Development of Boom Posture Adjustment and Control System for Wide Spray Boom
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript is of scientific and practical interest. This study provides a rationale for the operation of a system for controlling the boom of a sprayer, in order to improve the efficiency of its operation.
The paper is presented in a clear manner with sufficient data for understanding the problem to be solved and possible reproduction of the results of the study. A sufficient review and information on the relevance of the problem under study is provided. However, there is no comparative analysis on work and designs, on existing foreign analogs of sprayers, such manufacturers as Amazone, Lemken, Rostselmash and many others. Without this analysis it is impossible to quantify the originality of the solution proposed by the authors.
On line 37 the information is given that sprayers with working width of 24 m grow like mushrooms on the fields, but there is no information about the number of these sprayers and their growth rate, indicators of the quality of their work, the volume of work performed per year. Further on page 2 there is a description of the problem of sprayer operation, but there is also no numerical information on the parameters of sprayer operation in difficult conditions, as well as the quality of the spraying process. There is also no numerical information on critical values of factors affecting the quality of spraying, for example, at what angle of inclination of the field are violated agro-requirements for the technological process of spraying and non-uniformity becomes unacceptable?
The figures given in the article are of good enough quality to understand the information shown on them.
At the same time, the methodology of the conducted researches is well enough described in the article, and by giving specific figures and equations, which allows to reproduce this experiment, which is a significant plus of this publication.
The conclusions obtained as a result of the work reflect the results of the conducted research.
This work has a theoretical and practical character and can be used by other scientists and subsequently improved, as well as taken as a basis for the development of new machines for spraying plants.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General
Boom suspension dynamic control has been widely studied in the 90’s and 2000’s with both modelling and the use of test benches or bumping tracks. As a result, many commercial boom sprayers are equipped with high performance boom suspensions, so the novelty of this research is questionable.
This paper rather corresponds to a (fairly good) engineering report than research. Indeed, the scientific question(s), the hypotheses, the methodology and the demonstration do not appear very clearly in the present manuscript. It appears mainly theoretical with many of the information informative (but not innovative). A large part of the description of the system could be probably condensed (or proposed as supplementary material).
Finally, an interesting part of the paper corresponds to the field tests, but the description of the protocol and the analysis of the results are too limited. There is a need to know, at least, the terrain level issues in order to better understand if the reactions of the system are adequate.
Detailed
Page 3 line 136-142: The text rather looks like (already existing) technical objectives. Scientific issues, if existing, shall be highlighted.
Page 6-7-8 : what is the real added value of this dense technical part. This is not an engineering report but a scientific paper where questions, hypotheses and demonstration are expected.
Page 9 lines 358-386 : This part shall be developed : what are the terrain properties (slopes, bumps, etc…)
Page 10 line 372: Then, the posture of the boom …. Travels about 4.8 km/h”. The reason why the settings are automatically adjusted for this travel speed is not obvious.
Page 11 –page 16 : This modelling is mostly an engineering concern but the scientific issues are not easy to foresee. Could be included as supplementary material.
Page 17-page 25 : 8 pages are “results” are not really critically analysed. It is assumed that these results were expected from the technical modelling. Where are the scientific breakthrough?
Page 25-26 § 4.2.3 This could have been an essential part of this paper but the “results” only consist of a literal description of the response towards an obstacle. This field test would have been an occasion to test the different functionalities at different travel speeds and combinations with adapted terrain/crop issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
(1)The introduction should summarize the latest scientific research results.
(2)The first letter of the introduction should be capitalized.
(3) In Figure 16, time should start with a capital letter， other diagrams refer to check.
(4)Some formulas can be simplified and omitted. The format of letters in the formula should correspond to the text.
Please refer to the annotations on the document in the attachment for specific modification suggestions
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper, a high-performance arm active control system for arm trapezoidal suspension is developed to keep the spray arm parallel to the crop canopy or ground, and keep a certain distance from the nozzle to the crop canopy or ground. This results in a more consistent droplet distribution and reduced spray drift. Below are my major and minor comments for the improvement of the manuscript.
1. The introduction section is too wordy. However, further clarification is needed in the section on the research status, especially the difference between the research work in this manuscript and research state. What research gap did you find from previous researchers in your field? What are the new findings of the present manuscript? The actuality and novelty of the present article must be clarified.
2. The initial abbreviations need explanations. Example: L22 and 52. Please do throughout the manuscript.
3. L66（Active trapezium suspension is one of the widely adopted suspensions.）This sentence doesn't seem relevant to the context.
4. Whether the height of the wide spray arm off the ground, the amount of spray liquid and the air volume of the day will affect the attitude adjustment of the wide spray arm.
5. The article lacks a discussion section. Discussion section is required. If possible, it is recommended to add this section. It can be the comparative analysis of the test results, the discussion of the influence mechanism, and the influence of different speeds or different fluids on the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors considered reviewer's comment and proposed ad hoc corrections. The paper is now acceptable for publication
