24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

wkzh92

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 254.8
散金: 155
红花: 3
帖子: 143
在线: 27.2小时
虫号: 4567709
注册: 2016-04-05
专业: 电磁场与电路

[求助] TIE审稿意见求分析已有5人参与

新人所有金币都散出去
两个月前重新投的IEEE TIE，昨天给的大修结果，感觉评审意见挺狠的，这样能让大修已经不错了。
现在难点是我文章已经八页了（TIE规定页书），他们给了很多条评审意见，我要都加进去肯定超篇幅了，请前辈们指教怎么办，再投的话中的概率大吗？以下是审稿意见

Keio University, Yokohama, Japan, 04-Aug-2016

Dear Authors,

The review process of your manuscript No. 16-TIE-1627 entitled "Implant Position of Receiving Coils of the Wireless Charging System for the Implantable Cardiac Pacemaker" as a Regular paper submission, has been completed.

Based on the opinions of the reviewers and the Associate Editor in charge, your manuscript requires a major revision.

- Please revise your manuscript within 6 weeks to address the enclosed reviewers' comments, and highlight the changes in the manuscript. Your revised manuscript will be evaluated again.

- Please understand that the manuscript is still considered to be in the review process, so it is important that authors' names and affiliations must NOT be identifiable in any documents uploaded to Manuscript Central. Otherwise the paper will be automatically rejected.

Please note that if your revised manuscript exceeds the page limit of TIE (3 pages for "Letter to Editor" and 8 pages for regular and "Special Section" papers), extra page cost will be billed to you, according to the rate posted by IEEE. The manuscript length couldn't exceed 10 pages (5 pages for letters).

Your kind cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,
Prof. Kouhei Ohnishi
Editor-in-Chief
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
https://www.ieee-ies.org/pubs/tr ... strial-electronics/
ohnishi@sd.keio.ac.jp

**************************************************************

Encl.:
Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
Thanks for the authors' efforts on the revision. Please highlight the modifications in the paper to facilitate the review next time. The reviewer still has some concerns about this paper.

1. In the proposed model, the transmitting coils and the receiving coils are aligned. However, this cannot be guaranteed in a real case. The authors are suggested to investigate the case if the coils are misaligned, and how it will affect the accuracy of the proposed model.

2. Eq. (25) is not design friendly. It is better to give a simplified equation as a design guideline for engineers.

3. The reviewer is also confused by that why need to use curve fitting (Eq.26). Should't the measurement results be used to verify Eq. 25? Otherwise, what's the contribution of this paper?

4. In the experiment, the effect of human tissue is not considered. Please comment on that.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
The modification has improved the quality of the manuscript. However, some issues still exist in the manuscript. Therefore, some mandatory changes should be carried out before accepting. Some of these changes are the following:
1. Since the receiving coils are also implanted, the loss on it will generate some heat, how would the authors address this issue?
2. Since the receiving coils are connected with the charging circuits of pacemaker, it will significantly increase the overall size of the pacemaker. Would the authors comment on this problem?
3. Since the authors use air core transmitter and receiving coils, the magnetic field is not constrained at all. It would be helpful for the authors to perform some analysis on the magnetic field strength and its impact to human body.
4. The errors shown in Table I are relatively large, is it possible to further reduce the mismatch?
5. For lithium-ion battery charging, there are usually two charging stages, constant current and constant voltage. Therefore, battery voltage reaches 4.2V doesn’t necessary mean the battery is full. It would be better to show the charging power and efficiency instead of pure battery voltage.
6. There are some typing errors need to be fixed. For example, on page 5 Fig. 3, it should be “FPC” coil instead of “PFC” coil.

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author
In page 2 left column line 42, authors said “Although no study has investigated the effect of eddy current in the inductor on the induced voltage across receiving coils of WPT system currently, this question is critical for the realization and application of WPT.” However, it was already discussed in the following paper [1].

[1] T. Campi, S. Cruciani, V. D. Santis, and M. Feliziani, “EMF Safety and Thermal Aspects in a Pacemaker Equipped With a Wireless Power Transfer System Working at Low Frequency,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES, VOL. 64, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2016 pp. 375-382

The authors should refer this paper and state difference from the paper.

Reviewer: 4

Comments to the Author
This paper studied the WPT design for implantable cardiac pacemaker applications with the impact of the pacemaker shell considered. Both physical modeling and experimental demonstration are presented.

1. The new title of this paper is also not very suitable for the content of this work. One important contribution of this paper would be the physical modeling part, which is not reflected in the title.

2. This paper considered the pacemaker shell which is present in the real case. However, the other constraints of the real applications are not mentioned. References and/or analyses should be provided on the inter-coil distance, primary-pacemaker shell distance, volume allowable for the implanted secondary coil in vivo, the effect of human tissues, allowable heat generation, etc.

3. In the introduction part, the authors defined the transformer type as coils wound around ferrite core. This is not a correct statement as there are many coreless transformers reported.

4. The authors only reported the induced voltage in the experiment part. How about the efficiency and the heat generation at the secondary side? If the performance is not good, a suggestion for this paper is to focus more on the modeling contribution.

5. The inductance unit should be "uH" instead of "uF".

6. The writing and English of this paper could also be further improved.

AE Comments:
Associate Editor
Comments to the Author:
Considering the reviewers' comments, this paper still needs major revisions before considering it for publication. Please, address carefully all the reviewers' comments and try to avoid an over-length manuscript.

发自小木虫IOS客户端

回复此楼