Design of a Laboratory Test Equipment for Measuring and Testing Mobile Energy Means with Simulation of Operating Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper in current form is not condition to be published. Authors should carry out a comprehensive review of the way in which the paper was presented. It is not clear what is proposed by the authors and what contributions to the research. I suggest that the authors make the following corrections:

1- Corrections in Abstract. Authors must make it clear what will be presented in the paper, and what main results are obtained. In the current version, it is not clear what will be presented in the paper;

2- Make it clear in the introduction what the authors are proposing, what are the main contributions, what is new;

3- In the conclusions, the authors must make clear the main contributions of the presented results, and of the proposed system in relation to what already exists in the literature.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments.
I tried to incorporate the comments into the article.
Specific adjustments:

• corrections in the abstract and a description of the achieved goals,
• in the introduction there is a description of the device proposed in the article and the innovations resulting from it,
• the benefit of the proposed device is presented in the conclusion.

I hope that the given modifications have been properly implemented and are in line with the comments.
Have a nice day. Regards, Nosian.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors of the paper: Design of a Laboratory Test Equipment For n Measuring and Testing Mobile Energy Means with Simulation of Operating Conditions.

Please review the paper and add new research improvements such as:

- photos from the laboratory and dimensions of the test rig,

- design parameters of the test rig and how it has been calculated (the most important part). Details about the components (range, accuracy, efficiency)

- preliminary results of the test rig - in another interpretation and in dynamic mode if possible.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments.
I tried to incorporate the comments into the article.
Specific adjustments:

• i included photos from the laboratory and a table of the main dimensions of the device in the article,
• additional calculations of individual device components were added along with their parameters,
• I could not state the interim results, as the article describes the design and only the verification measurement, and then individual long-term tests of the hydraulic components will be performed on the proposed device, so the design itself and the verification measurement are practically preliminary results. 

I hope that I have processed your comments correctly and in an appropriate way.

Have a nice day. Regards, Nosian.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments.
I tried to incorporate the comments into the article.
Specific adjustments:

• modified numbering of chapters and their relocation,
• modification of formulas and their descriptions
• editing units in the text,
• editing references and citations,
• adjusting the font size in the text,
• modification of descriptions of tables and figures,
• adding a statistical analysis (table) of the verification measurement,
• adding technical parameters of components,
• expansion of the article in individual parts.

I hope that I have processed your comments correctly and in an appropriate way.

Have a nice day. Regards, Nosian.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made all the corrections and clarifications requested, presenting a version in conditions to be published.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, which helped me to improve the quality of the given article.
I also made small adjustments to the article that one of the reviewers requested of me.
I edited the text in which there were divided words, enlarged picture No. 1.
Have a nice day. Regards, Nosian.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors. In order to improve the paper quality please find my recommendations below:

- please check the title, "Mo-bile" is the correct word ? 

- for the equations, please use an equation editor,

- please check the text once again. In chapter 1 the text contains split word: "com-pared",

- is unclear what brings new the design test rig. Please explain what's new on this test rig and what is different in designing the test rig in comparison with others.

- please increase figure 1, in order to observe better the main elements.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, which helped me to improve the quality of the given article.
I also made small adjustments to the article that one of the reviewers requested of me.
I edited the text in which there were divided words, enlarged picture No. 1.

Corrected the word Mo-bile to Mobile.

Checked the text.

I added the sentences in the introduction and the discussion of what new the given device brings.

I enlarged the picture no. 1, but I also enlarged it before, and I feel that when editing the given article, the editor reduced it according to the template, the attached PDF file could contain an image in the format in which I inserted it.

I used the equation editor when inserting the formulas, hopefully it can be seen, maybe it will be better seen in the attached PDF format.

I hope I answered all the comments in the required quality, thanks again for all the comments.

Have a nice day. Regards, Nosian.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors referred to the comments and I accept explanations.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, which helped me to improve the quality of the given article.
I also made small adjustments to the article that one of the reviewers requested of me.
I edited the text in which there were divided words, enlarged picture No. 1.
Have a nice day. Regards, Nosian.