Analysis and Experiment of Thermal Field Distribution and Thermal Deformation of Nut Rotary Ball Screw Transmission Mechanism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is about analysis and experiment of thermal field distribution and thermal deformation of nut rotary ball screw transmission mechanism.

Authors for mentioned above analysis used thermal resistance network model.

Paper is prepared in the right way, from introduction, trough experiment to final conclusions.

However, I’m not sure about main goal/motivation of this paper, as the problem of thermal distribution/deformation of such structures (nut rotary ball screw transmission mechanism) is well known, several tools are available for multi-domain modeling and simulation (e.g. ANSYS)…maybe will be good to add some sentences of additional explanation of main motivation of this paper or simply what is new here.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

The paper Analysis and Experiment of Thermal Field Distribution and Thermal Deformation of Nut Rotary Ball Screw Transmission Mechanism was sent to me for review. In the paper, the authors designed a differential dual drive micro feed mechanism, and they had performed its analysis from the thermal distribution and deformation point of view. Below you’ll find my opinions.

 

1. Please, leave a space between the value and unit: 0.1 um instead of 0.1um, 150k/s à 150 ks, -5V~5V à -5 ÷ 5 V, n_N = 0r/min à n_N = 0 RPM (please, use RPM) (Check the whole paper for the same issue!)

 

2. Between chapter 2. Temperature Field and Thermal Error Modeling of Nut Rotating Ball Screw Transmission Mechanism and subchapter 2.1. Nut Rotating Ball Screw Precision Transmission Mechanism  a text should be included, in order to present the chapter.

 

3. Figure 33. Schematic diagram of system temperature rise and thermal elongation measurement. à Figure 33. Schematic of the testing scenario.

 

4. Figure 34. Experimental setup for temperature rise and thermal elongation measurement. à Experimental setup. (Electric Control Cabinet à Driving Unit)

 

5. In Conclusion, you accomplished the numerical model of the mechanism, mathematical model of the analysis, performed the numerical simulation and experimental testing for validation. The paper’s structure is good, the English is easy to understand and the results are synthetically presented. The paper should be of some interest.

 

Best regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some lacks, they were mentioned above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract lacks detailed presentation of the results, making it challenging to assess the novelty and significance of the study's findings. Without specific results, it is difficult to understand the contribution of the research to the existing knowledge. While the study addresses an important issue in precision engineering, the work does not adequately discuss the findings. It fails to articulate how the obtained thermal field distribution and deformation model is suitable for applications. The work does not provide information on the magnitude of thermal deformation observed or the effectiveness of the proposed mechanism in mitigating thermal effects. Without such details, it is unclear if the study comprehensively addresses the research objectives. The work focuses on a specific transmission mechanism, limiting the generalizability of the findings. The introduction lacks proper citations to support the background information provided. including relevant references would enhance the credibility of the study and provide readers with a better understanding of the context in which the research is conducted. The technical language used in the abstract, title and the results part appears disjointed and could benefit from smoother transitions between concepts. This would improve readability and comprehension, particularly for readers unfamiliar with the specialized terminology used in precision engineering. In such circumstance, I would recommend to reject this work for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs to be improved by rewriting the title, abstract, introduction as well as the results and discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am still not satisfied with the author's response. I don't see any substantial improvement in the paper. Therefore, I would not recommend this work for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf