Applications of the TL-Based Fault Diagnostic System for the Capacitor in Hybrid Aircraft

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presented by the authors, which proposes a method for testing capacitors, is interesting.

In part of mathematical modeling, the methodology used is not entirely clearly presented.

There is a discrepancy in the results obtained in the figures; a more detailed description of the reasons is necessary.

Figures 2 and 7 have a lot in common, consider the possibility of combining them or using the same notation for elements.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers of Electronics,

We express our gratitude to all reviewers and editors for their careful consideration of the original manuscript entitled: Applications of the TL-based fault diagnostic system for the capacitor in hybrid aircraft using a mathematical model, and for providing us valuable and insightful comments. We carefully examined all the comments and accordingly modified the manuscript to address all of them. The following sections present our point-by-point responses to the comments and describe how we have incorporated them into the revised manuscript. We hope that the Reviewers and the Editors will find our revised manuscript satisfactory. All changes made in the manuscript are marked in green. The comments from the reviewers are given in bold font and the responses are given in italics in the pdf file.

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors propose an approach to capacitor fault diagnosis in hybrid aircraft systems using transfer learning and deep convolutional neural networks. However, as a reviewer, while I could see good potential in this work, I found the paper lacks several key components necessary for acceptance in the journal in its current form. The absence of detailed comparative analyses, mathematical description (literally there is not a single equation in the text) and simulation model descriptions hinders the paper's potential contribution to the field. Here are the feedback that I hope the author consider for their future corrections/improvements: 

1. Figure 1 should be replaced or removed. I'm not sure what's the purpose of talking about capacitors while presenting a very general scheme of wind energy conversion. While capacitors serves major role in the PE devices, a better figure should be chosen/designed to highlight them. 

2. One potential deficiency is the reliance on deep neural networks and transfer learning for capacitor fault diagnosis in aircraft systems. While these advanced techniques may offer promising results, they may introduce complexity and computational overhead that could limit practical implementation in real-time diagnostic systems. The authors did not address this gap or deficiency, although they claim their proposed methodologies is faster in this regarding, without providing sufficient evidence or proof in their work (line 237).

3. Additionally, the effectiveness of the proposed approach in handling diverse operating conditions, variations in capacitor types, and scalability to larger datasets may need further validation and robustness testing to ensure reliable and accurate fault detection in complex aerospace environments.

4. Lack of mathematical description that better describe the designed system. There is no equations at all the describe the math behind the proposed system's operation. 

5. The Simulink model's capability to simulate capacitor degradation under different load conditions and power supply configurations may be limited. A more comprehensive model should account for a wider range of operating conditions and external factors that can impact capacitor performance in real-world scenarios is required in such studies. 

6. The study lacks a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of variations in key parameters on the simulation results. Without assessing the model's sensitivity to changes in input data or system parameters, its robustness and reliability under different conditions may not be fully understood.

7. Inadequate analysis of the results, where more efforts should be given to provide detailed, scientific description on the results. Also, the results section should be expanded to include more results.

8. To support the previous points, for example; the results section may overlook a detailed error analysis of the diagnostic system's predictions. Understanding the types of errors (e.g., false positives, false negatives).

9. A comparative benchmarking with methodologies reported in literature would provide valuable insights into the superiority or limitations of the proposed model in terms of diagnostic accuracy and efficiency.

I wish the authors all best of luck in their future endeavors. 

Moderate editing

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers of Electronics,

We express our gratitude to all reviewers and editors for their careful consideration of the original manuscript entitled: Applications of the TL-based fault diagnostic system for the capacitor in hybrid aircraft using a mathematical model, and for providing us valuable and insightful comments. We carefully examined all the comments and accordingly modified the manuscript to address all of them. The following sections present our point-by-point responses to the comments and describe how we have incorporated them into the revised manuscript. We hope that the Reviewers and the Editors will find our revised manuscript satisfactory. All changes made in the manuscript are marked in green. The comments from the reviewers are given in bold font and the responses are given in italics in the pdf file.

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors took into account all my comments; I have no more to say about them.

Thanks for good job.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers, Associate Editor, Editor-in-Chief,

We would like to thank you for the analysis of our work entitled: Applications of the TL-based fault diagnostic system for the capacitor in hybrid aircraft using a mathematical model and for exhaustive remarks which help us to improve our paper. We hope that the Reviewers and the Editors will find our revised manuscript satisfactory. All changes made to the manuscript are marked in green. The comments from the reviewers are given in bold font and the responses are given in italics.

Best regards,
Authors

Response to Reviewers' Comments

Reviewer 1:

The authors took into account all my comments; I have no more to say about them.  Thanks for good job.

 Dear Reviewer, thank you for your effort in reviewing our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for their point-to-point response to my feedback. However, and while the authors did good in their responses and modifications, I still cannot see how they emphasize that they developed "a mathematical modeling", while what they have done is merely a study on a setup. The word algorithm or mathematical modeling is too specific in academic publications, and the authors have only utilized simple formulas that are not elevated to be "a mathematical modeling or proposed algorithm". As a reviewer, I cannot overcome this fact, but as a recognition to the authors efforts, I'd like them to address the following concerns:

1) I urge the authors to remove all details that highlight or point to mathematical modeling as there are literally no math proposed in this submission. Alternatively, the authors may: a) emphasize that this is a case study (or an AI application) that are utilized to serve their goal of identifying capacitor faults. Claiming any mathematical formulation or utilization is not found in this work. Hence, such path should also affect the title of this submission to emphasize this setup/application/case study that the authors have addressed in their submission. Or, b) the authors shall developed a full-scale mathematical algorithm that explain the nature of their work (which I still find it missing here).

While I cannot dictate what the authors should do in this case, I cannot as a reviewer (from my side) skip this important point, as this also aimed to improve the credibility of their work. 

2) Regarding the sensitivity analysis concern, there is still missing a broader aspect of sensitivity analysis that evaluates how variations in key parameters influence the simulation results comprehensively. Hence, the author could provide further detailed results or a discussion on how variations in design parameters affect the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of their system.

3) Further discussion on figures 12~14 is still needed. The presented discussion is still too limited.

Moderate English revision is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers, Associate Editor, Editor-in-Chief,

We would like to thank you for the analysis of our work entitled: Applications of the TL-based fault diagnostic system for the capacitor in hybrid aircraft using a mathematical model and for exhaustive remarks which help us to improve our paper. We hope that the Reviewers and the Editors will find our revised manuscript satisfactory. All changes made to the manuscript are marked in green. The comments from the reviewers are given in bold font and the responses are given in italics (green and red colours).

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept!

Moderate English revision is needed.