Dependence of IPMSM Motor Efficiency on Parameter Estimates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors write: "We compared the behavior of various methods for optimal feedforward torque control. The frequency identification method, method based on torque sensor measurement, flux linkage map method, and RLS methods obtained comparable results. While methods based on RLS achieved good performance in low load conditions, they proved to be unreliable in full load conditions. The least reliable method was the online frequency domain estimation method". Then it means that the authors don't present any novel methods or algorithms. What is the scientific novelty of the paper? What is the authors' contribution? It's my main concern.

The other drawbacks are:

1. The motivation of the paper is not clear.
2. The organization of the paper should be added to the introduction.
3. The paper has 19 references and among them 6 references are from the authors. It is absolutely unacceptable.
4. The paper needs part Discussion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is about the dependence of Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine Motor efficiency on parameter estimates.

From a broader perspective, one can affirm that the herein depicted research is interesting and has the potential to add to scientific knowledge. It is, therefore, a valuable contribution.

Please consider changing the expression “we” to a more formal speech.

The introduction includes the main objectives of this research. However, it will be important to frame the problem before setting goals. stating the goals.

Figure 1 should not be presented in chapter 1.

Figure 2 should be presented after it was referred to in the text.

Figure 3 is not referred to in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper can be considered for publication if the authors incorporate the following suggestions in the paper.

1. The presentation and writing of the paper should be improved.
2. The paper should be set according to the journal’s format.
3. Some latest and close references are missing. The addition of the following references will enrich the literature review
4. How the proposed study differs from the existing studies?
5. The novelty and gap of research should be explained in more detail.
6. The sensitivity analysis if applicable should be added to the paper.
7. The simulation study should be added and results should be compared with the existing studies.
8. The real example should be added and discussed with the existing studies
9. What are the limitations of the study?
10. What are the potential applications of the proposed study?
11. Neutrosophic statistics is the extension of classical statistics and is applied when the data is coming from a complex process or from an uncertain environment. The statement that the proposed study can be extended for neutrosophic statistics can be added by citing five to seven papers on neutrosophic statistics.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors themselves confirmed that there are no new developments in the paper. Comparison of existing methods in the context in which they were
never tested before is not enough the paper will be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report