Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is related to the efficiency of a transportation system by suspended monorails in coal mines. A calculated model was developed, but few details were described. In general, the quality of the English version is reasonable.

Additional specific comments are presented:

1. In the Abstract, line 9, is … ‘to improve the efficiency.’
2. In the Keywords, it is suggested to include another Keyword ‘Coal mines’.
3. In the Introduction, since lines 24-35, please improve the written text. As an example, second and third sentence should be synthetized in only one sentence. The word ‘constantly’ is repeated several times.
4. The development of the computational model is an important part of the work. Few details are given about the characteristics of the model.
5. The quality of Figure 5 is in general good. However, the flowchart inserted in the control system of the computational model is very reduced, not clear enough.
6. In the list of references, use the same format for the different references. For instance, references 4, 5 and 6 have not the year in bold.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Our comments are available in the attachment. Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

in my opininion the manuscript is of high quality. However, the references list is too short (approx. 30-40 items is required) and includes mostly Polish researchers. I suggest adding more international references.

 

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Regarding your comment’s we increased the number of references in the paper up to 29. The new version is available in the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript ID: energies-1130095

Title: Impact of increased travel speed of a transportation set on the dynamic parameters of a mine suspended monorail.

In this paper, a mine suspended monorail is analyzed. Experimental and computational moldels are carried out. Suspended monorails are typically used as transport systems in underground coal mines.

In general, the paper is not well organized and it is difficult to follow. There are significant drawbacks in the present paper, please see the following comments:

• What is the novel points in the present study? The research method, or the results? To better understand this paper, the abstract can be further improved by adding more details about the main conclusions and novelty. The abstract has to show the singular and significance of the research.
• More references about this systems existing in the literature must be included in the Introduction Section. In addition, the reserach work and the objectives must be explained correctly in the Introduction Section.
• The methodology must be improved. It is a very important section.
• The computational model must be explained and clarified. Please,  the governing equations and the simulation method must be explained. This is very important to understand the paper. In general, both experimental and computational models must be explained correctly.
• The Conclusion section should be presented in a more organized structure. Moreover, the academic value and universality of the main contributions obtained in this study should be demonstrated.
• The paper must be significantly improved in the revised version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Our answers are available in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments have been addressed in the revised versión.