Design and Performance of L-CaPaMan2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper covers the design implementation and inertia tests in of a ‘Light’ version of a Cassino Parallel Manipulator. The light version of this system is defined by cost where significant savings are used by utilising stock part sand and 3D printing of mechanical structures. Tests have been carried out using a 16-bit accelerometer and characteristics of motor torques and accelerations presented across three modes of operation. Comparisons are made between measured values and predicted /simulated valued through Autodesk Inventor.
The paper is well written and presented, albeit with a few minor grammatical errors. The results are relatively easy to follow and the diagrams informative.
In terms of improvement, the paper is predominantly a descriptive account of the system and a record of measurements that have been logged and graphically presented. It’s not clear why the acceleration and torque are considered definitive “performance” characteristics. Kinematic stability criterion and the effects of material stiffness, and frictional effects, although mentioned briefly (ln113-118) could be additional areas to consider. This could be far more detailed and described in the context of specified applications.
The paper lacks a depth of analysis and discussion of the design and evaluation process. It’s not clear what the impact of these findings are, what could be done to improve the performance or what the applications are likely to be. The results tables are not compared to the non-light version and comparisons between simulated and measured are not discussed in terms of differences and errors.
In addition, the Conclusion is weak and reads more like a summary of the content of the paper rather than pointing to issues raised or problems solved that would be of use to designers and engineers wishing to adopt the approach. As a cost-effective system, could this be considered an educational package? Or are the implications narrower that?
For an MDPI Special Issue on Dynamic Phenomena, the paper is short and descriptively specific in its approach. There are very similar publications in conference proceedings, so perhaps this would be an opportunity to disseminate the design and evaluation approach to a wider audience and include additional information that would support further analysis and repeatability by others. In the spirit of the open-source nature of Arduino, is there a repository for the code? And are DFX files or other portable CAD files available to replicate the system?
Author Response
Please see the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The proposed idea is good but the paper requires some major revision before it can be considered for publishing.
The is significant related work.
The quality of some figures is low.
Line 71: The phrase “smaller masses” should be changed with “components’ lower weight” in terms of proper use of English.
Line 75: What is the CAD software that was used for the simulation? In line 91 Autodesk Inventor is mentioned. It should be named precisely as well as the type of sensors used for the testing.
Line 120: The phrase a “dynamic simulation has been carried out” is very vague. You should absolutely add more data as well as the software used.
Line 83: The parameter “platform acceleration” (especially in the form written as “more than 2 m/s2”) is completely wrong. Please correct by putting extrusion head speed (in mm/sec) also in line 229. In general, the process parameters used on the 3D Printer and the printer’s model or category are not mentioned at all and are very crucial for the simulation. Speed, retraction, temperature, infill percentage? For example, the infill parameter dictates whether the item is completely hollow or completely solid (0-100%). This parameter is crucial for the simulation. How did you simulate the fabricated item’s mechanical properties? With the item completely solid?? Such parameters need to be absolutely defined. The following references can help you with this and are suggested to be included:
- 10.5923/j.mechanics.20211001.02
- 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.074
Line 162: The phrase “It has been made in such a way to reconfigure itself, changing parts” makes no sense. Please correct accordingly.
General Comments: The article needs a lot of extra work to be considered adequate for publishing. Even though the general idea is innovative and of scientific value, the article lacks information about the 3D Printed parts and the simulation part is very general and vague. Also, if the internal infill of the 3D Printed parts is not taken into account, the simulation procedure will provide misleading results. In addition, the conclusions section is very small and needs to be expanded as well as the references number. Therefore, the article should be reconsidered as “major revisions” needed.
Author Response
Please see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
