Analysis and Design of a Pulsed Power Generator for a Low-Energy Magnetic Pulse Welding System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The paper Analysis and Design of a Pulsed Power Generator for a Low-Energy Magnetic Pulse Welding System was sent to me for review. In the paper, the authors analyzed MPW operation, proposing a condition to achieve the maximum current in the flyer tube, and also determining a plateau-shaped waveform able to maintain the Lorentz force. Below you’ll find my opinions.
1. Abstract:
It is well structured, but the last sentence is challenging to follow in English.
2. Keywords: They should be in alphabetical order, and the pulse forming network should be added, which is appropriate for this paper.
3. Introduction is relevant to the field, but there are group/flow citations: [1-4], [5-7] and [8-12]. Fair is to choose the most eloquent, or to split them in the sentence or paragraph content.
4. The paper is generally well structured and easy to understand, which is a plus.
5. Fig. 6 depicts the actuator, but it seems a little made in a hurry and fragile.
6. The conclusion is relevant, but the first two sentences seem to have been written in a rush. Please reformulate them.
7. In the end, my conclusion is that the paper is interesting and relevant for the field.
Best regards.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNothing important to be mentioned.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer, we were able to fix and improve our manuscript. We revised the manuscript to follow the review’s instructions. Below is our answer to the inquiries that the reviewer pointed.
Point 1: Abstract: It is well structured, but the last sentence is challenging to follow in English.
Response 1: Referring to your comment, I modified the last sentence of Abstract to be more clearly.
Point 2: Keywords: They should be in alphabetical order, and the pulse forming network should be added, which is appropriate for this paper.
Response 2: “pulse forming network” is added to the keywords, and the all keywords are modified in alphabetical order.
Point 3: Introduction is relevant to the field, but there are group/flow citations: [1-4], [5-7] and [8-12]. Fair is to choose the most eloquent, or to split them in the sentence or paragraph content.
Response 3: Group citations are reorganized by dividing them into sentences or paragraphs according to their respective references.
Point 4: The paper is generally well structured and easy to understand, which is a plus.
Response 4: Thanks for your effort to review this paper.
Point 5: Fig. 6 depicts the actuator, but it seems a little made in a hurry and fragile.
Response 5: The actuator in Figure 6 is modified to show clearly.
Point 6: The conclusion is relevant, but the first two sentences seem to have been written in a rush. Please reformulate them.
Response 6: The meaning of the first two sentences of the conclusion is modified to be clear.
Point 7: In the end, my conclusion is that the paper is interesting and relevant for the field.
Response 7: Thanks for your effort to review this paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe document titled "Analysis and Design of a Pulsed Power Generator for a Low-Energy Magnetic Pulse Welding System" by Young-Min Kwon, Min-Wook Hwang, and Kwang-Cheol Ko, focuses on magnetic pulse welding (MPW). It highlights the importance of analyzing and optimizing pulse power to improve MPW's reliability and miniaturization. The paper proposes a condition for maximum current in the flyer tube and identifies a plateau-shaped waveform as ideal for maintaining Lorentz force. A pulse forming network (PFN) pulse generator is designed for this purpose. The optimal power source reduces energy usage and increases the Lorentz force size, enhancing MPW's reliability and potential for industrial application.
Data Presentation and Results Discussion: On page 8, Table 3 presents a comparative analysis of the output characteristics of the existing model versus the proposed model. It would be beneficial to include a more detailed discussion on how these differences impact the practical application of the proposed model. This would aid readers in better understanding the relevance and impact of the findings.
Detailed Explanation of Methods and Analysis: Throughout the document, particularly on pages 6 and 9, technical methods and analyses are described. Providing more detailed explanations or illustrative examples would help in making the content more accessible to readers not fully versed in the subject matter.
Improvement in Writing and Document Structure: Parts of the document, such as the discussions on pages 3 and 9, could benefit from clearer and more concise writing. This includes organizing sections effectively and ensuring smooth transitions between different topics addressed in the article.
Updated References and Citations: On page 10, several references and citations are included. Reviewing and updating these references to reflect the latest developments and studies in the field would enhance the article's relevance and authority.
Inclusion of Comparative Studies or Case Studies: To strengthen the argument and validity of the proposed model, including comparative studies or case studies demonstrating its efficacy in practical situations would be useful. This could be presented in an additional section or as part of the discussion on results.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer, we were able to fix and improve our manuscript. We revised the manuscript to follow the review’s instructions. Below is our answer to the inquiries that the reviewer pointed.
Point 1: Data Presentation and Results Discussion: On page 8, Table 3 presents a comparative analysis of the output characteristics of the existing model versus the proposed model. It would be beneficial to include a more detailed discussion on how these differences impact the practical application of the proposed model. This would aid readers in better understanding the relevance and impact of the findings.
Response 1: In order to enhance readers' understanding about the characteristics of the proposed pulse power source, an explanation of the differences from the existing model is added to Table 3.
