Design and Test of Seed–Fertilizer Replenishment Device for Wheat Seeder
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper presents a seed-fertilizer supply device for wheat seeders. It discusses the design parameters of key components, conducts kinematic analysis and trajectory planning for the robotic arm system, develops a prototype, and determines the optimal operating parameters through quadratic regression orthogonal experiments. This study offers valuable insights and technical guidance for the device and method of adding seed fertilizer to wheat seeders. However, there are several areas in the paper that require revision
#1 In Chapter 2, the paper describes the design of the length dimensions for each link of the robotic arm. The length of the big arm is determined to be 2180mm. The authors could further elaborate on why they did not choose to increase the size of the big arm to expand the working space of the device. Additionally, it would be beneficial to explain how the dimensions of the other two connecting rods were determined.
#2 Chapter 5 discusses a quadratic regression orthogonal experiment conducted to examine the relationship between the operation and conveying effect of the screw conveyor device. The rotation speed of the lumbar joint, rotation speed of the auger, and angular speed of the big arm were considered as factors. The authors obtained the optimal operating parameters the lumbar joint angular velocity is 4°s, the speed of the screw conveyor is 88.4rmin, and the angle of the big arm is 11.77°. It would be helpful for the authors to clarify the selection process for these three factors and how the respective value ranges were determined. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to discuss whether these optimal parameters led to significant improvements in the machine's operating results during actual operations.
#3 Please double-check the accuracy of Formula (4) to ensure that it is written correctly.
#4 For Formula (24), I suggest that the author incorporate the coefficient calculation results into the formula and display the final result.
#5 In Figure 3, it would be advantageous for the author to include the corresponding position of the coordinate system on the robotic arm to provide a clearer visual representation.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The current manuscript would benefit from proofreading by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript presents the design of a seed-fertilizer replenishment device for wheat seeders, which is interesting. Conducting research of this nature is crucial for enhancing the replenishment efficiency of the seed box and offering technical insights for seed and fertilizer replenishment in unmanned farms. However, I have identified some issues that need to be addressed and corrected.
1. It would be beneficial to include the rationale for selecting the specific input parameters, namely lumbar joint angular velocity, auger rotation speed, and big arm tilt angle, along with their respective ranges.
2. Please correct the figure number; use 'Fig. 10' instead of 'Fig. 11'.
3. Only two 3D surface plots are provided. Additional 3D surface plots illustrating various combinations of input-output relationships should be included.
4. It would be beneficial to include the effects of each independent parameter—namely, lumbar joint angular velocity, auger rotation speed, and big arm tilt angle—on both dependent parameters, namely, conveying loss rate and conveying efficiency. Please consider adding separate subheadings under the 'Discussion' section to elaborate on these relationships.
5. Revise the representation of the multi-objective optimization problem formulation equation (Eq. 30). Use the actual values of parameters X1, X2, and X3 for indicating their respective ranges, instead of coded values. Additionally, insert 'subjected to (s.t.)' before each set of conditions.
6. Why were the upper limits of Y1 and Y2 set at 10% and 1 kg/s, respectively, during the optimization process in this study? Please furnish additional details explaining the rationale behind these choices.
7. It is recommended to revise the presentation of Table No. 8. In addition to including the experimental values for conveying loss rate and conveying efficiency, consider incorporating the model-predicted values along with the corresponding relative errors between the experimental and model-predicted values, all within the same table.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This version is significantly better than before. All comments have been considered, so the paper can be accepted in this revised version.
