Adaptive Control Strategy and Model of Gas-Drainage Parameters in Coal Seam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract: It must be rewritten; there is a serious lack of proper use of English that makes it hard to be understood. Moreover, the contribution of the manuscript was not revealed in the abstract.

Authors have not mentioned what scientific software has been used for modelling and simulation.

More technical info and specs about the pumps must be given from the authors (type of pumps, capacity, etc.).

p.8, l.1: Problem with reference.

p.8, l.12: This means that only one author actually contributed in the manuscript. The contribution of the authors in the current manuscript must be described in a separate paragraph after the conclusions of the manuscript.

p.10, l.7 - p.11, l.1: Punctuation problem in a very big sentence.

p.15, l.19-21: Syntax error. Rephrase it.

Explain the role of the interval between adjacent borehole fields.

Conclusion: Use the term conclusion in plural tense. Before numbering the conclusions, authors must write a paragraph with the overall approach.

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript.

We have carefully consider all comments and revised our manuscript accordingly. The manuscript has also been double-checked, including language. All modified parts have been marked in blue. In the attachment, we summarize our responses to each comment. We believe that our responses have well addressed all concerns from the reviewers. We hope our revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is very interesting and important nowadays. However authors based only on numerical analysis and simulations with no real test confrontation. In that case everything is depend of model that we choose and assamptions that we choose to. Of course authors based on the literature datas, but using information only from China's works. Please notethat this topis is also analized around the world ex. Scandynavia, America, Middle East and Europe too. It is need to validade paper with scientific works made in the different country. Besides the article is to long. over 30 pages is not readable for the recipient. Recomended is to cut the paper at least 10pages, or please think about split it on 2 articles. 

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript.

We have carefully consider all comments and revised our manuscript accordingly. The manuscript has also been double-checked, including language. All modified parts have been marked in blue. In the attachment, we summarize our responses to each comment. We believe that our responses have well addressed all concerns from the reviewers. We hope our revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript.

We have carefully consider all comments and revised our manuscript accordingly. The manuscript has also been double-checked, including language. All modified parts have been marked in blue. In the attachment, we summarize our responses to each comment. We believe that our responses have well addressed all concerns from the reviewers. We hope our revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Response on point 8 must be mentioned in the manuscript, not only as an answer to the reviewer.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the explanation of point 8 to the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for including comments. 

The work can be improve, however in present for is much more readable as a sceintific article. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have done some work on the manuscript to make it more readable. With the help of native English speakers, we have improved the manuscript and polished the language in it. In terms of conclusions and abstracts, it clarifies the innovation and discovery of the manuscript. In data processing, the cloud map display before and after regulation is added, so that the regulation process can be traced. We added the characteristic curve of the drainage pump in the model to show the relationship between flow and gas pressure in detail. The basic theory in the model is derived in detail to ensure its accuracy and readability.