited DC motor fed from IDB converter” [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 71 (4) (2002) 493–510]

Interleaved dual boost converter is capable of extracting more amount of power from the photovoltaic source than the conventional boost converter. Power extraction capabilities of the conventional boost and interleaved dual boost converters from the photovoltaic array are verified through experimental studies. As an application the effectiveness of this interleaved dual boost converter for PV supplied separately excited DC motor is studied through simulation. Extensive studies are made by formulating the mathematical models for photovoltaic source, interleaved dual boost converter, DC motor and load. Steady-state performance of the motor coupled to centrifugal pump load is analyzed for maximum power, gross mechanical energy operations. From the simulation studies, it is found that the motor performance is improved with gross mechanical energy output operation as compared to maximum power operation of solar cell array. Furthermore, the use of interleaved dual boost converter reduces the ripple content both in the source and load waveforms, thus resulting in reduced filtering requirements and improved photovoltaic array performance.     

Comments on: “Gallium-doped ZnO thin films deposited by chemical spray”: [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 87 (2005) 107–116]

In this communication, I will discuss some aspects concerning a paper recently published by H. Gomez et al. on the properties of gallium-doped ZnO thin films deposited by chemical spray methods [H. Gomez, A. Maldonado, M. de la L. Olvera, D.R. Acosta, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 87 (2005) 107.]. I believe that there are some wrong considerations of basic principles, some incorrect experimental procedures and inconsistencies on the analysis and throughout the paper. The “Introduction” reflects some knowledge on the subject, but it seems that the authors of the aforementioned paper use outdated background sources in some cases, and inconsistently apply prior research in others.The “Experimental procedure” shows some serious lack of knowledge concerning thin films that are potentially applicable as transparent electrodes in photovoltaic devices. In the “Results and discussion”, I found some of the arguments and statements contradictory, mainly when the effects of their vacuum annealing were being discussed. Considerations on the “Structural properties” are necessary, as they are not appropriate for comparative purposes. Finally, a last point, but not less important than the others, is the “Conclusions” of the paper. Some suggestions are made below for the improvement of this, and several others, aspects of the paper.     

Rebuttal of “Comments on: Gallium-doped ZnO thin films deposited by chemical spray: [Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 87 (2005) 107–116]

This letter is the rebuttal of the comments made to our paper entitled “Gallium-doped ZnO thin films deposited by chemical spray”, recently published in this prestigious, in our research field, review. Each one of the points questioned is clarified in order to give the respective reasons, as well as additional information that support the content of our paper. We will refer to the same titles and order of the different sections contained in the comments.