Evaluating the Accuracy of the Reverse Engineering Process of Worn, Non-Standard Spur Gears—Pilot Studies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposes a method to assess the accuracy of recreated worn nonstandard spur gears by the reverse engineering process. Basic pitches of eight gears are tested and evaluated. The proposed method is practical since techniques and measuring instruments used are conventional and available in most design offices and laboratory workshops. This topic is interesting, and this article is well written. The reviewer supports publication of this work. Followings are some minor questions or suggestions:
- Line 45, it would be helpful to explain more about “conventional techniques and measuring instruments” as this is the first place the term appears.
- Line 53, the subject of the sentence “In the work of M.A. Sáenz-Nuño et al. [3] presented a useful approach to setting tolerances for any mechanical part within RE, practical for industry.” is missing.
- Line 142, “six” should be “four”.
- Table 1, what is the meaning of “z”?
- Line 216, “i” should be “and”.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am much obliged to you for all your comments and tips regarding my scientific work. Below are my responses to your suggestions. I really hope that I managed to correct all the shortcomings. Thank you again for a positive opinion.
- Line 45, it would be helpful to explain more about “conventional techniques and measuring instruments” as this is the first place the term appears.
Answer: I added a description. Line 50-59 (underlined and colored green).
- Line 53, the subject of the sentence “In the work of M.A. Sáenz-Nuño et al. [3] presented a useful approach to setting tolerances for any mechanical part within RE, practical for industry.” is missing.
Answer: I added the subject in this sentence: "the researchers". Line 67 (underlined and colored green).
- Line 142, “six” should be “four”.
Answer: Due to another reviewer's suggestion, this paragraph has been removed in its entirety. Line 157 (underlined and colored green).
- Table 1, what is the meaning of “z”?
Answer: I added the missing explanation in the nomenclature in the table at the beginning of the second page (underlined and colored green).
- Line 216, “i” should be “and”.
Answer: I corrected it. Line 225 (underlined and colored green).
There are also additional changes in the text resulting from the suggestions and comments of other reviewers.
Yours faithfully,
Author of the work with co-authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The paragraph is of little significance and is suggested to be deleted.
This work consists of six sections. Previous Section 1. Introduction. This is followed by Section 2. Materials and Methods, which presents: the tested gears, the conventional techniques and measuring instruments used, the comparative model used and the statistical models used to develop the measurement results. Next, Section 3. Results and Discussion, in which the authors present the results of the estimated tolerance fields and develop a method for assessing the accuracy of the presented process. Finally, Section 4. Conclusions, which summarizes the whole and presents plans for further research.
2. Line 321: “graph (a)” should be “Figure 3(a)”.
3. What about Figure 3(b)?
4. What do Tables 4 and 5 illustrate, respectively? Rather than simply presenting them in the manuscript.
5. Figures 5 to 12 show blocks of double graphs created on the basis of measurement data and statistical calculations. It is recommended to do a simple analysis instead of sticking Figures in a manuscript.
6. where are the Table 7 to 12?
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am much obliged to you for all your comments and tips regarding my scientific work. Below are my responses to your suggestions. I really hope that I managed to correct all the shortcomings. Thank you again for a positive opinion.
1. The paragraph is of little significance and is suggested to be deleted: This work consists of six sections (…) for further research.
Answer: This paragraph has been removed in its entirety. Line 156 (underlined and colored green).
2. Line 321: “graph (a)” should be “Figure 3(a)”.
Answer: I corrected it. Line 324 (underlined and colored blue).
3. What about Figure 3(b)?
Answer: I added an additional description. Line 330-335 (underlined and colored blue).
4. What do Tables 4 and 5 illustrate, respectively? Rather than simply presenting them in the manuscript.
Answer: I wanted to show that this particular standard (DIN 3961-1953) contains certain mathematical relationships for calculating individual tooth errors for individual IT grades. I thought it would be more readable than putting it in the text.
All the more so because in this article one specific standard was selected, on which the nominal gear is compared with the gear reproduced within RE.
Additionally, these tables are also there to help you have a better understanding of where the values in Table No. 6 came from.
I hope this is sufficient explanation. If not, please allow me to correct it in the next round.
5. Figures 5 to 12 show blocks of double graphs created on the basis of measurement data and statistical calculations. It is recommended to do a simple analysis instead of sticking Figures in a manuscript.
Answer: I kindly ask you to allow me to leave these graphs as they are. A detailed analysis and description of these graphs can be found in subsection 4.3.
