Review Reports
by
- Yonglong Zhu 1,2,†,
- Hai Wang 1,2,*,† and
- Jingsong Gui 3
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Andrea Tonoli Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Please see the attached file for my review of your resubmitted manuscript.
Please note that even though I have given a minor revision status, all comments in the review should be addressed before publishing.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
English is poor, inaccurate and almost unreadable in some sections. It should be substantially improved to allow the reviewers evaluate the work.
Abstract: not clear what is the novelty.
Typographical errors are very frequent throughout the text.
Section 2 Figure 1 is not clear. In the text it is written that the conductor is connected to the “load shaft” that I suppose is the output. From the drawing one could instead conclude that the conductor is connected to the shaft 1.
For the sake of clarity, Figure 3 should have the same color code as figure 4. The magnetomotive force is not reported in figure 4 with the same symbols adopted in equation 1.
Equation 2, this quantity is usually referred to as “Reluctance”
Section 2.2.1 is not used to make quantitative evaluations. It should be removed. “Analyticsl torque” is just mentioned in figure 16 but it is not written how it was evaluated.
There is no meaning in reporting results with 5 digits.
Figure 7 and 8 show different magnet arrangements but there is no quantitative comparison between them in terms of torque.
References are just few and mostly from Chinese researchers despite the literature on eddy current couplers is vast and dates back more than 50 years.
Due to the above considerations my suggestion is that the manuscript needs a major revision to be re-evaluated.
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
It is my pleasure for me to receive your comments about my manuscript. according to your comments, my revisions are as follows.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
-The paper (design of electromagnetic devices) does not fall within the scope of the journal (Electronics).
-The term 'magnetic resistance' is used in connection with the equivalent magnetic circuit. A more commonly uised term is 'magnetic reluctance'. Use this term instead.
-In Fig. 4, several flux paths are presented. Relate these paths to those shown in Fig. 3. Also, identify the magnetic reluctances with the physical arrangement in Fig. 3.
-Use 'magnetomotive force' instead of 'magnetomotor force'
-In eq. (5), the average electromotive force is calculated. Use a different symbol (currently phi), since this may lead to confusion with the symbol for magnetic flux.
-Use 'data' instead of 'date'.
-Check Fig. 5, which identifies two permanent magnet structures (labelled permanent magnet rotor and permanent magnets NdFeB. Also clarify the prupose of having two conducting rings (labelled conductor rotor and copper ring). A brass ring is mentioned at some other point in the paper. The band motion domain is a finite element mesh restriction and not an actual structiural component; this should be made clear.
-In Fig. 8, the magnetic vector potential is shown. A more meaningful variable would be the magnetic flux density. Replace this figure accordingly. Make sure that the three cases utilize the same scale, in order to be able to directly compare the different arrangements.
-The paper must be thoroughly revised to comply with English grammatical rules.
Correct:
-'mag-net'
-' CPMG is simple structure and less axial forces during operation' -> is a simple structure with less axial forces
-'many conditions and various can affect the CPMG drive' -> many conditions can affect
-'the conductor act like a rotor, which connected to the load shaft' -> is connected
-'which generated a torque to driving the permanent magnet array.' -> which generates a torque for driving
-'There is always exist a rotation' -> There is always a rotation
-'When the permanent magnet governor is operation' -> is operating
etc
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
It is my pleasure for me to receive your comments about my manuscript. according to your comments, my revisions are as follows. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The indications from the referees have been addressed just in part and with many typos, evidencing poor commitment.
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
Your comments are undoubtedly helpful to improve the paper. We have checked the manuscript carefully and revised it according to these comments.
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised paper still contains grammatical errors. It should be thoroughly revised in this respect.
From my previous revision, most of my concerns and observations seem to have not been taken into account or not addressed. The following points should be taken into account:
-In Fig. 4, several flux paths are presented. Relate these paths to those shown in Fig. 3. Also, identify the magnetic reluctances with the physical arrangement in Fig. 3.
-In eq. (5), the average electromotive force is calculated. Use a different symbol (currently phi), since this may lead to confusion with the symbol for magnetic flux.
-Check Fig. 5, which identifies two permanent magnet structures (labelled permanent magnet rotor and permanent magnets NdFeB. Also clarify the prupose of having two conducting rings (labelled conductor rotor and copper ring). A brass ring is mentioned at some other point in the paper. The band motion domain is a finite element mesh restriction and not an actual structiural component; this should be made clear.
-In Fig. 8, the magnetic vector potential is shown. A more meaningful variable would be the magnetic flux density. Replace this figure accordingly. Make sure that the three cases utilize the same scale, in order to be able to directly compare the different arrangements.
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
It is my pleasure for me to receive your comments about my manuscript, my revisions are as follows，please see the attachment. Thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved the paper and all my questions have been answered adequately. I have no further reservations.
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
We sincerely thank the editor and all reviewers for the valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our quality. Thank you very much! Wish you have a nice day!
Your sincerely,
Yonglong Zhu.