Design and Experiment of the Clamping Mechanism for a Horizontal Shaft Counter-Rolling Cotton Stalk Pulling Machine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study addresses the high stalk breakage and mismatch between extraction force and operational speed in horizontal shaft counter-rolling cotton stalk pullers by designing an adjustable clamping mechanism with variable roller speed, gap, and surface texture. Experimental determination of the post-compression tensile strength threshold (994.60 N) informed the optimization of key components. Response surface analysis revealed significant effects of groove type, speed, and gap on peak extraction force and time to peak. The optimal combination—double-grooved rollers, 220 rpm, and zero gap—achieved a peak force of 710.77 N in 0.05 s, enabling rapid extraction without stalk breakage. The manuscript is recommended for acceptance after minor revisions.

 

1 The abstract mentions the research methodology, results, and conclusions but does not explicitly highlight the novelty and practical applications of the study. It is recommended to add one or two sentences at the end of the abstract emphasizing the key improvements of the proposed design over existing mechanisms and its practical implications for field operations. This will enhance the abstract's clarity and impact.

 

2 The methodology section should be supplemented with sample size and statistical information: The paper does not clearly specify the number of cotton stalk samples, selection criteria, or statistical processing methods. It is recommended to include details such as sample size (e.g., n=30), sampling method, and normality tests to enhance the reproducibility and persuasiveness of the experiments.

 

3 The conclusion section should be more structured: The current conclusions are relatively general. It is recommended to list the main findings in a point-by-point manner and clarify the practical implications of each point for the actual design. Additionally, the limitations of the study (such as not considering the effects of field soil variability) and future research directions should be indicated.

 

4 The reference formatting requires standardization: Inconsistencies are present in parts of the references (e.g., journal title abbreviations, author name formats, etc.). It is recommended to strictly adhere to the journal's required citation style and make unified adjustments accordingly.

 

5 Figures 1 and 2, along with other schematic diagrams, are somewhat simplified. It is recommended to use clearer engineering drawings or actual photographs, with key component names labeled directly on the figures. Response surface plots (Figures 10 and 11) should include more detailed axis labels and comprehensive legend descriptions.

 

6 The optimization and validation experiments require further refinement: The parameter optimization process should include a justification for the constraint settings (e.g., the rationale behind the speed range of 120–220 rpm and its alignment with field operating conditions). The validation experiments should incorporate measurements of practical operational indicators such as stalk breakage rate and missed pulling rate, rather than focusing solely on force and time parameters. Additionally, comparative experimental data between the optimized parameters and traditional parameters should be included to highlight the improvements achieved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Resullt and discussion have other section.
2. Why author has chosen the Box–Behnken design specifically  for this study instead of other response surface designs (e.g., central composite design), and how does this choice affect model robustness?
3. Non-significant terms were removed from the regression equations. Could this reduction risk omitting potentially meaningful higher-order effects, especially given the nonlinear interactions observed?
4. The validation experiment showed close agreement (errors <5%). However, were these tests conducted under field-representative conditions, or only under controlled lab settings? How might soil, root entanglement, or moisture influence results?
5. The study demonstrates good results on the test stand. How feasible is the proposed optimized design when scaled to full-size commercial cotton stalk extraction machinery, considering power requirements, durability, and cost?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript may be accepted for publication.