Review on Key Technologies and Development of Magnetic Coupling Resonant-Dynamic Wireless Power Transfer for Unmanned Ground Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

How the mutual inductance is maintained in four basic compensation topologies: (a) S/S; (b) S/P; (c) P/S; (d) P/P

How the Control block of the bilateral open‐loop method with PI control in the transmitter and active single‐phase rectifier in the receiver is getting parameters

In the conclusions section authors need to quantify the outcome of the study in terms of the parameters and state of the art.

Ned to clarify more how MCR‐DWPT technology is applicable in both UGVs . Discuss before the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Table 1 should be comprehensively described. For instance, the used program to provide the graphics, the numerical value conditions, the materials, etc. Besides, if the colors are related to numerical values/parameters.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors

I find the topic of your paper both interesting and modern. Wireless power transfer will surely gain more attention and more applications will make use of such feature. Also, improving its efficiency will be an important subject for years to come. I encourage you to go deeper in this subject.

On the other hand, I consider that this paper has a few major issues that I believe must be tackled. So here they are:

1. The writing is so very difficult to read (for me, at least). The phases are sometimes tangled, or have a non-English specific construction (the topic of many prases is not English specific). There are many examples here, but I will only mention these: a) Abstract, lines 17-18; b) Introduction, lines 28-29; c) Conclusion, lines 471-473. I am sorry for not giving more examples, but please don't focus on them. The entire paper should be verified in details by a more experienced English speaker / writer.

2. There are also a few wrong phrases, but simpler to correct, where the verb is missing: a) line 55 = no verb; b) lines 121-122 = no verb, "which" word break the entire phrase. Some other may be in the text, so please check all text again.

3. There are some statements throughout the text that are so intuitive that shouldn't be mentioned at all. Anyway, this is a personal opinion. For instance, line 100 - "coupling device is a necessary part of MCR-DWPT system". Any system contains critical parts with respect to the system's very purpose, so there's no reason to say something like "a critical component / feature is necessary". Some will say "of course". Other example is on lines 28-29: "There are two kinds of power transmission methods wireless and wired, to realize the power transmission". Well, indeed, any transmission (power, data, signals, etc) is either wired or wireless, no matter the context.

4. Figures:

a) You should use consistent styles for the labels and notations in the figures: i) Figure 1 has very large titles ("type I platform"); ii) Figure 2 has very large and not equal font size in captions ("Coil"); iii) Figure 3 has very small and barely visible captions and so on. 

b) Many figures present some schemes / circuits, with a lot of notations (3 - 6, 8 - 9). The notations are not described anyway, but indeed there is not the purpose of the paper in the first place. I believe, these Figures or the notations inside don't really have any use in the context.

c) Some figures are very small that the elements inside are not clear enough (Figures in Table 2, Fig 3b). The photos in Figure 2 seem resized and they are blurry.

5. An elements that I consider irrelevant is Table 3. This one lists some types of communications modes. I don't believe it's necessary at all in the context of the investigated subject. Or, a list of the methods in use with references should be enough, instead of the large table. 

6. The very objective of the paper seems a little bit questionable if you look at the first 2 references. These are papers published by co-authors of the current paper and both seem to be reviews in very close (similar ?) topics. Please evaluate and emphasize the differences between the current review paper and refercens 1 and 2. 

7. An finally a "technical" issue: there are no details about how the simulations in Table 1 are obtained. Are there any models? Did you run some simulations using some envoironment / program? Or are they presented in other work? (Which means you should clearly mention the source / reference.) 

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No more comment

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors

I appreciate the detailed cover letter you have written, which answers all the  comments from my previous review. Indeed, you fixed the issues that I considered critical.

Once again, the review paper you wrote tackles an interesting topic.  Wireless power transfer between mobile vehicles in rough environments might become a powerful feature in many applications. Reviewing current challanges and technical solutions is of interest for other researchers too. 

Best regards