Detent Force Reduction in Linear Interior Permanent Magnet Generator for Direct-Drive Wave Power Conversion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the following aspects require adequate amendments for enhancing the quality of your paper.

1) The state of the art is excessively general and not comprehensive as it refers to limited part of the work performed to date in the field. Moreover, several references are out of date. The background should be based to the most important historical references. However, the focus of this Section needs to be on the literature sources of the last decade. This would define the lacks of the current knowledge and highlight the novelty of the proposed research.

Furthermore, the most recent works regarding the wave-to-wire modelling of wave energy converters are missing. Indeed, it is widely recognised that the integrate analysis of the wave resource and the components of the system is the proper strategy for determining the operation of a device.

2) The details undergoing the key choices of the proposed methodology and the implications of the assumptions on the achieved results needs to be discussed in Subsection 2.2.

3) The prototype tested in the wave tank has to be described in the details. Moreover, experimental facility and the measurement instruments utilised have to be indicated. At present, the replication of the analytical and experimental investigations is impossible due to the lack of data.

4) The achieved results need to be presented by comparing the outcomes of the model optimised through the analytical approach proposed and its prototype tested with an experimental procedure. Furthermore, the physical motivation of the specific fluid dynamics behaviours determined have to be discussed in the details. At present, the discussion is limited to a description of the data illustrated.

5) The quality of Figures and tables has to be rise for reaching the level of the Journal. Moreover, the Guidelines for the Authors should be considered to be compliant with the requirements.

6) in the Conclusions Section, the statements should be supported by numerical data.

7) The level of English needs to be increased and the several mistakes present need to be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the paper is an interesting one and is of maximum topicality. However, the contribution of the content of the paper is not clear.  

1. Why is the following reference not included in section References? ”Comparative Analysis and Experimental Verification of a Linear Tubular Generator for Wave Energy Conversion”.  This paper was published in 2018 in Energies.

In the present article there are some images identical or at least similar to the article published in 2018:

- Figure 1 of this article is similar to Figure 1 of the article published in Energies. In the 2018 article, the figure contains much more details.

- Figure 7a is similar to Figure 6c from the article published in 2018 in Energies.

- Figure 7b is identical to Figure 8a from the article published in 2018.

- Figure 14 a and b is identical to Figure 13 a. It contains some additional details, but lacks the overall image.

- Table 7 is identical to Table 3 of the article published in 2018.

2. Figure 9 is incomplete.

3. In Figure 9, what does that rectangle with a dotted line represent?

4. In Figure 4, what do Va, Vb and Vc represent?

5. What does "EMF" mean?

6. Figure 16a and 16b of are identical.

This paper, in this form, lacks the novelty and depth of analysis. The paper should state and defend more clearly the its purpose and especially novelty.

Based on the above aspects, I cannot recommend this article to be published in the Electronics unless it is significantly revised. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the quality of the paper was increased during the first stage of the review procedure. Nonetheless, there are still two aspects that require significant elaboration.

1) The impossibility of carrying out a comparison of the results achieved with reliable experimental data is a huge point of weakness of the presented research. This threatens the robustness of the model developed. The Authors should discuss this aspect in the details in the text of the paper for adequately informing the Readers.

2) The Conclusions section needs to be completely reformulated. The main results, their novelty and their effects on the future development of the technology require to be discussed. Furthermore, the statements are still not sufficiently supported by quantitative information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The necessary clarifications and corrections have been made, but there are still a few:

1. In table 3, value 1,739 does not correspond to the graph in Figure 11. Please correct the value in the table or the graph.

2. On line 282, it refers to Figures 1 and 2. Please correct, it should be Figures 11 and 12.

3. Table 6 is first mentioned at line 304 and Figure 13 at line 309. Table 6 and Figure 13 should be moved after line 304 and 309 respectively.

4. In PDF format Figures 16 a and b are not clear enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx