Precision Analysis and Design of Rotating Coil Magnetic Measurements System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript addresses the problem of the construction of measuring instruments of the Dipole magnetic field using the Rotating coil technique. The Authors use a closed-loop system with the PI controller to control the DC motor for driving the coil packed in a cylinder rod. The experiment of the magnetic field intensity measurement has been performed concerning the angle of the rotating coil. The analysis of the impact of the controlled speed and the orbit movement of the shaft with the coil on the accuracy of electromagnetic field measurement has been made. The Authors of the article have estimated the DC motor model parameters to tune the PI controller for the rotation speed control purposes. The orbit measurements of the rotating coil for different rotational speeds have been also performed. The authors conclude that, despite the mechanical looseness of the device which not affects the measurement of the dipole magnetic field, the designed controller has been not able to work correctly under specified conditions.

The topic itself is interesting. The Synchrotron light can be used in many areas including biological, medical science, and discovering the atomic and molecular properties of materials for industrial purposes. It should be emphasized that the Authors present a piece of solid engineering work but some shortcomings must be corrected.

Comments to the Authors:

First of all the language of the manuscript is hard to understand, so moderate English changes are required (e.g. lines 14-17 in the abstract part).

The abstract, and introduction parts must be rebuilt to stand on its own and reveal important points to the readers. The authors mention the synchrotron light in the introduction part but the topic is not elaborated on later in the paper. An inevitability of the construction of measuring instruments of the Dipole magnetic field for the synchrotron light beam must be clearly stated in the introduction part.

A more detailed discussion regarding the existing works of the Authors should be given to highlight the motivation of this work.

In the conclusion part of the manuscript, the authors say that ‘the designed controller was unable to work under specified conditions’. Why has the PID controller not been used?

' Structure of the cylinder rod that contained Search coil was made from G10 material’. Please explain what the material is, and provide reference.

How the constraints (lines 216-217) have been defined?

To increase readability, the notations should be given after the equations, not at the end of the manuscript.

What the Authors mean when writing ‘To increase the optimum values’ (line 315)???

Concluding, it should be stated whether the designed measurement system is suitable for measuring the magnetic field from the Synchrotron light or not.

 

The editorial drawbacks:

 

Some blank spaces are found (line 137).

Incorrect numbering of figures starting from figure 7. Please proofread the whole manuscript carefully.

Incorrect numbering of tables starting from table 2. Please proofread the whole manuscript carefully.

The drawing is illegible (line 208).

The drawings are illegible (line 226). It is impossible to observe overshoot and steady-state error.

It seems that there is no point in creating subchapters in which there are only drawings (e.g. 4.4.1-4.4.3, etc.).

Typos and grammar errors should be eliminated in the work. Please proofread the whole manuscript carefully.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for all of you review and comments. I have revised and rewrite per your suggestion detail of each action, please find in as attached file. I have to set Track charge for you can check all the item that I have revised.

Best regards

Srisertpol J.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is adequately written, the subject is very interesting and interdisciplinary treated. However, some minor details must be revised to improve the article quality:

1. Please, revise the use of caps letter for too many words.
2. In line 137 some symbols are missing.
3. The text from lines 139-140 must be revised.
4. The comments from Sections 3.1 and 3.2 must be reformulated for a better understanding.
5. In line 193 it must be Fig. 11 instead Fig. 12
6. The first 3 lines of the text for Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3 are the same, it must be reformulated, or Figs. 14-16 could be unified.
7. As in the previous remark, the Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.3 are not titles. The considered experiments could be presented in a revised text structure.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

  Thank you very much for all of you review and comments. I has revised and rewrite per your suggestion detail of each action, please fine in as attached file. 

Best regards

Srisertpol J.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx