Design of a Single-Sided, Coreless, Flat-Type Linear Voice Coil Motor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1.The article has many grammatical problems and poor readability. The idea of the article is not clear, it likes a popular science article but not a engineering article in which has no explanation of what problems solved.
Line 33,Page 1 named "The voice coil motor, named because its shape is very similar to the acoustic coil used in loudspeakers" is unreadable.
LIne 48 "pulling the cables"
Line 53 "The coil of a moving-coil voice coil motor is located in an air-gap magnetic field".
line 160 " water jacket type [9]. The water-jacketed construction"
and so on
2.Serious disadvantage of single-sided Flat linear Voice Coil Motor ,such as Unilateral force ,open air gap,have not been analyzed in the paper.
3.There is no experimental data for electromagnetic field analysis and temperature field analysis
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, a voice coil motor is designed to provide X-direction thrust on the magnetic levitation cable table of a lithography machine. The voice coil motor is based on Halbach permanent magnet array and adopts a single-sided ironless flat structure. Firstly, the magnetic field distribution is analyzed based on the magnetic charge method, and the expressions of magnetic field and thrust are obtained. Then, the main parameters of the motor are selected and optimized, including the number of turns of the coil, the size of the wire, and the size of the permanent magnet to improve the force density. Finally, two double-layer serpentine water-cooled plate configurations are designed for the voice coil motor.
1. Please mark the 12 auxiliary lines created in the paper so that you can know the location;
2. Figure 7 lacks specific explanations and representations;
3. Lack of prototype to verify thrust performance and cooling effect.
4. The structure or method does not seem to be the novelty of this paper, where is the novelty of this paper?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The structure presented is very far from being original but the application is interesting. Many details and clarifications could be added to make the article really usable, here are some of them.
- It is essential to specify the exact characteristics of the magnets used (standard reference), there is no precision on this subject.
- Dimensions are missing in figure 4 - The forces in figure 5 are calculated with what current value?
- Figure 10 is not clear, the thermal model must be much better justified, the shape of the conductors (copper) is strange, it would be interesting to add dimensions to the figure.
- The results presented in Figure 11 are not sufficiently detailed, what are the assumptions (thermal resistances, etc.) adopted for the calculation? Has the thermal contact resistance between the cooled soleplate and the winding support been taken into account? Between the two cooler plates? The results obtained seem extremely optimistic, a simulation also showing the temperature of the cooler is essential. The device only works if the winding cooling conditions are in accordance with the theoretical study, this part of the article must be deeply modified.
- Has a prototype been considered, built?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, the grammar and readability of the article have been greatly improved.
But the innovations of the article need to be explained more clearly,
It's better to give the explaination why the lateral force of the motor is very small in the structure in Fig1,the XYZ coordinate identification is very confused in fig1.
The other work is the double-layer water-cooled structure,It is better to give the quantitative value of how much power density can be increased by this structure?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been modified for the first and second points, and the explanation of the unfinished prototype is given, and the innovation point is a little insufficient, if there is enough time, both the temperature and the thrust performance should be verified by experiments.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition of the previous revisions and the related questions you asked. We will continue to conduct prototype trials in the future, thank you again.
Best wishes!
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have generally taken the remarks well into account, I have no further comments.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition of the previous revisions and the related questions you asked.
Best wishes!
