Prediction of the Potential Daily Output of a Shearer-Loader
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Teh study addresses the need to determine the potential daily output of a longwall using the technical equipment at the disposal of the mine. The paper is interesting; nevertheless, minor amendments are recommended prior to its publication to further enhance its readability. Specific comments and suggestions are given below.
Abstract could be more specific mentioning at least some of the most important data, findings or conclusions.
Keywords - I suggest adding also "prediction", "algoritm", "economic analysis" or something like that (at least one new keyword).
References and citations: Line 48 - please use [13-15] instead of [13, 14, 15]. And, please remove "spaces" within the square brackets with references throughout the text. Line 64: please use number in square bracket for the reference that are currently in the form of the name and the year (Jaszczuk 2007). If the authors want to mention the name of the author, it can be used in combination with the number of the reference.
Introduction. I suggest adding a brief paragraph at the end of introduction concisely indicating the objectives of the study (a couple of sentences will be enough).
Fig. 1. Please use bigger font size for the unit on horizontal axis as it is now too small to be readable (namely the upper index). Please check also the other Figures for the labels and descriptions to be all readable without any further enlargement (e.g. horizontal axis of Fig. 4 etc.)
Equations throughout the text. Even if it is clear, I would remove the units at the end of the equations and mention them in the text above the equations where the calculated parameter could be introduced/explained. For example, in case of Eq. 1, WQ could be explained within the lines 71-74 along with its unit, then, there is no need to use this unit at the end of the equation.
All important findings are discussed in Discussion section. Despite this, I recommend adding also a new section Conclusions providing very brief summary and namely highlighting the importance of the study and maybe some implications or examples of potential use.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study deals with determining the daily output of a device in a coal mine.
Comments:
1. I recommend reworking the abstract, where, in addition to general information, it would be appropriate to state the essential results and conclusions of the study
2. At the end of the introductory part (1. Introduction) I recommend adding the objectives and studies with emphasis on the importance and novelty of the study
3. Figure 1 is missing image description - SN, SS, SW Rk1 ......
4. Row 87 Formula (relation) (2) has an output by units defined in t / min. You report the result in t / d. Do you count on a 24-hour day, or an operating day depending on the length of the shift?
5. In what format do the data enter the calculation? Enter the input data, 1. (process) after the start. Would it not be possible to give an example of input data?
6. What is the mechanism of “remove outliers”?
The 7th flowchart is unnecessarily confusing due to the relocation of the decision block
8. lK or LK? (formulas 3 and 4), or line 189
9. Missing explanation of Zp and Zz in formula (4)
10. Lines 188 to 193 Please specify units
11. is the input made for any device or are the selected devices precisely defined?
12. How are the parameters given by the machine producer taken into account?
13. In the results I miss the outputs from the created program
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Resources of a longwall panel of modern underground coal mines are several times higher (about 2-6 million tons) than the maximize resources, which are shown on the figure 1. And an average daily longwall output usually is about 10 000 - 30 000 t/d. Figure 1 shows only the longwall output in very difficult geological conditions - it is the exception and not the rule for modern underground coal mines.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you to the authors for their excellent work and addition of the manuscript.
