Review Reports
- Zhi-Xiong Jiang1,
- Ki-Hong Park1 and
- Jun-Hyung Kim1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the modifications. I think most part of my questions were answered and reflected to the text appropriately.
One thing I am concerned is that about my first comment, about the background of 50G magnetic leakage. The authors mentioned that it is based on some literatures, but they are not clearly cited. Please provide appripriate information about the literatures in the reference section.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We really appreciate your comment and work, The related reference has been added. Thanks for your time. Please see the attachment.
Best regards
Jiang Zhixiong
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors tried to answer my questions, but I think that the updated version is not sufficient for the publication. The current version of this article is not useful for readers. I strongly recomend the rejection again.
- The authors adeded the sentences for the related studies. However, the sentence is too abstract and not quantitative. So, I cannnot understand the problem of the current studies. You should show the detailed value.
- The author only explain the requirement for magnetic flux. I cannnot understand the requirement for haptics side. I cannot understand whether the device is really useful or not.
- Authors should add the state of art of haptic devices. The explanation only for magnetic flux escapes the compariosn with other haptic devices.
- The structure of the paper is too wrtong. This paper seems to explain what you did. Is this useful for reader? Only showing what you did is not useful for readers.
- User evaluation is necessary to verify your device. Is this enough for users?
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We really appreciate your comment and work, The responses to each comment have been made, please see the attachment. Thanks for your time.
Best regards
Jiang Zhixiong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The revision reads fine to me. The revised manuscript is ready for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We really appreciate your comment and work. Thanks for your time.
Best regards
Jiang Zhixiong
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I understand what the authors want to explain with their comments. But, some points should be updated. I wrote some comments which should be modified.
>3.Authors should add the state of art of haptic devices. The explanation >only for magnetic flux escapes the comparison with other haptic devices. >Dear reviewer:
>We appreciate your comment. In the introduction part, we have >mentioned some related studies, which are focusing on improving motor >performance. There are not related studies focusing on reducing the >magnetic flux leakage significantly on linear vibration motor. Therefore, >the main purpose of this paper is to provide new methods to reduce the >magnetic flux leakage significantly, while maintaining motor performance. >We do not focus on motor performance compared to the other devices. >Thank for your understanding.
I mentioned haptics side technologies, not magnetic field reduction. I cannot understand how the current device or design will contribute to haptics field. Of course, I understand that what you did is important with your explanation. But, actually, the device is useful for haptic feedback. So, the authors should make the requirements such as displacement or frequency clear. Otherwise, readers cannot understand the usefulness of the device.
>5. User evaluation is necessary to verify your device. Is this enough for users?
>Dear reviewer: We appreciate your comment. Except for the magnetic flux >leakage, the other performances have been accepted by the motor >company. We are in cooperation with the motor company, and nowadays, >the motor company more focused on reducing the magnetic flux leakage. >The user evaluation is not our research area. Thanks for your understanding.
I cannot agree with your comment. The paper should be completed in this paper. If the motor company said that it is OK, readers cannot understand whether the deice is useful or not. What you said is enough for the reports to the motor company, not enough for journal articles. So, you should conduct a user experiment to evaluate whether the device provide haptic feedback or not. Or you should show the requirements and said that the device fill the requirements. Otherwise, I cannot agree with the acceptance.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We appreciate your comments. The modifications have been made according to your comments, which have been the highlight in the paper. Thank you very much for your patience and time.
Best regards
Jiang Zhi-Xiong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your modification. The paper is well modified. But, there is a minor point which should be modified.
Response:
Dear reviewer:
We appreciate your comment. The motor performance requirement have been added in line 53, and the device satisfied the requirement, the sentences have
been added in line 158, 297, 307. Thank you very much for your time.
You kindly added requirement. But, how you decide them? From the result? What the motor company said?
Anyway, please refer some articles and explain that the requirements you mentioned are enough for haptic feedback to users.
I am looking forward to hearing you again.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We appreciate your comments. The modifications have been made according to your comments, which have been highlight in the paper. Thank you very much for your patience and time.
Best regards
Jiang Zhi-xiong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper was minimally modified.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposes a method to prevent the leakage of magnetic flux in the design of LRA. I think it is an interesting paper with precise simulations.
