Development of Variable Viscoelastic Joint Module Performance Evaluation and Proposal of Application Examples
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the variable viscoelastic joint module is systematically and completely evaluated and tested. The content of this paper is sufficient and conclusions are supported by reliable experiments. Overall, the manuscript is very organized, well-written, and well-presented. However, some revisions are needed before it is accepted for publication in the journal. The followings are the comments or issues existing in this version.
- It is suggested that the author explain the conventional structure of the existing modular robots in the field in the introduction to show the novelty of the proposed structure.
- The hysteresis curve of loading torque shown in Fig. 11 should be properly explained.
- Although the modular robot designed in this paper has excellent mechanical properties, its weight and volume are also large. It seems that only the lightweight design of materials will still be larger than other similar products.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
*) There is no doubt that, in the context of complex fluids, MR fluids are of not only theoretical but above all applicative importance. In particular, their industrial production has meant that an ever greater number of sectors require their use with ever higher performance in the face of ever lower maintenance costs. Surely, the paper submitted by the authors fits into this important framework providing both theoretical and experimental results of great interest. It is therefore worthwhile in the Introduction to underline this important aspect of these innovative materials by broadening the spectrum of applications by including the following works in the bibliography:
ISBN: 978-3-319-44362-1
doi: 10.1109/TMAG.2020.3032892
*) The abstract, as set by the Authors, is mainly aimed at past research. Therefore, I believe that it had to be rewritten in order to understand well the contribution of the submitted paper.
*) Also in the Introduction, please underline the innovative contribution of the submitted paper.
*) Please justify linear approximations 2.2 and 2.3. Do they have a theoretical confirmation? and experimentally, what can be said? Please specify.
*) At the end of the Introduction, I recommend that you insert the organization of the paper reminder.
*) The experimental set-up opens up quite complex in its interpretation. Therefore, if the authors deem it appropriate, they could insert a self-explanatory flowchart in order to make the proposed experimental procedure more intelligible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
