Improvement of Transverse-Flux Machine Characteristics by Finding an Optimal Air-Gap Diameter and Coil Cross-Section at the Given Magneto-Motive Force of the PMs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is interesting; however, the authors need to take in consideration the following suggestions before to accept it:

1. Increase the fonts in the figures
2. A new section named “results discussion” needs to be added in order to condense all obtained results, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of their proposal.
3. It is mandatory that the authors compare their results with other systems presented recently in literature in order to validate or show that their contribution is important in the subject.
4. The authors need to justify every selection that performs, for example, the authors need to justify in the article, for example, the values selected in table 3, etc.
5. The conclusion needs to be improved, adding quantitative results not only qualitative results. In addition, it is important to mention, what is the next with the investigation?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your thorough, detailed,  and well organized comments. We approached your comments with high degree of responsibility, and answered them in the paper. Please see the attached file for further explanations on how to find your comments answered in the paper. We tried to make this process as easier for you as possible. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting, although similar constructions have already been analyzed, however, the large contribution of the authors' work to conducting numerical analyzes is worth mentioning.
As for the remarks, I think the view of literature is very poor. There are no references to journal articles. There are many references to conference articles, especially by one of the co-authors. I believe that it absolutely needs improvement.
From the scientific point of view, the article shows the possibilities of shaping the properties of the TFM machine, but it requires the use of the FEM package. The numerical analyzes performed do not show the possibility of synthesizing electromagnetic phenomena in order to limit the cogging torque, increase the power, etc. It is a pity that the authors did not attempt to develop a simple analytical model that could also successfully reproduce the characteristics presented in the paper. 

Editorial note: Table 1 shows the value of 0.78 for residual flux density, however, for N42 type magnets these values ​​are much higher !!!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your thorough, detailed,  and well organized comments. We approached your comments with high degree of responsibility, and answered them in the paper. Please see the attached file for further explanations on how to find your comments answered in the paper. We tried to make this process as easier for you as possible.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with numerical simulations and improvements of transverse-flux machines by using a comparative analysis of a proposed solution with outer rotor vs. inner rotor.

 

The following issues are recommended to improve the paper:

1. Please define all the acronyms at their first use, even they are well known in the domain, e.g. FEM, PM.
2. The Introduction should be improved to highlight the recent results in relation to the paper aim, their limits and thus justifying the paper objectives. The paper structure (sections) should be briefly presented at the end of Introduction.
3. Generally, for the sake of clarity, the single-phase TFM and its testing rig should be explain in more details.
4. Figure 4: use consistently “j” or “J” (see figure legend vs. diagrams’ text).
5. Differences of 12% (and over!) are clearly not acceptable to accept your conclusion related to the use of this model “for accurate parametric investigations”. I suggest to improve first the proposed model and reduce the errors in an acceptable range (maybe by calibration). Please justify in the paper your conclusion!
6. Page 5: please justify better the proposed solution of “changing the configuration to the outer rotor” in relation to the reference solution: the advantages and drawbacks, etc.
7. Figures 7a and 7b should be represented at the same scale for direct comparison. Similarly for 7c and 7d.
8. Line 169: “…height are shown in Figure 9a, 10b.” The Figure 10b does not exist!
9. Figure 11 caption: “Figure 11. This is a figure. Schemes follow another format. If there are multiple panels, they should be listed as: (a) De-202 scription of what is contained in the first panel; (b) Description of what is contained in the second panel. Figures should 203 be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited. A caption on a single line should be centered.” The caption should be edited correctly! Pay attention to this type of mistakes over the whole paper!
10. Strong recommendation to improve the English style of the paper!
11. Section 3.3. The discussions on the obtained values are missing!
12. The Conclusions should be refined to highlight better the expected results according to the paper objectives!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your thorough, detailed,  and well organized comments. We approached your comments with high degree of responsibility, and answered them in the paper. Please see the attached file for further explanations on how to find your comments answered in the paper. We tried to make this process as easier for you as possible. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed correctly my concerns. Hence, i can recommend accepting the article 

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort to help make the paper stronger.

Reviewer 3 Report

Final recommendation: translate into English the Figure 4 caption "Figure 4. Общий вид однофазного модуля с измерительными датчиками."

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the additional comment. The requested change has been made to the paper.

 

The change in the paper:

 

Figure 4. General view of the single-phase prototype of the machine with a measurement system.