On the other hand, there are some major problems with this paper.
The first problem is that no evidence that the leakage of magnetic flux above 50G must be prevented is provided. And it does not indicate whether the harmful magnetic field is a stationary (DC) or altering (AC) one. As far as I know, it is the AC magnetic field that may affect the organism, but this paper deals with stationary magnetic field.
If there is a problem with the stationary magnetic field, I think it is because it destroys the information on the magnetic card when used on a daily basis. However, if that is the case, then it is odd that the final design of this study targets only the magnetic flux 3.5 mm "below" the device.
The second problem is that the authors didn't measure the actual acceleration; they did measure the force factor, but the acceleration is force divided by mass. So, for example, in the final design of the SUS shield, the acceleration is supposed to be reduced by increasing the weight, but there is no mention or measurement of this.
The lesser issues are as follows
- Section 4.2 doesn't seem to be necessary. This is because, as already mentioned, it does not take into account the change in acceleration due to a change in the overall weight. I think it is better to truncate this section.
- It's hard to tell from CAD drawings alone how all the prototypes work. Please show an easy-to-understand two-dimensional picture and the movement animation.
- p1 "Furthermore, when a linear vibration is used in a vehicle infotainment display, dirt can easily be collected on the touch screen, creating an uncomfortable experience for people using a haptic device." It's unclear how this is related to the current study.
- p4 "Klippel equipment" I think it is probably a laser displacement meter. Instead of writing proper nouns directly in the main text, please describe the general name of the measurement device and describe the product name in brackets.
- 4.3 It seems to me that the original device was simply flipped over. Couldn't you have turned the original resonator itself upside down? You also need to describe why you are measuring at 3.25mm.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper explains the design of the linear magnetic actuator for car haptic applications. The authors simulated the magnetic flux and actually measured. The results show that the goal of the authors was well achieved. I agree with the direction of this paper. But, the fatal problem of this paper is the structure. Why do the authors show all results of minor changes? I think almost half of the paper has no meaning. The authors evaluated the last design in deep, then discuss the effects of each component. That is easy to read. I strongly recommend the authors to reconsider this paper. I write some comments for the update.
- The problems of the related studies are not well summarized, too abstract. What is the problem of the related studies? Magnetic flux? Displacement? Power consumption? I recommend the author to increase the visibility of the problem with organized sentences or a table.
- The authors entitled “Analysis and Design of a New Linear Vibration Motor Used to Reduce Magnetic Flux Leakage in In-Vehicle Infotainment”. The authors mentioned “In-Vehicle Infotainment”. But, the requirements for the purpose was not well explained. Only magnetic field? Is it enough? If the authors do not limit to the application and explain low magnetic flux leakage (It will be helpful under some applications!!), I can understand. Anyway, once the authors decide the application field, they sufficiently explain the requirements for the application field.
- The authors explain that the device is haptic application. However, they did not explain the related studies and the requirement for the haptic device. Is this really good device and results?
- If the author think the actuator is suitable for haptic applications, the authors should conduct some user experiments. The authors characterized the device like this paper, then conduct the user test to verify the proposed device.
- The explanation of the last device is too short. Why? The last one is the best one, I guess. Why do the authors discuss in detail?
- The authors do not mention car applications or something like that in the results section or conclusion. Do the authors want to apply this actuator to car applications? I am suspicious of this target.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper discusses the design and evaluation of a new design for linear actuators aimed at reducing the magnetic flux leakage. The subject of the paper, evaluation, and findings are all very important to the intended population of the journal. The methods, evaluation, and contribution are worth to publish. However, I some important details are missing in the manuscript.
For instance, it was mentioned that “Two types of experimental setups were used to obtain the experimental magnetic flux leakage, displacement, and impedance of a linear vibration motor. “ But the details of the two setups were not clear. The authors did a good job discussing the details on the analysis and on the design of the prototype but the same level of detail is missing for the experimental design/setup.
As is, the conclusion section was a summary of the paper and is not clear where this work will lead to or how it is useful for the broader scientific community or its application in real-world. I suggest the authors to expand on their findings and add to the conclusion section.