Characterization of the Interaction of Metalworking Fluids with Grinding Wheels
, Dirk Stöbener 2,3, Andreas Fischer 2,3 and Daniel Meyer 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a very interesting paper, but it is difficult to catch the real differences with some previous published papers referenced at all in the present paper: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-588246/v1, https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411615.
Illustrations are quite the same, procedures too, measurements and processing too. The only thing that differs is the nozzle length and the two ratios CR and AR. The temperature measurement seems quite new for wet grinding, but the procedure is described in few lines, the heating plate technology used is not enough explained, and results are given in one figure.
The originality of this very interesting research is unfortunately already published.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the profound, helpful, and constructive comments on the submitted paper. The remarks were taken up by the authors in order to further improve the quality of the article and to eliminate ambiguities. We hope that we have addressed the reviewers' comments adequately with the changes listed in the detailed rebuttal.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented in the article interesting analyzes that enable the characterization of the metalworking fluid stream supplied to the grinding wheel – workpiece contact area.
A significant problem, related to the cooling of the grinding zone is the very high temperature in the grinding wheel - workpiece contact zone, reaching values approximately equal to the workpiece melting temperature. As a result, commonly known cutting (metalworking) fluids begin to boil with high pressure. An additional problem in the supply of liquid to the contact zone are relatively small spaces in the grinding wheel (pores) by which it is possible to deliver it. The study did not take into account the impact of the above-described difficulties - in terms of the limited space between the grinding wheel and the workpiece (role of pores) and high temperature in the zone (high temperature, pressure).
There is no analysis of the impact of the characterized stream on the effects - cooling of the machining zone (on a micro and macro scale).
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the profound, helpful, and constructive comments on the submitted paper. The remarks were taken up by the authors in order to further improve the quality of the article and to eliminate ambiguities. We hope that we have addressed the reviewers' comments adequately with the changes listed in the detailed rebuttal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article investigates the interaction of cutting fluids with a grinding wheel. While the design of the study is quite interesting and the results deserve attention, the design of the article and the presentation of the results require significant revision. I recommend using the traditional article structure. Other remarks:
The first phrase of the abstract communicates well-known things and is redundant.
In general, the Abstract is poorly written and I recommend that it be substantially reworked. The abstract should give in a brief and focused form the main goals and objectives of the study, as well as key results (preferably including - in numerical form).
It is not clear for whom the first phrase of the introduction is intended - this is absolutely obvious information known to any specialist.
In general, the Introduction is more like a chapter from a textbook. The main task of the Introduction is to present the current state of the issue and to argue the goals and objectives of the study.
I recommend combining the "Approach and procedure" section with the "Experimental setup" and "Methods of analysis" sections. In total, 5 pages of descriptions of methods and equipment is too much in my opinion. There is no point in describing standard techniques and standard equipment in detail. it is enough to provide relevant references.
Section numbers of the third order are usually not used (eg 5.1.1) - it is enough to give a subheading without a number.
Fig 16 - axis titles are too big.
Don't use X instead of ×
Same Fig 17.
The Conclusions section should present the main conclusions in a focused way (e.g. 1. 2. 3.)
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the profound, helpful, and constructive comments on the submitted paper. The remarks were taken up by the authors in order to further improve the quality of the article and to eliminate ambiguities. We hope that we have addressed the reviewers' comments adequately with the changes listed in the detailed rebuttal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this paper, the free jet and the interaction area between the MWF and the grinding wheel are investigated experimentally using high-speed images and adapted image evaluation methods. The focus of the experiments is the investigation of the free jet geometry as well as the velocity distribution in the free jet and the interaction area as a function of the nozzle geometry, the flow rate and the grinding wheel velocity. Furthermore, a flow measurement technique based on shadowgraphy is introduced and shown to correlate with the cooling effect.
Content and quality
The content of the work is very well organised and follows a clear structure. The introduction leads to the problem and embeds it well in the current scientific context. The work is carried out in a comprehensible manner and the methodology is described very well. The results are well presented and can be followed logically.
Figures and language
The language is well written and understandable.
The figures are well prepared. All graphs have axis labels and scales so that the key messages can be extracted.
However, four main points can be noted:
- In general, the quality of the illustrations could be improved, especially Figure 14 is blurred.
- In section 4.2, the text refers to figure 5, while figure 6 is actually meant. It is therefore recommended that all attributions to figures mentioned in the text be checked and corrected.
- Furthermore, with the exception of Figures 2, 12 and 15, all figures end at the same level as the text block. It is recommended that these figures be restructured or reduced in size so that they also end on the same level as the text.
- It is also recommended that Table 1 not be spread over two pages.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the profound, helpful, and constructive comments on the submitted paper. The remarks were taken up by the authors in order to further improve the quality of the article and to eliminate ambiguities. We hope that we have addressed the reviewers' comments adequately with the changes listed in the detailed rebuttal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Revisions are accepted
Reviewer 3 Report
Since the authors took into account the comments of the reviewer. having made appropriate changes to the manuscript, I can recommend the manuscript for publication.
