Investigating the Obstacle Climbing Ability of a Coal Mine Search-and-Rescue Robot with a Hydraulic Mechanism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the paper quality can be improved further by considering following points:

1. Conduct more no. of experiments in real world situation

2. Discuss the results by giving scientific proof.

3. Results and discussion part is to be elaborated.

4. Give more no. of references to support your contribution.

5. Verify the correctness of the kinematic equations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors proposed the topic of investigating the obstacle climbing ability of a Coal Mine Search-and-Rescue Robot with a Hydraulic Mechanism. In this work, the authors analyzed the ability of climbing for crawler robot based on kinematics equation. The simulation result shows that the extended rocker arm can improve the ability of climb (stair). However, the scenario in coal mine is huge different from stair. Another question is that why the robot dynamic and traction force from wheel is not included in this investigation.

  

Section 1. Introduction 

The authors well reviewed a literature related to the situation why we need a search and rescue robots, especially Coal-mine. Types of rescue robots: wheel, leg, snake, and crawler were reviewed and compared the advantage and disadvantage.

page 4,

-        There is no Nue symbol in Figure 2

-        L1 and L11 has the same description, what is the different ?

-        Table should be adjusted in Journal format.

-        Paragraph should mention the detail of Figure 2 first before placing Figure 2 in manuscript  

Section 2. Result 

This section, the authors present the rigid transformation between one coordinate to another coordinate. Heading of section 2 should not be “result” after reviewer read the content in section 2.

-        For mathematic symbol, several typo is missing

-        Page 6, what is meaning of G1, G2 symbol

Section 3 Discussion

          Heading of section 3 should not be “Discussion” after reviewer read the content.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript contains no novelty nor originality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The reviewer comments are attached as pdf document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

now the paper is OK

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have done major changes but few minor corrections needed which is attached as pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf