Low-Frequency Magnetic Scanning Device and Algorithm for Determining the Magnetic and Non-Magnetic Fractions of Moving Metallurgical Raw Materials

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the paper according to my suggestions and improved the manuscript. I now recommend the acceptance of the paper in this form!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments!

We corrected spelling errors. We've highlighted the changes using the  "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.

We hope that now our manuscript meets the requirements of the journal and will be accepted for publication.

Kind regards,

Dr. Vladimir A. Kochemirovsky

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors’ present ²Low-frequency magnetic scanning device and algorithm for determining the magnetic and non-magnetic fractions of moving metallurgical raw materials², the paper itself is interesting, scientific and useful investigation. The authors propose a new device and a new algorithm for processing a low-frequency electromagnetic signal. The authors have based on previous reviewer's review comments; the article has been appropriately revised. However, before this paper is accepted there are a lot of problems need to be addressed and revised:

1.  There are some error formats in the formulas. Please refer to the applied sciences standard format.

2.  Please correct ²table 1² in the manuscript to ²Table 1², correct ²Fig. x² in the manuscript to ²Figure x², and correct ²equation x² in the manuscript to ²Equation (x)².

3. The authors need to detail explain the ²Envelope curve can be plotted using any coil parameter. Experiments showed that smallest error and best reproducibility is achieved in case of loss angle function (14)².

4. The results of Figures 5 and 6 are unclear in the manuscript. The authors need to make a further explanation.

5.  Please remove the Figure from the conclusion. They are not traditionally included.

   I recommend that the paper should be published in applied sciences with minor revision.

Author Response

    Dear reviewer,

    Thanks for your comments!

    We edited the article according to your comments:

We corrected the format of the formulas.

We Corrected "table 1" in the manuscript to "Table 1", correct "Fig. X" in the manuscript to "Figure x", and correct "equation x" in the manuscript to "Equation x"

We explained «Envelope curve can be plotted using any coil parameter. Experiments showed that smallest error and best reproducibility is achieved in case of loss angle function (14)» We've highlighted the changes using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.

We have added explanations to Figures 5 and 6. They can be seen in the article on pages 18, 19. The changes are highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.

We removed the pictures from the findings.

    We also corrected spelling errors.

    Thanks for the help in editing the article.

Kind regards,

Dr. Vladimir A. Kochemirovsky

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

A few considerations on the paper are shown hereby. I propose to accept the paper after the minor revisions presented below have been performed.

1.     The paper’s title is “Magnetic scanning device for large-scale applications”. However, by reading the paper, it seems to refer more consistently to an algorithm. The Introduction does not strongly reflect what the paper is about. Please address this and describe clear in the Introduction what the paper is about.

2.     Please remove the references from the abstract. They are not traditionally included.

3.     I advise the authors to insist more on what the paper brings new and to compare the numerical results obtained to existing state-of-the-art or similar devices/algorithms in the literature.

4.     The references are quite old, with the newest being from 2011. Please bring up to date the reference section and add several papers published in the last three years (2016-2018).

5.     More varied results should be included. At the moment, there are many figures introducing the loss angle integral variation with respect to several parameters.

6.     The caption on Figure 5 does not read properly. Please address this.

7.     The Conclusions could also be improved by insisting more on the improvement brought by the algorithm/device proposed in the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments can be found in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf