Design of a Combined Magnetic and Gas Dynamic Bearing for High-Speed Micro-Gas Turbine Power Plants with an Axial Gap Brushless Generator

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic Designing of a combined magnetic and gas dynamic bearings for high-speed micro-gas turbine power plants with an axial gap brushless generator is potentially interesting, however, there are some issues that should be addressed by the authors: The Introduction" sections can be made much more impressive by highlighting your contributions. The contribution of the study should be explained simply and clearly. The authors should further enlarge the Introduction with current work about parameter optimization algorithms and advanced design techniques to improve the research background, for example, Passive Magnet Bearing Development for Axial Flux Permanent Magnet Generator with Diamagnetic Armature; New design of robust PID controller based on meta‐heuristic algorithms for wind energy conversion system; New design of variable structure control based on lightning search algorithm for nuclear reactor power system considering load-following‏.

Clarify how you handle the constraints of the model during the design.

Clarify the practical implementation of the proposed strategy according to the cost

Clarify how you adjust the parameters of the proposed approach

Conclusion section should be rearranged. According to the topic of the paper, the authors may propose some interesting problems as future work in the conclusion.

This study may be proposed for publication if it is addressed in the specified problems.

Author Response

We thank you for your comments. All your comments have been studied and taken into account in the new (corrected) version of the article. The corrected parts of the article are highlighted in red. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This subject addressed is within the scope of the journal. However, the manuscript in the present version contains several problems. Appropriate revisions should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.

1. 
   It is mentioned that axial gap brushless generator are used. What are the advantages of adopting these  over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.
2.     For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
3. There is a serious concern regarding the novelty of this work. What new has been proposed?
4. Abstract needs to modify and to be revised to be quantitative. You can absorb readers' consideration by having some numerical results in this section.
5. There are some occasional grammatical problems within the text. It may need the attention of someone fluent in English language to enhance the readability.
6. 
   The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.
7. In conclusion section, limitations and recommendations of this research should be highlighted.
8. The authors have to add the state-of-the art references in the manuscripts.

 

Author Response

We thank you for your comments. All your comments have been studied and taken into account in the new (corrected) version of the article. The corrected parts of the article are highlighted in red. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors handled the comments

Reviewer 2 Report

Should accept in present form.