Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes an electromagnetic launcher based on the magnetic reluctance control for the propulsion of aircraft-mounted microsatellites. The phenomenon related to the magnetic reluctance reduction is not convincingly described, both in terms of theory and also as concerns the practical manufacture and design of the added laminated iron yoke etc. The concept itself is too simple to be practically used for the purpose of propulsion of aircraft-mounted microsatellites. On the other hand, the scaling technology for an application at larger scale is missing. Even the Table 8 shows very low speeds comparing to literature, and Fig. 17 cannot be trustable because comparing systems with different powers, and it it obvious that smaller and simpler systems, as the one described, will present a better energy efficiency, which may not be scalable at larger scale/volumes. The system looks more like a simple demonstrative model for students education, and so the scientific impact is disputable. 

Several expressions and terms must be verified. Some sentences lack clarity and must be revised. 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript discusses a new design to increase the capability of electromagnetic launchers. Thus, it is suitable for being published in Applied System Innovation.

However, some questions and concerns still need to be addressed:

Major:

1.) Page 1: the abstract, the authors mentioned the current electromagnetic launchers do not realize the full efficiency. Could the authors comment on the reasons or limitation for the current launchers, and what has been improved by this work ?

2.) Page 1: the last paragraph, the authors mentioned about the drawbacks of the current launchers, it is still not clear what drawbacks are pointed to and the reason why the drawbacks are difficult to be resolved.

3.) Page 2, equation (1): could the authors define all the parameters used and give a unit for each term ? The same is for the other equations discussed below.

4.) Page 4, Figure 1: I recommend the authors to point out each key item in this figure, such as which belong to flying launchpad and which belong to the satellite. It is also recommended the authors giving the citing source if this picture was not taken by the authors.

5.) Page 4, Figure 2: I recommend the authors to point out each component for this figure, where are the launcher coil and iron yoke. I recommend to use front view, left view and top view to illustrate the device, instead of viewing it from some random orientations.

6.) Page 12, section 7.2: adding a iron yoke to a coil is commonly known as a way to enhance the magnetic field, could the authors comment on what has been done along this direction in previous studies and what kind of limitations could potentially limit the use of a iron yoke practically ?

7.) Page 13, Table 8: even though the parameters from this work seem better, it is not very convincing the optimization is due to the iron yoke used here. Because other parameters in Table 8 are also different between these works. A control experiment is needed for this work. 

Minor:

a.) Could the authors please add page numbers to the manuscript ?

b.) In the Introduction sections, the authors used a lot of “authors”. Actually, it is not clear this word points to the authors of this manuscript or others. Could the authors please modify the manuscript to clarify this ? 

Based on the current status of the manuscript, I recommend a minor revision.

the language quality is fine

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

authors designed A New Electromagnetic Launcher Based on the Magnetic Reluctance Control for the Propulsion of Aircraft-Mounted Microsatellites. A few comments and questions are due before we proceed with this submission:

 

1-How does the SCR contribute to the generation of current pulses and the subsequent movement of the ferromagnetic projectile, as outlined in the system's operation?

2-What specific experimental methods were employed to arrive at the 17% improvement in projectile velocity as presented in Table 6 and Figure 15, and how does this enhancement correlate with the reduced magnetic circuit reluctance achieved by the soft iron laminated yoke design?

 

3-in introduction, citation is essential to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.09.035

4-What specific factors or design aspects might explain the remarkable 18-fold increase in efficiency observed in the proposed design when compared to the findings in [7]?

 

 

When authors take my comments in and revise the submission, i can reconsider my decision. do not skip any comments and questions above.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors fairly responded to most of the technical observations and admitted the scientific limits of their paper. It is obvious that the paper cannot be improved any more. Hence it may be published as it is now.