Study of Non-Smooth Symmetry Collision of Rolling Bodies of Localized Functional-Slot Cage-Less Ball Bearings Considering Lubrication Flow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author needs to incorporate the suggestions/comments in their manuscript for better clarity to the researchers.

1. The abstract should be more clear in terms of application, requirement and the current work and its finding.

2. The author includes the recent work from 2022, 2023 and 2024 for a better understanding of the novelty of the work.

3. The formatting of the paper is required in many places it is not the same for example in some places author used Fig and in some places author used Figure. Keep it common.

4. Surface roughness also plays an important role. Is it considered in this study by the author?

5. What about if the rotational speed is more than 25000r/min? Further, it is noticed that the author has described the obtained results but their scientific explanation is missing. Add in each section with proper justification.

6. The author developed the model and also experimented but no where it mention the accuracy of the model. The model is how much closer to the experimental data.

7. The conclusion should be to the point rather then a big paragraph.

Author Response

List of Responses

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers‘Study on non-smooth symmetry collision of rolling bodies of localized functional slot cageless ball bearings considering lubrication flow’(ID: symmetry-2994700). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. Response to comment: The abstract should be more clear in terms of application, requirement and the current work and its finding.

Response: We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused to your reading due to our mistake. In the revised manuscript, we have rewritten the abstract to make the meaning clearer and more precise.

2. Response to comment: The author includes the recent work from 2022, 2023 and 2024 for a better understanding of the novelty of the work.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have added more than ten articles, including papers from the past three years in the research field.

3. Response to comment: The formatting of the paper is required in many places it is not the same for example in some places author used Fig and in some places author used Figure. Keep it common.

Response: We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused to your reading due to our mistake. We have made consistency in the revised manuscript, including the mention of formula labels.

4. Response to comment: Surface roughness also plays an important role. Is it considered in this study by the author?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Surface roughness plays a significant role in the contact between adjacent rolling elements as well as between rolling elements and functional grooves. However, it was not deliberately highlighted in this article, and roughness was only considered when selecting factors such as contact stiffness and lubrication coefficient.

5. Response to comment: What about if the rotational speed is more than 25000r/min? Further, it is noticed that the author has described the obtained results but their scientific explanation is missing. Add in each section with proper justification.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We did not take this into consideration. In the revised manuscript, we have added an explanation of this issue and cited relevant literature for evidence, which has been highlighted in red.

6. Response to comment: The author developed the model and also experimented but no where it mention the accuracy of the model. The model is how much closer to the experimental data

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The experiment was conducted on vibration and can only indirectly measure the overall collision form of the rolling element. In the revised manuscript, we have provided additional explanations on how the experimental results are related to the model results, which have been highlighted in red.

7. Response to comment: The conclusion should be to the point rather then a big paragraph.

Response: We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused by our mistake in your reading. In the revised manuscript, we have rewritten the conclusion to make the meaning clearer and more clear.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the paper is interesting and generally well written. The topic is important from a scientific and practical point of view. Please include the following comments in your paper revision.

1. Abstract - please divide the text in the abstract into sentences. It looks like a long text that's difficult to follow.

2. Please edit the abstract with more detailed results of your research:

Please edit the abstract with more detailed results of your research. Purpose, research methodology and results. A few important sentences about what to expect after reading your work.

3. Line 32 - repetition of scholars

4. It seems to me that the article is not fully written in accordance with the rules of building English sentences in scientific articles. I suggest you read the entire article again and make edits.

5. Line 47 - what other scholars?

6. "and other scholars" - this is too much of a generalization. Please only write specifics and provide detailed works that describe a given issue.

7. Please include the following work in your introduction: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2024.109562

In this work, the authors took into account the influence of the type of lubricant and surface texture on the lubricating properties. These are important issues to mention in your work.

8. Fig. 1 - in the text, also write about the software used to perform these simulations.

9. Conclusions - It is better to present conclusions from dashes, writing about the results of your work from the most important to the least important.

10. 16 references is not enough. Please expand your citation count. Especially since you often quote a specific author for one issue and then add a note "and others". So add these others.

Author Response

List of Responses

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers‘Study on non-smooth symmetry collision of rolling bodies of localized functional slot cageless ball bearings considering lubrication flow’(ID: symmetry-2994700). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #2:

 

1. Response to comment: Abstract - please divide the text in the abstract into sentences. It looks like a long text that's difficult to follow.

Response: We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused to your reading due to our mistake. In the revised manuscript, we have rewritten the abstract to make the meaning clearer and more precise.

2. Response to comment:Please edit the abstract with more detailed results of your research:

Please edit the abstract with more detailed results of your research. Purpose, research methodology and results. A few important sentences about what to expect after reading your work.
Response: In the revised manuscript, the abstract has been rewritten to avoid redundancy and clearly demonstrate the purpose, research methods, and results of this article. It has been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

3. Response to comment: Line 32 - repetition of scholars.

Response: We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused to your reading due to our mistake. We have carefully checked and made revisions in the revised manuscript.

4. Response to comment: It seems to me that the article is not fully written in accordance with the rules of building English sentences in scientific articles. I suggest you read the entire article again and make edits.

Response: We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused to your reading due to our mistake. In the revised manuscript, we have re polished and appropriately streamlined the language throughout the entire text.

5. Response to comment: Line 47 - what other scholars?

Response: We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused to your reading due to our mistake. We intended to express that we were referring to other authors of this literature, rather than other scholars who have conducted the same research. We have rewritten the revised manuscript to avoid ambiguity.

6. Response to comment: "and other scholars" - this is too much of a generalization. Please only write specifics and provide detailed works that describe a given issue.

Response: We deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused to your reading due to our mistake. We intended to express that we were referring to other authors of this literature, rather than other scholars who have conducted the same research. We have rewritten the revised manuscript to avoid ambiguity.

7. Response to comment:Please include the following work in your introduction: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2024.109562

In this work, the authors took into account the influence of the type of lubricant and surface texture on the lubricating properties. These are important issues to mention in your work.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added it to the revised preface.

8. Response to comment: 1 - in the text, also write about the software used to perform these simulations.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added it to the revised preface and highlighted it in red.

9. Response to comment: Conclusions - It is better to present conclusions from dashes, writing about the results of your work from the most important to the least important.

Response: We have rewritten the conclusion in the revised manuscript, separating it into separate items, expressing them one by one, and clarifying the main and secondary aspects.

10. Response to comment: 16 references is not enough. Please expand your citation count. Especially since you often quote a specific author for one issue and then add a note "and others". So add these others.

Response: We have rewritten the revised manuscript to avoid ambiguity and added some literature, including those from the past three years.

 

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author:

Name: Yuan Zhang

E-mail:[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for incorporating the suggestions/comments.