The Influence of the Setup on the Result of Measuring the Roundness of an Anuloid Surface

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The article is interesting and concerns the metrology of geometric quantities and measurements of the selected form deviation - roundness.

In line no. 150 there is an error in the designation of the angle of inclination.

Moreover, I think that in the future, the authors should consider repeating the measurements to calculate the dispersion of the results.

In my opinion, the literature review is prepared correctly.

The authors presented mathematical formulas for systematic errors resulting from incorrect positioning of a measured product during roundness deviation measurements.

I believe that the developed formulas can be helpful during measurements because they enable estimating the value of the systematic error based on, among others, the inclination angle of a measured object.

Can the developed formulas be implemented in measurement software compatible with a measuring system? The implementation would allow mathematical formulas to be used in industry.

The figures presented are of high quality.

In line no. 150 there is an error in the designation of the angle of inclination.

I think that the number of measurements conducted during experimental research should be greater. Authors should calculate the measurement uncertainty.

Moreover, please explain the symbols H (line no. 213), UPR (line no. 216) and how the number of measurement points and measurement speed were selected.

In my opinion, the conclusions were formulated correctly.

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and recommendations.

• We corrected the line 150 (now it is 153).
• We will consider repeating the measurements to calculate the dispersion of the results in the future.
• The implementation possibilities of derived formulas were added to the conclusion. (lines 290-296)
• Determining measurement uncertainty was not the goal of this article. The experimental work was only to confirm the derived formulas. The accuracy of the used round gauge is so high that the measurement uncertainty is negligible concerning the measurement results.
• We explained symbols H and UPR in lines 216-217 (originally 213) and 220-221 (originally 216). The number of measurement points and measurement speed were selected as the highest number of measurement points which the device allows in consideration of the highest precision, and measurement speed was selected as the speed recommended for used device and measured surfaces.

Reviewer 2 Report

It's a well done work made by the authors. On the other hand, it uses very similar procedures to the author's previous study. The mathematical calculation of the errors are quite logical and relatively simple, and it is strange that no one else has published something similar before. I mean, I haven't found a paper like that. I believe that the practical impact of this study will be much greater than the scientific one. Especially for manufacturers of measuring equipment.

I have found no reason not to recommend this study for publication.

- The number of references should be higher.

- Please describe the novelty of the article in more detail

- Please compare the results with other similar researches

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and recommendations.

• We added 3 more relevant references ([21, 22, 23], relevant text: lines 68-71).
• The novelty of the article is based on the determination of the formulas for anuloid measurement. The results and the implementation possibilities of those formulas have been added to the conclusion (lines 268-269 and 290-296).
• This is the first article dealing with the measuring of the anuloid surface, which was also confirmed by another reviewer. Therefore, it is not possible to compare our results with other similar researches.