Next Article in Journal
A Decision Support System for Irrigation Management in Thailand: Case Study of Tak City Agricultural Production
Previous Article in Journal
Dual Band Antenna Design and Prediction of Resonance Frequency Using Machine Learning Approaches
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Optimal Design of a New Rotating Magnetic Beacon Structure Based on Halbach Array

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10506; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010506
by Bo Li, Binfeng Yang *, Fenghua Xiang and Jiaojiao Guo
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10506; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010506
Submission received: 31 August 2022 / Revised: 10 October 2022 / Accepted: 13 October 2022 / Published: 18 October 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Figure 7 is hard to read, as the angles and directions are too small.

2. What is the design consideration at 14 cm?

3. The magnetic field is hold constant in Comsol simulation? What is the magnetic material used in the simulation?

4. Please comment on the achievable magnetic field intensity. Figure 21 shows peak at 0.06 T. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please refer to the attachment for our reponse to your comments.

Kind regards,

Mr. Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper, the authors have presented a magnetic field expression of a single rectangular permanent  derived based on the surface current method. Below are some of some of my comments.

1.     Is the proposed model valid only for the rectangular shape of the magnets in a linear arrangement? Or it can be used for any other configuration of Halbech Array?

2.     The contribution of the developed model in this paper is not clear with respect to the magnetic field estimation expression presented in the literature.

3.      In the PSA implementation, is there any specific reason for using constraints of some of all lengths equal to 14 cm?

4.     It will be more appropriate if authors can include details of meshing, material properties used in the Comsol Simulations while discussing the comparison of their model with the Comsol simulations.

5.     There are number of typos, grammatical errors, and spelling mistakes.  Please correct.

6.     The resolution of Figure 5 should be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please refer to the attachment for our response to your comments.

Kind regards,

Mr. Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have answered all my queries.

Back to TopTop