Design of a 120 W Electromagnetic Shock Absorber for Motorcycle Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for the presentation of the Design of a 120 W Electromagnetic Shock Absorber for Motor- 2 cycle Applications. 

I have questions to your paper:

1. Errors, accuracy in your research. Could you explain and write more in this paper? 

2. Line 184:  AccordingClick or tap here to enter text. to (2), the relation between vibration speed, - it is correct?

 

Author Response

Dear Editor 1,

 

Thank you for your suggestions.

I am writing this letter to provide a detailing change in the paper according to your revision.

In these studies such as [16], [20], and [48], authors designed the machine and modeling by finite element analysis. After that, they verified the simulation result with the experiments, and show that a good agreement between simulation and experiments. In my paper, although no experiment is done to validate the design, the process and modeling method (Finite element analysis) are done the same as in the abovementioned paper. In addition, there is a similar machine topology between these papers. Thus, the simulation results in my study can be reliable.

Therefore, for the 1^st comment, there is no change in the study paper.

For the 2^nd comment, I have corrected the unnecessary word in the sentence: “According to (2), the relation between vibration speed, frequency, and stroke length can be determined as follows:”  in line 192.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "Design of a 120 W Electromagnetic Shock Absorber for Motorcycle Applications" presents an interesting study. However, I have some points that can improve the quality of the article significantly. 

1. The authors have invested plenty of time and space in the introduction section and the main part of the article is relatively shorter. It is suggested to please extend the mathematical modeling and methodology sections so that the readers can have better insight. 

2. The results are combined with the methodology and modeling sections which is not a usual scenario in research articles. 

3. There are plenty of English mistakes and errors. Please proofread the article thoroughly and try to improve such shortcomings. 

4. Despite the lengthy introduction section, the overview of the types of machines is missing. I may suggest a few articles that may help in this case.

- Ullah, N., Khan, F., Basit, A., Ullah, W., Shahzad, M., Ahmad, T. and Khalid, U., 2019. Performance comparison and optimisation of dual mover linear permanent magnet flux switching machine. IET Electric Power Applications, 13(7), pp.984-995.

- Ur Rahman, L., Khan, F., Khan, M.A., Ahmad, N., Khan, H.A., Shahzad, M., Ali, S. and Ali, H., 2019. Modular rotor single phase field excited flux switching machine with non-overlapped windings. Energies, 12(8), p.1576.

- Ullah, N., Khan, F., Basit, A. and Shahzad, M., 2021. Experimental Validations of Hybrid Excited Linear Flux Switching Machine. Energies, 14(21), p.7274.

5. The quality of the figures expressing the design and configuration of the machine can be improved. They seem blurry as well as dim in color.

6. The conclusion section is lengthy and carries some unnecessary information such as the last sentence which may not seem relevant to the presented work but its future directions.

Thanks

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions.

I am writing this letter to provide a detailing change in the paper according to your revision.

For the 1^st comment, I changed section 3 from “Parametric Study and Detailed Model” to “Modeling and Parametric Study of EHSA”. Section 3 will be divided into two subsections: “Mathematical modeling of EHSA” and “Parametric geometry study”. In the first subsection, I expressed the relationship between output power and design parameters in more detail. In the second subsection, I answered the questions “ why did we choose this parameter for parametric study ?” and “ How the change of these parameters on machine output power in theory ?”. The change in the paper is from line 230 to line 290.

About the 2^nd comment, to correct it, I added to section 4 for the detailed design result and the change is shown on line 311.

With the 3^rd comment, I have corrected the English mistakes and errors and also improve the image quality for the 5^th comment.

In the 4^th comment, thank you for your paper suggestions. However, the topology of the suggested paper does not match the machine topology in this paper. In addition, in the Introduction section, I also explain the overview of the type of electromagnetic energy-harvesting from lines 54 to 60. Therefore, I would like to keep the original paper.

In final, according to the 6^th comment, I have deleted the last sentence in the revised manuscript.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx