Improvement of Torque Performance and Energy Density of PM-Type Vernier Motor Utilizing Saddle Coil and Salient Pole

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• please pay attention to the units (for ex, line 58 and 59)
• nice comparison between the predecessor and proposed models
• there are some equations without number (line 186, 189, 192)
• please reorder the Table 3, it's a little bit disorganized

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to begin by congratulating you for your work. The proposed topology is an interesting approach, but it raises some questions.

Unfortunately, the English you used is very hard to understand, the were some paragraphs that I had to re-read for a couple of time and try to understand what the idea was (most of the time I got it from the context, rather that the explanations given there). Some examples of expressions that I suggest you should reconsider:

• It is recommended that sentences should not start with “and” or “also” (line 88, ). From what I know, it is not considered a mistake, rather a recommendation;
• Line 111- 113, This 111 ”method has the following benefits that can reduce the….” Perhaps a “:” is missing?;
• Line 119: “to the state's shape” ?
• Line 135: “Compared to the comparative model in Figure 1”. Same at line 142;
• Line 141: “resistance on the coils;
• Line 144: “are arranged in state electromagnet” ?;
• Line 146: “The salient pole can be the variable magnetized magnets” ?;
• Line 164: “The stator structure consists of salient poles without coil windings, and the coils are winded around the center of the slot.” Please rephrase;
• In the equations, please use “[ ]” instead of “{ }”;
• Line 208: “has added PMs to the stator in the structure of the rotor” ?;
• Line 220: “permanent magnet remains fixed and unchanged”
• Line 225: “The saddle coil is a motor designed”;
• At line 319 you mention “saddle types”. I think you should rephrase so it is clear at what types of saddles you are referring.

The list could continue but I will stop due to lack of space

From the technical point of view I have some questions that perhaps you could address:

• At line 44 you cited 7 articles, perhaps it would be easier for the reader if you could include some details about what is included in each of the cited papers;
• At lines 57 and 58, please add Nm after the torque values;
• In Fig. 1, you cannot have two cross-sections name A-A (the same in Fig. 2). If on the left side of the image you present a longitudinal section of the motor, one should be able to distinct the shaft, rotor and stator of the structure
• In Table 1, you present the Outside diameter twice. Perhaps one of the lines could be the structure length? If you want to present more information about the Coils you could add additional lines or mentions what the values represent;
• In Fig. 3 the Section line for View A is quite difficult to understand, perhaps you could choose a different view position;
• In Fig. 7, when presenting comparative result, it would be easier to follow if the 3 lines would be represented on the same graph;
• Table 3 presents information that was already mentioned in the text with just one difference, so I think that it could be removed/replaced;
• If you reduced the slot area, by inserting an additional magnetic pole, I believe that the slot fill factor is modified. If you keep the same wire type and number of turns, as you mention, the slot fill factor is either too low in the “predecessor” or to high in the proposed model. Please address this problem;
• The proposal to have a inclination for the outside part of the stator raises some question:
  • Does the yoke saturate in the frontal part, where it is very thin? 3D FEM simulation should answer this question. Since you are using Jmag Designer (if I’m not mistaken), I recommend using the “2,5 D” approach with 3 or 5 sliced placed on the length of the structure in such a way that you could see the influence of a variable width yoke;
  • While the conventional structure could be manufactured using laminations, the new structure that you propose would imply the use of variable shape laminations (something that is not economically feasible) or a massive magnetic circuit, resulting is additional losses. Did you consider these in your analysis?
• At line 303 you say “The d-axis and the q-axis are always rotated with an angle of 90° to the electrical angle”. Could it be otherwise?
• In Fig 11 you should use the same vector settings as in Fig. 9, it would be easier to see the repartition of the Magnetic Flux Density;
• In Table 4 you mention “Inclination angle of saddle motor”, “Turn number of coil” and N.m/A for Torque constant unit. Please rephrase;
• In Fig. 14 please add a Legend showing what each line represents. For BW printed copies it would be better if different line patterns would be used

Overall, I consider that the structure presented in the paper is interesting but it raises some questions that need to be addressed before the paper could be published. English proofing should be made by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf