Design of High-Speed Permanent Magnet Motor Considering Rotor Radial Force and Motor Losses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In table 4, the letter N appears next to the quantities. Why if it is already indicated that the unit is Newton?
In figure 7, it should be indicated that the scale of values refers to W (total losses).
In figure 8, it should be indicated that the scale of values refers to W (total losses).
Bibliographic references 23, 24 and 25 are not cited in the article.
FEA models used in the analysis should be further clarified: How was the mechanical load of the motor simulated ?, How was the 10% rotor eccentricity simulated ?, etc.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please review the attachment for more details. Additional responses from other reviewers are also included for the reference.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper do not bring any theoretical contribution.
The paper analyzes the topology of six different high speed motor based on an existing high-speed PM motor (400W 80krpm motor reported by Nidec). These six different motors with different number of coils and different winding topologies. These imaginary motors are compared among the radial force, armature flux harmonics, and influence of current harmonics.
All the results are simulation results. All the motor design methods are verified based on nonlinear finite element analysis. No simulation details are given.
The conclusion of the is that a topology is (inevitably) better than the others.
The pater seems to be a good technical paper, but do not bring any significant scientific results to be published as a journal paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please review the attachment for more details. Additional responses from other reviewers are also included for the reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors should improve the Introduction section by comparing the recent technologies in the field. Based on the updated References the authors should underline their contributions. The authors mention the connection with the six-step drive, but no block diagram can be found.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please review the attachment for more details. Additional responses from other reviewers are also included for the reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The contribution is interesting, it is possible to find a lot of useful information. However the paper shall be revised and improved before acceptance. The paper abstract shall be tailored on the research originality, namely the first fourth sentences can be omitted. It is recommended to revised and improved the paper structure to the research papers standards, e.g. the design specification section shall be referred to the case study under consideration section and so on. The paper description shall be focus on the paper originality. The paper conclusions shall be significantly strengthen by some comments on the paper original results, namely please use quantitative / qualitative approach.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please review the attachment for more details. Additional responses from other reviewers are also included for the reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I agree with the authors modifications. With these improvements, the paper can be published in the actual form.
Author Response
Please review the response letter for more details. Other reviewers' comments are also included for reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The second version of the paper is improved, relative to the reviewers' remarks. However, recent references are missed (2020). The control block diagram is provided, in the simple form (the control is beyond the paper purpose).
Author Response
Please review the response letter for more details. Other reviewers' comments are also included for reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
In principal the contribution has been revised and improved. However the paper needs further modifications, the paper shall be revised in light of scientific standards. In particular the paper abstract and conclusions shall be carefully revised and improved. These sections shall be focus on the paper originality expression, namely the original results shall be expressed by quantitative / qualitative approach (the parameters correlations shall be visible).
Author Response
Please review the response letter for more details. Other reviewers' comments are also included for reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
