Optimization Research for the Adjusting Device of the Mechanical Vertical Drilling Tool Based on the Adjusting Torque

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an optimization study of a specific adjusting device for mechanical vertical drilling tools, whose previous stages of development in the context of international research have been adequately detailed through a good analysis of the state of the art. 

In particular, the authors expressly cite their other work on the subject (currently submitted for approval to another journal), while clarifying the differences in content between the two. They also provided the manuscript text of the other study, which I reviewed without founding any overlap or plagiarism in the scientific content. The two studies appear in fact related, but complementary, since one of them focuses on the topic of the system stability, while the other presents an additional optimization of the device, whose motivation is clear: further improvement of performances, mainly in relation to the adjusting torque.

The work is well-organized and clearly-structured. English is correct.

Figures and graphs are accurate and clear. Mathematical nomenclature is well detailed. 

The experimental data, albeit marginal, are correctly inserted in the text in order to support FEM analysis.

In any case, some points still appears quite "obscure" to the reader, thus the following minor revisions are required before publication:

- lines 209-212: the sentence could be misinterpreted, it almost seems that no experiments will be carried out at all (which instead will be done at least in part, even if undirectly through the deflection angle). Please modify the sentence so as not to create ambiguity, even through a very brief preview of what will "happen" next.

- from line 230 to line 260: it seems from the text that I should understand SU and SL trends from the graphs, but it is not completely clear to me how to "see" them. Please explain better to the reader.

Similarly, please explain better also Su and Sl in Figure 11(a)-(b) (lines from 413 to 421).

- In multiple Figures (e.g. Figure 7) I suggest to put each sub-caption (e.g. (a)......) not above each picture but below it, for clarity.

- from line 339 to line 348: it is not so clear HOW you selected that exact preferred values as reported in Table 6. Please explain better.

- paragraphs from line 499 to line 507: you talk twice about an "improved" reflux for a better M. But doesn't the reflux get worse M? I had read at line 498: "M assumes negative values within the range 2 and range 3 as a consequence of the reflux". Please check and explain.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In your manuscript the results of the optimization research for adjusting device of the mechanical vertical drilling tool were presented.

The introduction section is written well. However, since 3.3 Validation of Experiment Test (would not be better to name it "Validation by Experiment Test" is missing more info on experimental results!? If that (experimental) part of the research was done, then usual information on experiment should be provided, including measurement uncertainties analysis, etc.

 

Dear Authors,

Correct the typographical errors (e.g. Page 7 Line 223 (Fig.4) "and the Process", etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.  In the title of Sec. 2.1, “Adjustig” is wrong.

2.  Conclusions should provide clearer descriptions and experimental data.

3.  One suggestion, the unit of friction torque (M) for “N-mm” and “n-mm” is used in this paper. Which is right?

4. The authors declared that “when M’ is within the range 1', it is positive and exhibits a similar effect to that of M within range 1, whereby it enables φ to approach zero. However, it was observed that M’ drops more gradually in comparison to M, resulting in a larger range 1' (15° ~ 0°) compared to range 1 (approximately 15° ~ 6°).”. Why?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No