Research on the Dynamic Control Method of CFETR Multi-Purpose Overload Robot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents the design of a dynamic controller of a CFETR multi-purpose robot, the paper is lack of intensive research and accurate description of the work and cannot be accepted in present form, it needs considerable revisions on writing and the literature review to identify the research gap and contributions more specifically. For example, the authors claim high-precision performance where there are no clear evidences of such high-precision in the paper context, moreover, the literature review doesn't explain how the other articles are less in precision than what has been achieved in the paper to claim high-precision. Even in section.3 the same claimed feature has been repeated without clear explanation. The conclusion is very short and mentioned without clarifying the practical and theoretical research findings. I think the esteemed authors need thorough rewriting to reconsider the work again after those essential revisions.

English is fine.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, we have responded to each question and uploaded them to the attachment, please check.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us. We will reply as soon as possible. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals presents almost like a review on the high-precision dynamic control method of a multi-purpose overload robot developed by the Institute of Plasma Physics. 

The article is well written, taking some typos, it is well explained and the readers can understand the overall goal and replicate it. However, I miss introducing a physical prototype, and testing this in real-life situations. Using a simulator like ADAMS- 454 MATLAB/Simulink and saying that the error is less than 0.025m is misleading, because in a multi-joint system this error can be way worse. 

In spite of everything, I believe that the article has a valid scientific coherence, and that it helps to contribute to the state of the art in the field of reviews. 

The only strong suggestion I have is to place the simulation models/3D parts in a repository, and make it available to the scientific community.

The article is well written, taking some typos.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, we have responded to each question and uploaded them to the attachment, please check.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us. We will reply as soon as possible. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attached review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, we have responded to each question and uploaded them to the attachment, please check.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us. We will reply as soon as possible. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper devoted to construction of the math model of the multi-DOF robot-manipulators. The paper is well organized.

But the paper probably has a lack of novelty in the part connected with the mathematical model.  The many models for such robots manipulators were developed to now. Can the author to make the novelty of their models mo clear?

 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, we have responded to each question and uploaded them to the attachment, please check.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us. We will reply as soon as possible. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised their article based on my comments. Recommending acceptance in present version. 

English is fine. few final minor edits is necessary.