Three-Phase 75 kW Brushless Direct Current Motor for Electric Vehicles: Different Power Stage Design, Calculation of Losses, Cooling Techniques, and Comparison
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction needs significant improvement, the authors have to lay a background to the study to give the reader an idea of what is to be expected in the study.
what criteria were considered for the selection of the heat sink?
There is a need to improve the reference list
Author Response
Dear reviewer
The changes you requested have been made to the enclosed text.
New references have been added to the reference list and the background of the study has been strengthened
Information about the cooler type starts from line 310.
Beside the changes you want, the visuals of the figures and tables are organised.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.There are a large number of formatting errors in the author's paper, please revise it carefully.Such as
2.Most of the models in the paper are black boxes and there is no basis for the establishment and use of the models.
3.The author introduced that the spacing arrangement of IGBT is beneficial for heat dissipation, but did not theoretically analyze how much spacing is more reasonable.
4.The author's research methods and conclusions require more innovation.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
The changes you requested were made on the attached text.
Necessary information about the models in the article has been given.
Research methods and results have been enriched.
The section on IGBT gap arrangement is located in the section after line 255
More recent sources have been added to the study.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The main suggestions are listed below: (1) The first time an acronym appears in the manuscript it should be defined. (2) In the “Introduction” Section, the author should point out the current research situation and innovation of this study. (3) The quality, clarity and standardization of the figures in the manuscript need to be further improved. For instance, the clarity of Fig. 2, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 12, Fig. 13, Fig. 20, Fig. 23, Fig. 24, Fig. 28 are insufficient. The curves in Fig. 26 cannot be distinguished solely based on color. (4) How does the author guarantee the accuracy and reliability of the MATLAB/Simulink model in this study? (5) In Table 5, the upper limit of ambient temperature is 80 °C and 100°C. Is that reasonable? Where can the ambient temperature reach 100 °C? (6) The references are too old, the author should cite more the latest literatures. (7) The summary, introduction and conclusion should highlight this paper's innovation and application value. The innovation point of this paper is not obvious.Author Response
Dear reviewer
The changes you requested have been made on the attached text.
The abbreviations in the article have been revised.
The introduction section of the article has been reorganised.
All figures and tables in the article have been reviewed and the desired arrangements have been made.
An explanation about MATLAB/Simulink is presented. It is explained by referring to the 10th article in the references.
It is presented in Table 8 that it is 96°C when there is no cooling.
References are made to current literature in the references.
Additions have been made regarding the novelty point of the article.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe authors have stated as follows: "In order to determine the optimum conditions for forced air cooled chiller profiles, heat conduction, and convection can also be integrated through the fin height layout, which will result in the following formula, provided some simplifications are made."
What simplifications were made to arrive at the formula proposed?
The English language content of the manuscript still requires proofreading to eliminate grammar errors as seen in the first sentence of the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language content of the manuscript still requires proofreading to eliminate grammar errors as seen in the first sentence of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
The arrangements you specified have been made. In addition, editing assistance was received from the English language expert for English language editing.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Inconsistent format of values in Table 2
2.What is the“Figure” at the beginning of line 462 referring toï¼›
3. “shown in Figure 25”in line 497 should be “shown in Figure 26”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
The arrangements you specified have been made. In addition, editing assistance was received from the English language expert for English language editing.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) In Table 5, the upper limit of ambient temperature is 80 °C and 100°C. However, in table 8 that is the surface temperature, I thank the ambient temperature and surface temperature are different. So is it reasonable to have an ambient temperature of 80 °C and 100°C?
(2) In the revised manuscript, The authord just add a new reference. Other references are also too old, and most of them are 10 years ago.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
The arrangements you specified have been made. In addition, editing assistance was received from the English language expert for English language editing.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