I hoped that these graphs would allow for a more effective appreciation of how varied the results could be achieved from the studies described in this paper, which point to a more complicated and complex issue.
Once again, I kindly ask you to leave these graphs in this form.
6. where are the Table 7 to 12?
Answer: I corrected the table numbering. In the original version of the article, there were many more tables, but some of them have been merged.
There are also additional changes in the paper resulting from the suggestions and comments of other reviewers.
Yours faithfully,
Author of the work with co-authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript does not include sufficient scientific contribution or innovation for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This manuscript has the content of a technical report. In addition, the title is not acceptable for a scientific paper. The abstract is weak. This abstract must include the introduction or scientific problem, methods and materials, main results, and conclusion. The introduction section is not suitable. This section must incorporate the research problem and critical discussions of the methods reported to solve this problem, considering the advantages and drawbacks. Also, this section must add the scientific contribution and advantages of the proposed work. The description of the materials and methods is deficient and poor. The description of this second section is not suitable for a scientific paper. The sub-section 3.1 is not acceptable for the section on results and discussions. The description of this sub-section is weak and poor. Figure 3 is not acceptable. The third section of results and discussions does not include critical discussions on the results to publish in a scientific paper. These results are suitable for a technical report. The structure and description of this manuscript's sections are very deficient and confusing. The conclusion must be significantly improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English grammar and style must be significantly improved.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am much obliged to you for all your comments and tips regarding my scientific work. Below are my responses to your suggestions. I really hope that I managed to correct all the shortcomings. Thank you again for an encouraging opinion.
This manuscript does not include sufficient scientific contribution or innovation for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This manuscript has the content of a technical report.
Answer: I was unable to find similar works in the available scientific database regarding the assessment of the accuracy of reverse engineering of gears (including, above all, non-standard ones) using conventional techniques.
There are, however, articles related to reverse engineering of gears using modern optical techniques (3D optical scanner using structured blue light).
There are also articles on estimators that approximate the original tolerance zones. However, they do not apply directly to gears, but to mechanical parts in general. In addition, measurements are always made in these articles using CMM.
Gears are self-made by many industrial plants as substitutes (custom spare parts) for original parts. However, it was not possible to find relevant articles in the available literature on how accurate this process is.
Therefore, please kindly allow me to continue on this scientific path. In the next article, I plan measurements using Wenzel WGT 600 and simulation of gear wear in the Abaqus environment using the finite element method. Only the results obtained from modern calculation and measurement methods will allow me to return to the original question: is it possible to reproduce non-standard gears using ordinary measuring instruments.
In addition, the title is not acceptable for a scientific paper.
Answer: The title has been shortened so as not to indicate the use of conventional measurement methods. I left the phrase "(…) – pilot studies" due to the fact that I would like to title the next article similarly, but with another additional phrase, e.g. "(…) – extended case" or "(…) – further-reaching studies".
Individual articles are to constitute subsequent chapters of my doctoral thesis. That's why I try to approach it step by step.
I kindly ask you to accept this form of title. If not, please kindly allow me to fix it in the next round.
The abstract is weak. This abstract must include the introduction or scientific problem, methods and materials, main results, and conclusion.
Answer: The abstract has been expanded with an additional introduction and ending. Line 12-18 and 29-34 (underlined and colored red).
The introduction section is not suitable. This section must incorporate the research problem and critical discussions of the methods reported to solve this problem, considering the advantages and drawbacks. Also, this section must add the scientific contribution and advantages of the proposed work.
Answer: I added an additional description. Line 154-157 (underlined and colored red).
The description of the materials and methods is deficient and poor. The description of this second section is not suitable for a scientific paper. The sub-section 3.1 is not acceptable for the section on results and discussions. The description of this sub-section is weak and poor. Figure 3 is not acceptable.
Answer:
I placed subsection 3.1 as a separate section "3. Additional observation". The description of the “module as a random variable in the population” is indeed not a direct result of the research, but something that was obtained indirectly in the meantime. Two Figures have been added to this section: Figure 4(a) and 4(b) (page 11.).
I enlarged image 3 because it was previously too small and therefore unreadable.
The third section of results and discussions does not include critical discussions on the results to publish in a scientific paper. These results are suitable for a technical report. The structure and description of this manuscript's sections are very deficient and confusing. The conclusion must be significantly improved.
Answer: The last sections have been expanded. I added: Figures 14 and Figure 15 (page 20), line 489-511 and 561-566 (underlined and colored red).
The English grammar and style must be significantly improved.
Answer: English has been improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has improved overall; the authors considered the reviewers' suggestions.
