Design and Parameter Optimization of a Vertical Rotary Fixed-Angle Straw Cleaning Device

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Here are suggestions for corrections and improvements.

INTRODUCTION – suggestion for correction

Row 92

No-village seeding?? Did you mean no-tillage seeding?? Please correct.

Materials and methods – suggestion for correction

Rows 430-435

On the machine you conducted the test, you mention the movement motor, the rotary motor, but you do not indicate the type of the motor (electric, pneumatic, hydraulic, it's power, power train - batteries or mains, what is the working voltage). There is no any information about the dimensions of the machine or it's mass, the dimensions of the tires, etc. It would be important for the possibility of repeating the experiment. Please insert this information as well.

Conclusion relation to Introduction – suggestion for correction

Rows 464-467

In summary, the proposed VFD addresses the shortcomings of conventional vertical rotary straw cleaning mechanisms, particularly their limited capacity for effective straw removal, -  You have successfully proven this with your research and I agree with everything, but the continuation of your conclusion “thereby offering an engineering solution with potential for broad application in conservation tillage machinery.“ – is completely in contradiction with conservation tillage systems whose task is to keep as much post-harvest residue on the soil surface and thus preserve surface moisture by preventing evaporation and protecting the soil from the natural erosive effects of wind and water. Please check this thesis with other research and literature (check the works of some European authors on conservation tillage) and reformulate this conclusion.

Your conclusion is oposit of statements in the introduction (first 1-5 references - rows 34-45) the quoted authors explain conservation tillage and the importance of post-harvest residue which is completely correct.

Rows 27-29

You suggest a similar conclusion in the abstract, please reformulate it there as well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To address the challenges encountered in mechanized agricultural fields, particularly the significant soil disruption associated with conventional horizontal rotary straw cleaning equipment and the inadequate straw cleaning efficiency observed in current vertical rotary apparatus, this study introduces a vertical rotary fixed angle straw cleaning device. The study has innovation in the extend, but there are some mistakes. Here is my comments.

  

1. Page 4, Equation (1) and its explanation:  The derivation leading to the equation appears somewhat abrupt, lacking a clear explanation of the velocity synthesis principle at gear meshing points.
2. Page 5, Figure 3 and force analysis:  The description of the "residual cycloid trajectory" and the mechanism of straw force interaction is not sufficiently intuitive.
3. Page 7, Table 1 Parameter settings:  Parameter sources are appropriately referenced, but no mention is made of whether localized calibration was performed for the specific soil conditions used in this study.
4. Page 9, Experimental Design:  The DA range is set from 0° to 60°, but no justification is provided for not investigating negative angles or angles greater than 60°.
5. Page 11, Discussion on the non-linear influence of DA: The discussion remains somewhat general. Recommend linking the explanation more concretely to Figure 5 (motion trajectories), specifically describing how DA affects the cutting path density and the frequency of soil shear per unit area.
6. Page 12, Analysis of the v-n interaction term:  The explanation of the "saturation effect" is reasonable but lacks connection to device power consumption or energy efficiency.
7. Page 15, Conclusion section: Lacks quantitative comparison with existing vertical rotary devices to clearly highlight the advancement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English should be polished by native speakers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic addressed in the paper submitted for review is interesting, necessary and timely for the development of systems regarding conservative agriculture. Having carefully analyzed the text of the paper, I found that in order to meet the publication conditions, it is necessary to resolve the following observations:
- in the introduction, the substantiation and argumentation of the appropriateness of the scientific approach does not take into account the current state of the machines and installations used worldwide for sowing in the no-till system;
- some of the bibliographical references are not related to the research topic addressed within this scientific approach. I recommend that the authors extend the analysis to verified and implemented scientific aspects for sowing in the no-till system. The critical analysis of the specialized literature must clearly and precisely result in the purpose and objectives of the scientific approach.
- the article as a whole has a deeply theoretical character, therefore, in order to verify the predictability of the conceived system, research is also necessary in experimental field conditions.
- the title of the work does not reflect the content of the work, there are no substantiated aspects of optimizing the technological parameters of the working organs.
- the designed working organ has no applicability to no-till sowing systems. No-till sowing machines manufactured worldwide use much simpler and more efficient working organs for cleaning plant residues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been modified according to the comments. I agree it can be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English has been polished by  native speakers. It quality is good.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for being receptive to the suggestions made and scientifically resolving all the observations made during the first revision. The following improvements have been made:
- The introduction has been substantially revised, making a critical analysis of the current state of no-till sowing equipment worldwide;
- the material and research method have been substantially improved, by introducing pertinent and necessary explanations, and the graphics regarding the models used have been corrected;
- in the results and discussions section, all the observations made in the first revision report have been scientifically resolved;
- the title of the paper has been modified and is in line with the theme of the scientific approach;
- the conclusions have been updated and are in line with the changes made in the content of the article;
- the bibliographic references chapter has been completely restructured and completed with works related to the research theme of the scientific approach.
Under these conditions, I appreciate that the analyzed work meets all the conditions for publication.
Finally, I thank the authors once again for their receptivity and scientific ability to resolve all the observations made in the first report.
I strongly recommend that the editor accept the publication of this work, which is well-written and has a high scientific content for the development of the topic addressed.
Congratulations to the authors for the demonstrated professionalism and scientific ability to perfect the work submitted for publication.