Next Article in Journal
Psychoeducation on Stress and Anxiety Using Virtual Reality: A Mixed-Methods Study
Previous Article in Journal
A Maximum Power Point Tracking Control Method Based on Rotor Speed PDF Shape for Wind Turbines
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Multi-Physics Analysis of a Magnetorheological Valve Train with Experimental Validation

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(18), 9109; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189109
by Yaojung Shiao * and Mahendra Babu Kantipudi
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(18), 9109; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189109
Submission received: 12 August 2022 / Revised: 4 September 2022 / Accepted: 7 September 2022 / Published: 10 September 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations on a very interesting study on Magnetorheological Valve Train.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript (applsci-1888138): “Multi-physics analysis of a Magnetorheological Valve Train with experimental validation”

Dear reviewer

Thanks for the encouraging responses and the reviewing comments from the reviewer. We had revised the manuscript again according to your review comments. Our responses to the comments and manuscript modifications are listed in the attached word file. We also highlight our adding parts or revised sentences in the revised manuscript.

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript must be improved following suggestions as follows:

1. Title: very bad. A new title must be created.

2. Abstract: this section is not good. VVT? VVL?

3. Introduction: This section is not clear. The bullet points of contribution must be shown.

4. Figure 2: It is not clear.

5. All equations: check and add references. These equations are not from the authors !!!!

6. Figure 4. What is the name of MRF used in the study? Show properties.

7 . Simulation results: The explanation must be improved

8. Experiment results: it is poor information. The author must think over the results and show more information. This section is very bad.

9. Conclusion: very bad.

All sections must be checked and improved clarity. The quality is poor. 

 

Author Response

Manuscript (applsci-1888138): “Multi-physics analysis of a Magnetorheological Valve Train with experimental validation”

Dear reviewer

Thanks for the encouraging responses and the reviewing comments. We had revised the manuscript again according to the review comments. Our responses to the comments and manuscript modifications are listed in the followings. We also highlight our adding parts or revised sentences in the revised manuscript.

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors study a new type of magnetorheological (MR) valve providing flexibility in terms of valve opening timing and the magnitude of the valve lift. A major component of this valve train is the magnetic plate block filled with MR fluid and surrounded by a magnetic coil. The magnetic field in this MR fluid is used to control the valve and facilitates flexible valve lifts and valve opening timings. The theoretical and experimental results are given in this work.

        The theoretical investigation are based on thermodynamic and plate theories. The experimental results given in this work are new and may be used to develop MR valve technology. In my opinion, I recommend its publication in your journal.

 

Author Response

Manuscript (applsci-1888138): “Multi-physics analysis of a Magnetorheological Valve Train with experimental validation”

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the positive comments, encouragement, and recommendation.  We have done revisions as other reviewers suggested. 

We have highlighted our adding parts or revised sentences in the revised manuscript.  

Once again thank you so much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much to the authors for taking into account my comments. Congratulations on an interesting application problem for MR fluids.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well-revised.

 

Back to TopTop