Study on the Compact Balance Control Mechanism for Guinea Fowl Jumping Robot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript reported a jumping robot with the aid of a balance control mechanism. The topic is interesting but still needs further improvement.

1, The logic of Figure 1 is not clear, please make it more clear to describe the mechanism of the system.

2, What is the model of Figure 2a? Any math description of those models?

3, Figure 3 and Figure 4 seem similar, please make them into a figure.

4, Any real measurement instead of simulation for Figure 17?

Author Response

Reviewer #1: The manuscript reported a jumping robot with the aid of a balance control mechanism. The topic is interesting but still needs further improvement.

1. The logic of Figure 1 is not clear, please make it more clear to describe the mechanism of the system.
   
   

Thank you for pointing it out. We modified Figure 1 to make it easier for readers to understand the mechanism by adding the explanation of the proposed mechanism and the movement direction of the 1-DOF linkage structure (see line 113-114 on page 3).

2. What is the model of Figure 2a? Any math description of those?
   
   

Thank you for your kind comment. Figure 2a deals with a non-passive hallux model in which the angle between digit and hallux is fixed. This model shows how the changing angle of the non-passive hallux () from the ground changes when the motor operates from 0 ms to 240 ms in the simulation. In the previous manuscript, we focused on the stability of the passive hallux model through Figure 2. However, In Figure 2a, the simulation model and were incorrectly marked, so we modified this figure and the manuscript. Besides, we added the closed-loop equation of the non-passive hallux linkage model(see line 125-137 on page 4) for the trajectory of the joint of the hallux, and we supplemented the vector equation that the joint of hallux rotate when the model change from POT to PRT stage(see line 136-157 on page 4,5). In addition, we added Figure 2a to describe the closed-loop model of linkage structure(see Figure 2a on page 5). Moreover, in Figure 2c, we modified the unit of the time sec to ms (see Figure 2c on page 5), and we fixed and supplemented the explanations for the model and simulation results in Figure 2b (see line 155-156 on page 5).

3. Figure 3 and Figure 4 seem similar, please make them into a figure.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. As you said, we merged Figure 3 and Figure 4(see line 186 on page 6). In addition, the explanation of Figure 3 in the previous manuscript has been added to Figure 3(see line 187-188 on page 6).

4. Any real measurement instead of simulation for Figure 17?

Thank you for your comment. In the case of the jumping robot mentioned in this paper, it has a 1-axis control mechanism, and in order to accurately compare it with the collision simulation, a three-axis control mechanism must be implemented. In collision simulation, a robot equipped with an inertial tail or momentum wheel can jump consistently, so the performance of the two mechanisms can be compared. However, when comparing the performance of the inertial tail and momentum wheel in a real environment using the one-axis control system, it is hard to accurately compare the two mechanisms when the robot jumps or collides with an obstacle by using the 1-axis control system. This is because if there is no 3-axis control system for the jumping robot, the balance of the jumping robot keeps changing every time it jumps. We mentioned the limitations that occur when applying the simulation of Figure 17 to the experiment, and we added that this experiment is possible if the 3-axis control system is implemented in future work (see line 514-521 on page 17).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting topic. Please strengthen the novelty and contribution of this research in the abstract and conclusion of the manuscript.

Conclusions join future work.

Articles need to be checked for English spelling.

Please specify the important factors for the robot to jump and then not fall.

Author Response

Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting topic.

1. Please strengthen the novelty and contribution of this research in the abstract and conclusion of the manuscript.

Thank you for your comment. We have revised the abstract (see line 8-12 on page 1) and conclusion (see line 513-528 on page 17) to emphasize the novelty and contribution point of the manuscript.

2. Conclusions join future work

Thank you for your comment. We have added future work to improve this study to the conclusion section (see line 536-531 on page 17).

3. Articles need to be checked for English spelling.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Overall, we modified the English spelling and grammar of the manuscript. Also, we fixed the parts where the formula numbers did not match in the manuscript.

4. Please specify the important factors for the robot to jump and then not fall.

Thank you for your comment. As you commented, we emphasized an important factor in the introduction (see line 47-51 on page 2) and Section 2.3 (see line 219-222 on page 6 and line 261-263 on page7), and Section 3.2 (see line 454-462 on page 14,15) so that the jumping robot does not fall after jumping.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author responds to all my issues. I recommend publishing in the current form.