Design and Experimentation of a Longitudinal Axial Flow Sunflower Oil Threshing Device

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper shows the results of an evaluation of the performance of an axial threshing device made for small-scale production of field crops. The device was made to get around the problems with traditional threshing methods and to give small-acreage farmers a way to get their work done quickly and cheaply.

The authors did a series of tests on sunflower crops to see how well the device worked. The experiments were carried out in a controlled environment in terms of performance, efficiency, and grain quality.

The manuscript has scientifically and technically significant deficiencies, which are listed below:

1. The manuscript must adhere to the journal's guidelines.
2. The word "design" needs to be taken out of the title of the paper because the authors used the well-known idea of an axial threshing device in the study to find the best harvesting parameters based on the data they had. I am not sure what the authors meant by "design." Also, in the word "experiments," the letter "s" is written in a different font style.
3. The author's name, "Liu" is also in the wrong font style.
4. Lines 74–76: "This paper designs a rod-type longitudinal axial flow threshing test bench." Did the paper indeed design a threshing device? I think not. Many sentences are wrongly formulated.
5. Table 1: What do you mean "noncontact measurement method"?
6. What does it mean "Length from roller"?
7. "Feeding amount" (mass flow rate)
8. Line 101-103. Figure title is not appropriately written.
9. Line 109-111: Why did you use sunflower stalk during test conduction. Modern harvesters only collect the sunflower heads, leaving the stalks behind. Stalks remain in the field and not pick up by the combine header device. This is methodologically inappropriately settled trial.
10. Line 112: You used personal pronoun "my country". This is quite unusual for scientific papers.
11. Line 112-116: This sentence, like many others in the text, is lengthy and ambiguous.By the way, what is "grained rod"? There are many grammar faults in the text. You don’t use space between numeric data and unit (600mm, etc.)
12. Equation 1 is not true. The result of dividing kg/s and kg/s is not in meters, as you stated.
13. Figure 2 is not schematic diagram. It is 3D model of threshing drum.
14. I don’t understand words like corrugated rod, high entrainment loss rate, circular tube gravure sieve, etc.
15. Figure 3 doesn’t represent schematic diagram.
16. Line 148-149: What is number Z?
17. Figure 4a and 4b are two independent figures.
18. Equation 3 and 4 are not correct.
19. In general, all of the text from the Introduction section to the Test method and result analysis has no scientific value and is extremely problematic. The majority of the text is based on the author's assumptions rather than facts. Also the story of thin round bars is worthless.
20. Lines 210-212. Please, read it once again!
21. Lines 221-222: Do you want to say that without your dynamic analysis, the material wouldn't move through the cylinder?
22. Equation 6: Did you measure the depicted force reaction? How do you know value of coefficient "f"? This is so basic knowledge and I don’t understand purpose of it in scientific paper.
23. Line 230-234: Screw angle is a parameter that determines the intensity of threshing, but in conjunction with concave and rotor speed. This is a well-known story for the axial threshing concept.
24. Manuscript doesn’t have Discussion section at all.
25. What is new in the design of your threshing concept respecting others?
26. Line 238-242: Too confusing. Divide the sentence into two sentences.
27. Line 248: Figure 7
28. Figure 7 doesn’t represent any diagram.
29. Lines 247-251, 258-265: Sentences that are poorly written. Too long and too confusing.
30. Figure 8, 9 and 10: I would like to see confidence intervals for average values.
31. Line 253: what are the inverter parameters?
32. Line 255: How did you come up with this figure? According to what?
33. Line 258-265: English is bad and totally misunderstood. You use present tense instead of past tense and address the reader in such a way as to order him to do something. Too much grammar errors.
34. Line 270-273: What kind of sentences is this?
35. Line 275: Non sense! Both are controlled factors.
36. Line 313-315: What is this?
37. Line 324: 2 must be in subscript and the same through all text.
38. Equation 9: x is missing, and in x1, 1 must be in index.
39. Table 4: Since the model is non-linear, predicted and adjusted r2 should be given, as should the standard error of the regression. Free degrees should be natural numbers! Isn't it? The mean square and free degree should be switched.The standard error for regression coefficients should be given also. x1 square, not x12, x2 square, not x22, 3 must be in index, 2 in exponent, Significant and extremely significant, what is difference?
40. Figure 12: Where is the function f defined? y2 probably
41. Equation 11: replace x2 with mix y1? man y2? x3
42. Conclusions must contain the major achievements of the study. I'm not sure what you discover. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study designed a longitudinal axial flow threshing device, and determined the structural parameters and operating parameters of the detachment drum, deflector, and gravure screen. The device has certain guiding values. However, the work is not yet ready for publication, there are several things that need to be clarified though before the manuscript is reconsidered for publication.

1.Figures 3 and 4 need to be added the necessary information in text and graphics. Furthermore, the position of the grain rod, the grid concave sieve, and the round tubular concave plate sieve should be shown in Figure 1.

2.The serial numbers in Figure 4 should be adjusted to the same size to ensure the neat of the figure.

3. How do you control the feed rate? What is the specific test method?

4. What materials are used to make the device? Why?

5. The conclusion needs to be condensed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present format. It required to significantly improve their language and try to make the manuscript readable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx