Design and Detection Performance of Metal Contaminant Sensor with Triple Coil Structure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments:

 The paper will be ready for publication after small corrections that authors must accomplish.

The main strong points of the paper:

·         The work addresses aspects related to hydraulic oil proper condition for equipments, as proposes and designs a wireless triple-coil structure oil detection sensor for detecting metal particles in the oil circuit;

·         The sensor is said to consist of three coils placed concentrically with the same parameters;

·         When the sensor detects metal particles in the oil, the ferromagnetic and non-ferromagnetic particles flowing through the sensor produce magnetization and eddy current effects, resulting in variable inductive signals that complete the detection of metal particles;

·         This paper, firstly, explains the sensing principle of this triple coil sensor detection by formula derivation, secondly, the simulation model of the sensor was established by using COMSOL 6.0 simulation software according to the scale of 1:1 and the magnetic field strength distribution law inside the coil of the triple-coil sensor was simulated. The experimental results showed that the sensor was able to detect iron particles at 73 µm and copper particles at 220 µm, moreover the obtained signal characteristics are obvious, with high detection sensitivity;

·         The sensor is wireless and performs contactless detection of metal particles and this is important for the detection of metal particle contaminants in oil.

The reviewer comments:

·         On the end of the introduction section a paragraph should be inserted where the main sections are described;

·         The information given in Table 2 should be reviewed, which describes certain diameter values ​​that are difficult to understand;

·         In figure 4 there is text that is not in English and needs to be replaced for better understanding;

·         The same situation in figure 6 where the text has a font that is too small and needs to be replaced in English;

·         The overall model of the sensor detection system includes specific components and a microscope; its role in carrying out the experimental activity in accordance with the other elements must be explained in detail;

·         On page 9 there is a phrase that can induce confusion related to: "the selection of the excitation frequency that needs to take into account the detection effect of the sensor on the iron and copper particles, and 0.85MHz when the detection of iron particles in the amplitude of the effect is much better than the detection effect of 0.86MHz, and the excitation signal of the two frequencies of the copper particles do not have the same impact as iron particles, so the final experiment to choose the 0.85MHz sinusoidal wave as the excitation signal"; must surely be reanalyzed because the selection context must be clearly established;

·         In figure 9 - Simulation schematic of the three paths (a) Path 1 and (b) Path 2 appear approximate identical and show that only the positioning of the model differs; the presentation should be re-reviewed for better clarity in the presentation;

·         Some equations have unreadable signs (probably on numbering) that need to be reviewed;

·         Page 13 is left blank;

·         Based on the research activity and the results obtained, what would be the major advantages for practice and how can they be used further?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below you can find my detailed report:

Manuscript: jmse-3361054

"Design and Detection Performance of Metal Contaminant Sensor with Triple Coil Structure".

This manuscript is devoted to the design and technical performance of triple coil sensor proposed for detection the metal (ferromagnetic or even non-ferromagnetic) micron-sized particles in liquids, for example in technical oil used in engines. The proposed sensor is very important in principle for possible controlling the quality of oil exploited in various engines. The term "quality" assumes here the parasytic presence of micron-sized metal particles in oil used for reduction the friction between the contacting moving metal interfaces.

There are no new physics and new analyzed physical processes in this manuscript, but it contains the design of new type of sensor consisting of three coils. The operational principle of this sensor based on the well-know electromagnetic phenomena is enough clear. This is enough for new contribution from viewpoint of practical engineering. But authors need to demonstrate much more the advantages of their type of sensor consisting of three wire coils in comparison with well-known sensors based on two wire coils proposed by another authors before. Authors need to show these advantages in terms of additional inductunce and electromagnetic processes related with intermediate (middle) coil. Thus, authors need to compare data related with investigated metal particles in oil (mean size, concentration, detectivity level) obtained by both methods. This comparison should be articulated in the manuscript. I did not find any essential defects in the manuscript, all reported data are enough reliable, but the overall length of manuscript is very large and it is very difficult to reed and even catch the main key content of such manuscript presented in the "smeared" non-focused state. The manuscript should be more focused in technical description of new suggested triple core sensor, its technical performance and analysing the main principles of its work comparing with its prototype - the sensor consisting of two wire coils.

Please use the same fixed terms in the manuscript: relay coil or repeater coil, detection coil or readout coil.

The manuscript should be more shortened and focused. The recommended number of figures is 8-9. All primitive unnecessary figures like drawn simple pictures should be deleted. Figure 1 and Figure 7 are not necessary and should be deleted. Figures 8 and 9 should be combined. The same about Figures 10 and 12, they should be combined in one figure as panels (a) and (b). There is a mistake in numbering of figures: two different figures are labeled as Figure 9. The manuscript can be published after the necessary minor corrections and shortening.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf