Magnetic Abrasive Finishing of Beta-Titanium Wire Using Multiple Transfer Movement Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Hello,

I tell you honestly that in the first phase I did not understand. Why? Because in table 3 you talked about "feed rate" and said that it is 80 mm / min. This meant that the wire passed through the installation in 37.5 sec. I was wondering: how could conclusions be drawn in experiments lasting 37.5 sec? After that I noticed that the experiments actually lasted 300 sec. and during the 300 sec. at 0, 60, 120, 180, 240 and 300 sec pertinent observations were made. For this reason: I think the way the experiments were conducted should be explained in more detail. Even now I don't know what the feed rate is looking for in the experiment table. I only know that the mode of experimentation specified in the Introduction is not the one detailed by you at the end of the article. An example: the conclusion number 5 says correctly: When finishing using a multi-transfer motion method under optimal conditions, the processing effects were best to worst in the order: vibration with feed rate, vibration only and feed rate only. Where in the Introduction are specified these three variants ? 

However, I consider the article valuable, it could be changed exceptionally with small corrections.

I have also small language observation:

1. In row 31: instead of "...in frames in eyeglasses" it would be correct "...in eyeglasses frames"
2. In row 61: instead of "...which can improve the resulting surface roughness" it would be correct it would be correct "...which can improve the  surface roughness resulting"
3. In figure 1, instead of "drive spool" I would put "drive wheels"
4. In row 154: instead of "Figure 9 show..." it would be correct "Figure 9 shows..."
5. In rows 81-82: instead of "...beta titanium wire material was used as the workpiece...in this study" it would be correct "...beta titanium wire material was used in this study as the workpiece..."
6. In the legend of the figure 4, should be cut "..., size 1 μm" because the graph shows the evolution of the roughness for all three particle sizes, not only  for 1 μm
7. Rows 128, 165,167, 192: must be placed in the center.
8. In row 197: "...surface roughness (Ra) improved to 0.05 μm..." it would be correct "...surface roughness (Ra) was improved to 0.05 μm..."
9. In my opinion should be specified after conclusion 4 (row 202): "..., in all conditions"

Overall, I consider the article successful, with conclusions that can be applied immediately.I would be proud if the article was written by me. So you authors can be proud.

Author Response

The paper have been roughly revised accordingly with your comments

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Literature review is far from enough.
2. Pls specify the material of the yoke and chuck (i.e. model no.), rather than just mention steel.
3. It is still hard to understand the connection between magnetic pole, magnet, and chuck in Fig.2 and 3. Could you add some more information for better understanding? It looks like the size of the magnets are different in two poles.
4. Figure 9 is not clear.Pls provide high resolution figure with clear axis label. Same problem of Fig. 12.
5. I think one photograph demonstrating the surface before and after polishing is needed for better reading.

Author Response

The paper have been roughly revised accordingly with your comments

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1.The description of ref 8 is not correct in the response of comment 1. Pls confirm. And check other citations carefully.
2. The connection between the yoke and the permanent magnet is still not clear. The yoke is used to connect two magnetic poles. Right? But I can't see the connection in Fig.3.
3. Fig. 10 in the revised manuscript is still not clear. Pls confirm.
4. AFM was used to measure the surface roughness. Right? Pls add one sentence for this. And I think it is better to add the surface roughness measurement results together with the photos before and after polishing.
5. The label fontsize is still too small in Fig. 13.
6. Pls further proofread the whole paper to check the grammar error.

Author Response

The paper have been roughly revised accordingly with your comments.

The attached file can be found as MS word file

Best regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I'm fine with the revision.