Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 The current article studies a vibration isolation system using conventional spring and passive magnetic force. The topic has practical importance in engineering. The paper is well-written and well-organized. Schematic of the system and plots of the responses and dynamic behavior of the system help readers to understand the problem.

The reviewer believes that the paper in the current format is appropriate to be considered for possible publication. The reviewer suggests the following modifications too.

1- α and β should be shown in Fig.2.  Also, in the Fig.2, vector “r’ ” shows the relative position of points P &Q, while in the manuscript, “r” was used. Otherwise, Figs 1 & 2 properly define the proposed design and show details.  
Note: Eq. 8 and its corresponding explanation show that r’ and r  are different. But readers will face confusion in the beginning. So it is better to show or state that r’ and r  are different as soon as they are used in the manuscript.  

2- In Eq. 3, what is "q3”? define it within the manuscript please at first time of use. Same thing for M in Eq. 4. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer # 1: The current article studies a vibration isolation system using conventional spring and passive magnetic force. The topic has practical importance in engineering. The paper is well-written and well-organized. Schematic of the system and plots of the responses and dynamic behavior of the system help readers to understand the problem. The reviewer believes that the paper in the current format is appropriate to be considered for possible publication. The reviewer suggests the following modifications too. Q1. α and β should be shown in Fig.2. Also, in the Fig.2, vector “r’ ” shows the relative position of points P &Q, while in the manuscript, “r” was used. Otherwise, Figs 1 & 2 properly define the proposed design and show details. Note: Eq. 8 and its corresponding explanation show that r’ and r are different. But readers will face confusion in the beginning. So it is better to show or state that r’ and r are different as soon as they are used in the manuscript.

[RE]: Thanks for the review comments. We have revised the Figure 2(b), as shown in the section 2.1 of the revised manuscript. Details are given as follows: Figure 2(b) The schematic for calculating the magnetic force between the surface current on the inner ring magnet and that on the outer ring magnet. According to Figure 2(b), Eq. 8 is as follows,

Q2. In Eq. 3, what is "q3”? define it within the manuscript please at first time of use. Same thing for M in Eq. 4.

[RE]: Thanks for the comments. We have revised the condition in Eq. 3, Details are given as line 153. According to Eq. 1, , similarly, in Eq. 3 can be expressed as, . In addition, M in Eq. 4 has been further explained, the detail of which is the intensity of magnetization. Revised descriptions can be seen in line 160.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer # 2

The authors proposed a study of a quasi-zero-stiffness (QZS) isolation system, performing analytical equations, numerical simulations and experiments. Finally, they proposed an optimization of the presented system.

 

Q1: The work is full of information, and, from my point of view, it is sometimes difficult to follow. In some paragraphs, there are many linguistic errors that do not help for the overall comprehension, for example at lines from 299 to 307 many of THE articles are missing:

"From the experiment, results of (THE) acceleration of different systems, including (THE) QZS system and (THE) linear system, are obtained as shown in Figure 11. The black line represents the acceleration of (THE) excitation, the blue line is the acceleration of the mass of (THE) QZS system while (THE) red line is that of (THE) linear system."

[RE]: Thanks for the comments.

We have revised the linguistic errors in this article, details of which are marked in the manuscript. For the revised descriptions, please see lines 315 to 318.

 

Q2: Moreover, I think that some sections of the paper could be placed in the supplementary information, in order to lighten the manuscript, while I would improve the "Discussions and results" section.

[RE]: Thanks for the valuable comments.

In section 5.2, the solution process is reasonably simplified when solving the transfer rate of the improvement model, which makes this part clearer. Revised descriptions can be seen in lines 372 to 388.

Furthermore, the discussion and conclusion of this article have been carefully revised, and mainly two paragraphs are added. Please see lines 429 to 442 of the manuscript for details.

 

Q3: I also suggest that the authors should do a complete revision of the paper concerning the description of the experiments and the numerical part, where they did not specify the model they used, which kind of analysis, element type, etc.

[RE]: Thanks for the suggestion.

We have supplemented some details for the process of experiment and simulation, such as adding the description of sensors and acquisition system in the experiment, and describing the unit model in detail in the ANSYS software simulation, etc. Revised descriptions can be seen in lines 295 to 299, and lines 352 to 356.

Q4: Other specific corrections, here reported:

(1) Section 2.1, in Figure 2 you reported r', r2 and r3, but then in the equations I found r (without ') and r. Eq. 8 reports r2 and r3, but I do not find their descriptions, which are their contribution?

[RE]: Thanks for the review comments.

We have revised Figure 2(b), as shown in the section 2.1 of the revised paper. Details are given as follows:

Figure 2(b) The schematic for calculating the magnetic force between the surface current on the inner ring magnet and that on the outer ring magnet.

According to Figure 2(b), Eq. 8 is as follows,

(2) Line 206, Figure 3 (not Figure.3);

[RE]: According to the comments, we have revised the manuscript and carried out a comprehensive examination of similar issues. Revised descriptions can be seen in line 208

 

(3) Page 8 second line: the height of the two ring magnet IS (not are) the same;

[RE]: According to the comments, we have revised the manuscript and carried out a comprehensive examination of similar issues. Revised descriptions can be seen in line 219

 

(4) Line 264 DOES NOT (not doesn't);

[RE]: According to the comments, we have revised the manuscript. Revised descriptions can be seen in line 277.

 

(5) Line 282 two acceleration sensorS;

[RE]: According to the comments, we have revised the manuscript and carried out a comprehensive examination of similar issues. Revised descriptions can be seen in line 285 and line 296.

 

(6) Line 321 at the end there is “3.1 Subsection.” to delete;

[RE]: According to the comments, we have revised the manuscript. Revised descriptions can be seen in line 313.

 

(7) Lines 387,395 and 399, FREQUENCY not frequence;

[RE]: According to the comments, we have revised the manuscript and carried out a comprehensive examination of similar issues. Revised descriptions can be seen in lines 405 to 409.

 

(8) Many THE and A/AN missing.

[RE]: According to the comments, we have revised the manuscript and carried out a comprehensive examination of similar issues. In this paper, more than 40 such problems have been revised and marked in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.