Point 2: Detailed Explanation of Methods and Analysis: Throughout the document, particularly on pages 6 and 9, technical methods and analyses are described. Providing more detailed explanations or illustrative examples would help in making the content more accessible to readers not fully versed in the subject matter.
Response 2: According to your kind comments, the method and analysis are added to the paper as a whole.
Point 3: Improvement in Writing and Document Structure: Parts of the document, such as the discussions on pages 3 and 9, could benefit from clearer and more concise writing. This includes organizing sections effectively and ensuring smooth transitions between different topics addressed in the article.
Response 3: For effective section construction, the composition of the paper is modified.
Point 4: Updated References and Citations: On page 10, several references and citations are included. Reviewing and updating these references to reflect the latest developments and studies in the field would enhance the article's relevance and authority.
Response 4: I've updated the reference to the latest.
Point 5: Inclusion of Comparative Studies or Case Studies: To strengthen the argument and validity of the proposed model, including comparative studies or case studies demonstrating its efficacy in practical situations would be useful. This could be presented in an additional section or as part of the discussion on results.
Response 5: To emphasize the validity of the proposed model, we added differences from the previous model. The verification of the actual model will be carried out in the future.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper needs further improvements and some parts must be rewritten introducing more details.
1) All the variables used must be declared.
2) Formula (3) is not clear.
3) The description of the principle of magnetic pulse welding and the Fig. 2 are not clear.
4) THe discussion ion section 3 must be discussed in a more detailed manner, introducing also mathematical proof of the reported judgments.
5) How the circuit of Fig.5 is fed? Is there a precharging process?
6) Sentences 176-177 are not clear.
7) The obtained pulse has different value of current and energy respect to the compared puls [18]. Are the load of the two cases the same? With a different pulse energy, the welding effects are the same?
8) Fig.8a has a time duration of 60 us, the fig. 8b has a tme duration of 20 us. THe comparison must be done along the same time duration.
9) Why it is not adopted a circuit for the generation of a double exponential pulse?
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer, we were able to fix and improve our manuscript. We revised the manuscript to follow the review’s instructions. Below is our answer to the inquiries that the reviewer pointed.
Point 1: All the variables used must be declared.
Response 1: Overall, the paper is supplemented, and all variables used in the paper were defined
Point 2: Formula (3) is not clear.
Response 2: There was a mistake in writing the formula, and modifications and contents are added.
Point 3: The description of the principle of magnetic pulse welding and the Fig. 2 are not clear.
Response 3: Figure 2 is a picture that summarizes the principles of magnetic pulse welding. To clarify the contents of the picture, the picture is modified and an explanation is added.
Point 4: The discussion ion section 3 must be discussed in a more detailed manner, introducing also mathematical proof of the reported judgments.
Response 4: Section 3 is the part that analyzes the effect of the waveform on the behavior of the MPW. And the analysis in section 3 is based on the behavior of the MPW. Since the formula for the behavior of MPW is listed in Chapter 2, section 3 is analyzed using a schematic method.
Point 5: How the circuit of Fig.5 is fed? Is there a precharging process?
Response 5: The circuit in Figure 5 is pre-charged using DC power. In order to enhance understanding of pulse power operation, Figure 5 is revised and explanations are added to the text.
Point 6: Sentences 176-177 are not clear.
Response 6: The contents of the sentence is modified to be clear.
Point 7: The obtained pulse has different value of current and energy respect to the compared puls [18]. Are the load of the two cases the same? With a different pulse energy, the welding effects are the same?
Response 7: As you pointed out, the load is not the same. The current value and the amount of energy in the existing model are the current values output and the amount of energy charged in the pulse power source. The purpose of this paper is to design a low energy pulse power supply for MPW by reducing the energy of the pulse power source while equalizing the maximum current on the operation of the MPW. The difference in the magnitude of the maximum current in the comparison table is the sinusoidal waveform, as you can see in the waveform, although the maximum current of the conventional pulse power source is 150 kA. The effective value is approximately 100 kA because the value that can be seen as a constant direct current value in the sinusoidal waveform is an effective value. Pulse power is designed according to those criteria. In conclusion, the magnitude of the current affecting the MPW is the same. Since the pulse rise time of the proposed model is very short, the welding performance of MPW will be improved
Point 8: Fig.8a has a time duration of 60 us, the fig. 8b has a tme duration of 20 us. THe comparison must be done along the same time duration.
Response 8: The main content of this paper is to analyze and design to shorten the rise time and reduce energy to pulse power. Figure 8 shows the difference in rise time and the output waveform and loss of the existing pulse power supply and the proposed model.
Point 9: Why it is not adopted a circuit for the generation of a double exponential pulse?
Response 9: The double exponential waveform you presented also shows a faster rise time compared to the existing sinusoidal waveform, but the time and size of maintaining external magnetic flux change greatly. Therefore, it adversely affects the operational reliability of the MPW.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo comments.
Author Response
Thanks for your effort to review this paper
