{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03486750348675035, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002789400278940028, 'mean_word_length': 4.523076923076923, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
THE AUTHOR'S ANSWER TO DISCUSSION BY MASASHI YAMAMOTO

The authors thank Dr. Masashi Yamamoto for the useful discussion, and the answers are as follows:(1) The presented system by the authors, which consists of a rotating inertia mass, spring and viscous damper, is dynamically the same as TMD (Tuned Mass Damper) though it needs a fix point. And it has the feature of enlarging the mass ratio easily more than usual TMD. There, it is appropriate to compare the author's system with usual TMD.(2) The authors are assuming the case where the beam-end is a fulcrum. In that case, it is difficult to use a simple additional damper. There, it is not appropriate to compare authors' system with a simple additional damper.