Smart Collaborative Performance-Induced Parameter Identification Algorithms for Synchronous Reluctance Machine Magnetic Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Scientific review should include a detailed overview of existing sources (state‐of‐the‐art), accompanied by a description of the way how it was excerpted, studied and used. Please see this paper for more advice: https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456
The optimization of the rotor structure of the Synchronous Reluctance Machine remains an important area of research today. Studies have made it possible to obtain performance with this type of machine comparable to that of an asynchronous machine. The production of servomotors using this type of machine may in the future become an alternative to other types of motorization. However, the development of efficient control algorithms requires a good knowledge of the machine model.
1. Your paper does not discuss the effect of the Temperature on the resistance value. You can for example consider this value to be neglected in your hypothesis;
2. You should start your paper by giving a brief overview of the characteristics of the different rotor structures that have been developed so far for this type of machine;
3. What kind or motor did you use, brushed motors or brushless motors.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. Based on your suggestion, we revised the manuscript. Please refer to the attachment for the detailed response.
Best wishes to you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented a study related to algorithms ans parameters identification for Synchronous Reluctance Machine magnetic model. There are interesting results presented. Please, find my comments:
- Maybe the authors may wish to improve the Introduction section showing the relevance of their work to real situations. Also, the introduction is very simple, I think that it is missing more introduction to the topic of the manuscript and a better description of the state of art
- In my opinion, this manuscript can be improved with a section dedicated to numerical validation. I understand that this is a numerical manuscript, however it is hard to identify the main purpose, the contribution to real problems and identify the problem and conditions analysed
- It sounds strange to present code from Algorthm 1 and Algorthm 2, maybe the author may wish to change to something that allows a better reading such as an algorithm flowchart
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments on our work. Based on your suggestions, we made detailed corrections in the manuscript. The reply to your opinion is in the attachment.
Best wishes to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much. The article was corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors for their efforts to answer my comments. They answer and improve the original manuscript properly. In my opinion, Figure 1 is now helping the readers and improved the manuscript. Also, thank you very much for the work done in the introduction section which is more clear now.
