Power Transmission Using Circular Elements Bounded by Given Central Angle in Rolling Contact
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper needs minor revision. The paper needs a lot of work to be presented in this journal. My comments are in below:
(1) The introduction has not been written in the right way. The introduction includes figures and it’s very short. The number of references in the introduction section is few and there is no aim at the end of this introduction.
(2) The paper needs nomenclature to understand the theoretical solution.
(3) The paper does not have any results and there is no real discussion in the paper. The author discussed the theoretical solution instead of doing section with results and discussions.
(4) There is no conclusion.
(5) The references are out of dated.
Author Response
1) The introduction has not been written in the right way.
ANSWER: Introduction was rewritten. The aim of the paper was now clearly written.
(2) The paper needs nomenclature to understand the theoretical solution.
ANSWER: Paper starts with table 1 which is the nomenclature.
(3) The paper does not have any results and there is no real discussion in the paper. The author discussed the theoretical solution instead of doing section with results and discussions.
ANSWER: Resu;ts was added as Section 8, and Discussion as Section 10.
(4) There is no conclusion.
ANSWER: Conclusion was added as Section 10.
(5) The references are out of dated.
ANSWER: Two very old paper were eliminated.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The abstract should be modified.
2. Do the authors consider the effect of materials properties (e.g. elastic deformation, Poisson ratio) on the accuracy of THEOREM-1.
3. In Fig.15, illustrations of (a) and (b) can be added and make them more clearly.
4. The conclusion section should be divided several parts, e.g. (1)XXX; (2)XXX; (3)XXX.
5. Some references are out of date.
Author Response
- The abstract should be modified. ANSWER: It was done.
- Do the authors consider the effect of materials properties (e.g. elastic deformation, Poisson ratio) on the accuracy of THEOREM-1.ANSWER:AT the end of Conclusions I added that this is the weak point of the paper. Of course of finite element analysis was done in out previous paper REf. [23].
- In Fig.15, illustrations of (a) and (b) can be added and make them more clearly. ANSWER: I added some explanations on the figure, now named Fig. 16
- The conclusion section should be divided several parts, e.g. (1)XXX; (2)XXX; (3)XXX. ANSWER: Done!
- Some references are out of date. ANSWER: Two papers were eliminated.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author does a lot of equation at different conditions. The author should employ these equations to add some results to the paper. The results are insufficient.
Author Response
See attached "Answer_to_Reviewer_1.docx'
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
