Analysis and Simulation of Permanent Magnet Adsorption Performance of Wall-Climbing Robot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Aiming at the shortcomings of traditional robots in adhesion, adjustment and obstacle crossing, this paper proposes a new design of five-wheeled climbing robot. The structure of the paper is clear, and it is developed step by step from introduction to conclusion with strong logic.

2. The proposed five-wheeled climbing robot and pendulum magnetron adsorption module designs are innovative, but need to be further explained in terms of advantages compared to prior art.

3. The simulation analysis using Maxwell software is a highlight of this article, but it is recommended to provide more detailed information on simulation parameters and boundary conditions to enhance the confidence of the results.

4. Prototype testing is mentioned in the paper, but a detailed description of the experimental setup and test conditions is lacking. It is recommended to add the description of the experiment section and provide more experimental data to support the simulation results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Analysis and simulation of permanent magnet adsorption performance of wall-climbing robot

 

Haifeng Ji, Peixing Li, Zhaoqiang Wang

The authors present an innovative design for a five-wheeled climbing robot equipped with a pendulum-style magnetic control adsorption module in the paper.

The topic addressed in this investigation is important, worthy investigation, and lies within the scope of this prestigious journal but in its current form, the paper is a good engineering thesis rather than a scientific paper.

The reviewer’s remark

1)     I suggest that the authors divide the "Introduction" chapter into subchapters in which they will explain the idea of ​​the article, i.e. Background, Literature Survey, Contribution, etc.

2)     Authors should explain what makes their solution better than others (advantages, disadvantages).

3)     Equations require not only editorial corrections, but also explanation.

4)     On what basis do the authors argue the advantages of their solution? The paper lacks any results confirming their thesis.

5)     The paper is written in a sloppy manner. Requires thorough editing work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors explain the doubts in the paper. In the opinion of the reviewer, it can be published.