A Novel Rotating Wireless Power Transfer System for Slipring with Redundancy Enhancement Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I appreciate the work you have done, which is properly accompanied by a simulation study and subsequent experimental tests. However, I have several doubts. Your work sounds more like a technical report rather than a research paper, as one cannot perceive what the novelty of your approach is.

 

In particular:

1. The presented study on topology selection and circuit design (Section 2) is done correctly, even though the aspects discussed in the paper and the equations reported are already well known in the literature, as the comparative analysis of S-S and LCC-LCC systems.

 

2. Regarding the shape of the coupling mechanism; the design, simulation and experimentation process was carried out and presented correctly, however it sounds more like a technical report in which the authors described just how the system has been designed rather than a novelty introduced by the system. 

 

3. The authors mention the "fault-tolerant" working condition several times in the paper, saying in the conclusion "It introduces a planar rotating multi-coil coupling mechanism ensuring consistent power and efficiency during rotation, alongside a fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant control strategy to significantly improve the system's safety and longevity". The questions are how is the fault diagnosis described? Where is the fault-tolerant control strategy punctuated in the paper?

 

3. The references need to be revised with more up-to-date literature and more prominent articles.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is good.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A Novel Rotating Wireless Power Transfer System for Slipring with Redundancy Enhancement Characteristics” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2986954). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We refined the theoretical analysis and experiments, and responded to each of the reviewers' comments carefully, which we hope meet with approval. In the revised manuscript, all significant modifications are highlighted in the yellow background, and the supplements are marked in red for easy identification. The revised version of the paper is displayed at the end of the attached PDF file.

 

Finally, we would like to thank all the reviewers and editors again for the valuable guidance and suggestions that significantly improved the quality of the revised manuscript. In the past six weeks, we made our best efforts to revise the manuscript. We appreciate for editors' and reviewers' warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

 

Thank you very much for your work concerning our paper.

Wish you all the best!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article called "A Novel Rotating Wireless Power Transfer System for Slipring with Redundancy Enhancement Characteristics" is interesting and falls within the topics of the journal.

I would suggest:

1) check the references, there is a jump between 17 and 20

2) at the end of the introduction define how the paper is divided

3) figure 2.1 and 2.2 must be referred to the frequency domain (and simply called 1 and 2), similarly for the others

4) remove references to chapter 3

5) use better formula numbers

6) check formula 3.2

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A Novel Rotating Wireless Power Transfer System for Slipring with Redundancy Enhancement Characteristics” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2986954). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We refined the theoretical analysis and experiments, and responded to each of the reviewers' comments carefully, which we hope meet with approval. In the revised manuscript, all significant modifications are highlighted in the yellow background, and the supplements are marked in red for easy identification. The revised version of the paper is displayed at the end of the attached PDF file.

 

Finally, we would like to thank all the reviewers and editors again for the valuable guidance and suggestions that significantly improved the quality of the revised manuscript. In the past six weeks, we made our best efforts to revise the manuscript. We appreciate for editors' and reviewers' warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

 

Thank you very much for your work concerning our paper.

Wish you all the best!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposal is interesting, but there is a lack of clarification of procedural details indicated in the observations, which, in my opinion, should be answered in a precise manner.

1.- Because in the relation (2-6) the terms: 1/jwCfp and 1/jwCfs are not taken into account.

2.- The simulations shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.4 are not clear.  In Fig. 2.3 the authors show the behavior of the inductance muta, but in the results shown no value of the mutual inductance is observed. In Fig. 2.4, the authors indicate "...the transmission power and transmission efficiency of the two topologies under varying loads", but the figure does not reflect what the authors indicate.

3.- The authors do not state the theoretical conditions for the resonance frequency of the primary and secondary sides as stated in (0-17).  In Table 2-1, the authors give the values of Cfp, Cfs, Cp, Cs, Lfp and Lfs, but it is not stated under which design values they were obtained.

4.- There is no Chapter 3.

5.- Specify the reference for the beta angle and indicate why the values of 120 degrees are sufficient for the proposal, since the authors indicate in Fig. 3.3 the adjustment of k=0 by varying the angle of rotation, but it is not clear which particular angle to work with, since K=0 is obtained with different values of rotation.

6.- Check the wording, there are grammatical errors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A Novel Rotating Wireless Power Transfer System for Slipring with Redundancy Enhancement Characteristics” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2986954). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We refined the theoretical analysis and experiments, and responded to each of the reviewers' comments carefully, which we hope meet with approval. In the revised manuscript, all significant modifications are highlighted in the yellow background, and the supplements are marked in red for easy identification. The revised version of the paper is displayed at the end of the attached PDF file.

 

Finally, we would like to thank all the reviewers and editors again for the valuable guidance and suggestions that significantly improved the quality of the revised manuscript. In the past six weeks, we made our best efforts to revise the manuscript. We appreciate for editors' and reviewers' warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

 

Thank you very much for your work concerning our paper.

Wish you all the best!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf