A Novel Secondary Side Series LCD Forward Converter with High Efficiency and Magnetic Reset

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, a new LCD forward converter is suggested for the secondary-side series. The reviewer has the following comments/questions:

1. The authors need to supplement the performance simulation results of the proposed power converter with component models and working modes that are closer to reality.

2. The experimental results should be compared with the simulation results to ensure they match.

3. The current diagram in the experimental results (Figure 8) is not compatible with the current waveform in the theoretical analysis (Figure 2).

4. The summary and conclusion contain redundant information and should be rewritten. Additionally, in the conclusion, it is necessary to add quantitative parameters and consequences.

The manuscript provided contains some minor issues with grammar, spelling, and syntax that could be improved for clarity and readability.

Author Response

On behalf of my co-authors, we sincerely appreciate and thank the experienced editors and referees very much for their valuable and constructive comments. According to the suggestions of the reviewers, we have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper, also we have tried our best to revise our paper on the basis of the comments and have answered the proposed questions of one by one，which are all in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, the name of the affiliation is misspelled at both authors – School of Electircal...

Then, throughout your work, after the dot that ends a sentence, there is no space until the first letter of the next sentence. Example: row 10, - ,, reset is proposed in this paper.Compared with the traditional forward converter..." and this also happens on rows: 17,19, 30,32,35,41, 52, 56 (on this row you have a semicolon at the end of the phrase), 67,7279,80,91, 97, 99, and so on.

In rows 108 and 110 you have Fig.1. instead of Fig. 1. The same aspect is repeated several times.

In lines: 135, 150,151,152, 278,330,387, 397,398, 400,405,412,413,415,416 - you used a different font size than the one provided by the paper's format.

The equations written by you do not have the same font size throughout the work (the font size decreases with the length of the equations), which is not right. Please use the same font size for all equations.

In line 174 you have a comma between ,,voltage” and ,,Therefore” and it should be a period (dot)

But there are also more important problems, such as:

In line 237 where an "n" appears, which is not defined in the text. Then, even worse, in line 268, that "d" appears, which as a written character can be confused with "d" from derivatives. I think you should write -D- instead of -d- because I suspect it is about Duty cycle.

Figure 7 is not correct. You should present an overview where we can see connections from the test board to different measuring and control devices, etc.

Figures 8 and 9 also do not seem to express a high degree of confidence - they do not have good definitions and it is not clear that they were taken from the screen of an oscilloscope. In the year 2023, I think it is possible to show a screenshot of an oscilloscope and not just a part of its screen as you did. In addition, please modify these figures so that the part of the oscilloscope they were taken from can be clearly seen taken over. Please put in the Reference a link to the type of oscilloscope used.

In Figure 9, the ripple’s period does not seem to be equal. Some periods have 6 subdivisions others only 5.5 subdivisions.

In Figure 10, you present the efficiency of the converter, but you don't say in relation to whom it is better? And don't you say why the converter version proposed by you is better? does it have better reliability than those with which the comparison is made in Table 3? BTW, In Table 3, in the first column, you have used both uppercase and lowercase letters for the names of parameters - please be consistent.

In equation 38, according to my calculation, the result is 0.0047 and not 0.005 - why didn't you put approximately equal instead of equal?

Chapter 6 didn't convince me. It is also too short. You presented a theoretical part on almost 11 pages out of 16, but in the conclusion chapter, you only write 12 lines?

In Table 1, "value" should be written instead of -parameter- and "parameter" should be written instead of -index-.

 

Also, the experimental part is not convincingly exposed.

Author Response

On behalf of my co-authors, we sincerely appreciate and thank the experienced editors and referees very much for their valuable and constructive comments. According to the suggestions of the reviewers, we have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper, also we have tried our best to revise our paper on the basis of the comments and have answered the proposed questions of one by one，which are all in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All requirements are met. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1Comments

On behalf of my co-authors, we sincerely appreciate and thank the experienced editors and referees very much for their valuable and constructive comments. According to the suggestions of the reviewers, we have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper, also we have tried our best to revise our paper on the basis of the comments and have answered the proposed questions of one by one, which are as follows:

Point 1 :Comments and Suggestions for Authors All requirements are met. 

Response 1: The author and co-authors greatly thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Second Review

Dear authors, I have read the new version of your manuscript. I find that some of the problematic points highlighted by me have been fixed, but some have not, not at all. I will add a comment starting with the symbol *** to each of your unsatisfactory answers:

Point 1 :First of all, the name of the affiliation is misspelled at both authors – School

of Electircal...

Response 1：Special thanks to you for your nice comments. The spelling of the subsidiarynames of the two authors has been corrected, which marked in red in the paper.

*** you have replaced the word School by the word College, but the problem is that you stil use the word ,,electircal” instead of – electrical- … please do make the correction!!!

 Point 2:Then, throughout your work, after the dot that ends a sentence, there is no space until

the first letter of the next sentence. Example: row 10, - ,, reset is proposed in this

paper.Compared with the traditional forward converter..." and this also happens on rows:

17,19, 30,32,35,41, 52, 56 (on this row you have a semicolon at the end of the phrase), 67,7279,80,91, 97, 99, and so on.

Response 2:Greatly thanks for the comments from reviewer. I have carefully checked the whole article, and put spaces where spaces need to be added.

*** No, you not -   you still have this issue in the second form (ex: rows – 130, 137, 155, 184, 196, 203,  207, 210, 243,  258, and other rows  but,  I'm tired to track them and I can't keep up with them anymore – please be more careful and write according to the rules imposed by the imposed format)

Point 7:In line 237 where an "n" appears, which is not defined in the text. Then, even worse, in line 268, that "d" appears, which as a written character can be confused with "d" from derivatives. I think you should write -D- instead of -d- because I suspect it is about Dutycycle.

Response 7:Thank you for your good suggestion. In line 237 Where n=N1:N2 represents the turn ratio of the transformer. In line 268,you write -D- instead of -d-.Here, D represents the duty cycle. Explanations are provided in the corresponding parts of the article, which marked in red in the paper.

*** Beware that you still have that issue! (In fact, you replaced d with D, but not everywhere - you still have this mistake in lines : 264 eq. 16, 301, and eq. 31, eq. 33, eq. 35 )

Point 8:Figure 7 is not correct. You should present an overview where we can see connections

from the test board to different measuring and control devices, etc.

Response 8: The author and co-authors firstly thank you very much for your careful

comments. The circuit diagram of Figure 7 is shown in the following figure, and and the additional capacitor C2 is not shown below the board.Thank you for your comments.

*** You submitted a new picture for the prototype in the cover letter but you forgot to put it in the manuscript too! In the manuscript there is still the old picture... please replace it.

Point 12:In equation 38, according to my calculation, the result is 0.0047 and not 0.005 - why didn't you put approximately equal instead of equal?

Response 12:Special thanks to you for your nice comments. In equation 38, The result has

been modified by 0.0047

 

*** You did indeed make the correction but you did not write it in red as required by the rule - please fix it.

And now, I would like to point out the new mistakes you made in the second version of the manuscript:

1.       The minor ones:  row 77,  you have a space after ,, developed”; row 118, -(3) the output voltage is assumed to be constant- The -, need to be written with uppercase; row 154, add a space after ,,mode”;

Then the most important ones:

2.        in subchapter 4.3 you have to use uppercase for ,,parameter”; in the new figure 7, you have to use space between the capture’s letters.  And figure 7 has a lot of noise – please remake the pixelation.

3.       Considering that your oscilloscope has the function of detecting the duty cycle value , and that in Figure 1 the PWM is fixed and there is no feedback loop in the circuit, why do three different values appear for D?

4.       I asked you to put a link to the oscilloscope used - you didn't do it. Why?

 

 

 

Author Response

On behalf of my co-authors, we sincerely appreciate and thank the experienced editors and referees very much for their valuable and constructive comments. According to the suggestions of the reviewers, we have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper, also we have tried our best to revise our paper on the basis of the comments and have answered the proposed questions of one by one，which are all in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf