Flicker-Free LED Driver Based on Cuk Converter with Integrated Magnetics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a flicker-free LED driver based on Cuk converter with integrated magnetics.

The paper is interesting, anyway, but some improvements are required:

1. In the abstract, the authors stated: "Simultaneously, the required filtering electrolytic capacitor of the converter can be somehow substituted by film capacitor or ceramic capacitor". Which are the advantages? Usually, these technologies are characterized by higher volumes for the same capacity, thus are bulkier. Please explain it better.

2. The quality of the Figures is poor. Please increase it. Regarding the plots, the grid would be helpful.

3. From (5) looks that if M=NL1, the ripple current on L2 reches zero. Does the increment on the L1 current ripple have disadvantages? 

4. A picture of the whole power circuit (not only magnetics) should be included.

5. It would be interesting to perform also an analysis of the costs. 

6. The current ripple on I2 should be included as an experimental waveform.

7. Some practical ideas (more detailed) on how the authors think to improve efficiency should be provided. For example, how can it be improved the integrated magnetic element?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is very interesting indeed. But some grammatical corrections are necessary
Please revise the sentences from the following lines: 48-50.
In lines 261, 263 and 358, the name Bode must be capitalized because it comes from a person
Review the name of figure 4

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The review comments for the manuscript, 'Flicker-Free LED Driver Based on Cuk Converter with Integrated Magnetics', are given below,

1. The work is impressive and presented well. Still, few changes need to be done for betterment.

2. References should not be grouped like, [11]-[18] or [21]-[23]. Each and every reference must be properly justified and cited.

3. Quality of all the figures must be improved. The text in figures are not clear. 

4. Few errors are there related to figures. There is no explanation of figure 3 and it waveforms. 

5. Similarly in line 301, mentined as Fig. 7(b), but there is no such figure. It must be corrected. 

6. Typos and grammatical errors are throughout the manuscript. Kindly check it once and rectify. 

7. Abstract and conclusion must be given brief and precise.

8. English must be improved with the help of a language expert.

9. In Figure 13, which terminals represent the transformer and which represents inductance. Kindly mention it. 

10. Providing comparison, cost analysis, error analysis may help the reviewers as well as the readers for validation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

According to the reviewer, the article does not present the results showing what effect was achieved using the presented system. The results before and after the application of the proposed solution should be presented. There is also no diagram of the use of coils and transformer. Suggest to improve the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The review comments for the revised manuscript are given below,

1. The authors revised the manuscripts according to the comments.

2. All the suggested corrections given by myself and other reviewers were incorporated and addressed well.

3. I recommend this manuscript may be accepted for publication in the present form.

Thank you for the contribution.