An Alternative Method for Calculating the Eddy Current Loss in the Sleeve of a Sealless Pump

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the paper is, in general, interesting and offers good insight, Abstract, Introduction, Theoretical Background and Conclusions Sections include a major flaw that has to be  corrected.

More specifically, the paper discusses eddy currents (which is based on time varying field), yet the term "magnetostatics" is repeated as a justification for the theoretical background, methodology and justification for the equations and formulations. I have no objection to the equations but rather on the justification. The shift from Eq (1) to Eq (2) is not as stated on line 52 as a result of magnetostatic formulation but is rather true or power frequency range time varying fields in conducting zones where diffusion current (dD/dt) may be ignored in comparison to (J). 

Equations and formulations are OK but authors have to revisit their explanations and justifications in the aforementioned Sections for the paper to be technically sound.

Another minor suggestion is to explicitly state the sleeve conductivity in the paper and I would also suggest to offer a comparison between losses in two sleeves having different conductivities.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript introduced a calculation method for the eddy current loss in a sealless pump sleeve that uses low-conductivity materials. The author uses 2D finite element to solve, integrate to obtain three-dimensional loss, and balance between calculation speed and accuracy. In addition, the study concluded that r_sl is an important design parameter of sealless pumps, which has guiding significance for practical applications.

       Some main concerns are listed as follow:

1. When verifying the effective frequency range of the method in section 4.2, the author explained that the smoothness of the ε_2D and ε_3D curves in Fig.10 can be seen from Fig.8, which is caused by the roughness of the three-dimensional grid. However, the author did not compare the grid after optimizing the grid to verify the conclusion drawn.
2. The author's theoretical and simulated research is rigorous, and the corresponding suggestions are also made for the design of the actual sealless pump. But the corresponding experimental module is not added, and it is insufficient to demonstrate whether the conclusion is consistent with the author's conclusion, and the article is not convincing enough，so it is unable to prove the feasibility of the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my previous comments.