Efficiency Analysis of Herringbone Star Gear Train Transmission with Different Load-Sharing Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The volume of the article is insufficient.
2. The scope of literary analysis is too narrow.
3. The impact of the studied characteristics on efficiency is insignificant (within 0.05%). You may to add more influencers to expand the scope for changing the efficiency of the transmission.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the article, based on the efficiency calculation model, the mechanical relationship affecting the load distribution of split star gear train is studied, and the influence of installation error on the power split of gear train is further studied.

Article at a high level. Methodology used - correct. Based on the mathematical model, a computer program for the dynamic analysis of the transmission was compiled.

The test results can be put into practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript is devoted to improving the efficiency of the star gear train transmission. In general, the subject of the manuscript is interesting. The introduction emphasizes that an increase in transmission efficiency leads to a reduction in fuel consumption. Efficient energy consumption is an important global trend. Despite this, the manuscript contains some shortcomings that must be eliminated.
1. Gear transmission is one of the most common mechanisms in mechanical engineering. At the same time, the list of sources contains only 14 positions. I encourage the authors to cover the subject area of the study in more detail and use previously published articles.
2. The purpose of the study is not compiled. Also, the novelty of the research is not indicated in the introduction. These are the necessary items for a scientific article.
3. The research methodology is not described. The manuscript contains several chapters, but the methodology of the study is absent.
4. What is new in the results obtained? What new knowledge does this article bring? The answers to these questions should be given in the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank You for paying attention to my comments.

Author Response

Once again, thank you very much for your points and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors took into account most of my comments. Nevertheless, I recommend the authors to separate the research methodology into a separate section. The manuscript can be accepted for printing after minor revision.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf