1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
|
Return-Path: <onbehalfof+gregc+jhu.edu@manuscriptcentral.com>
Received: from murder (imaphost.bath.ac.uk [138.38.3.83])
by bartali.bath.ac.uk (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:40:12 +0000
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Received: from imaphost.bath.ac.uk ([unix socket])
by imaphost.bath.ac.uk (Cyrus v2.2.13) with LMTPA;
Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:40:13 +0000
Delivery-date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:40:13 +0000
Received: from piquet.bath.ac.uk ([138.38.0.36])
by imaphost.bath.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <onbehalfof+gregc+jhu.edu@manuscriptcentral.com>)
id 1NeUmb-0005WE-Ck
for ensab@imaps.bath.ac.uk; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:40:13 +0000
Received: from uranus.scholarone.com ([170.107.181.135])
by piquet.bath.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4)
(envelope-from <onbehalfof+gregc+jhu.edu@manuscriptcentral.com>)
id 1NeUmS-0000Kf-8E
for A.Bowyer@bath.ac.uk; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:40:13 +0000
Received: from tss1be0008 (tss1be0008 [10.237.148.35])
by uranus.scholarone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9D8B288F2
for <A.Bowyer@bath.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:39:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:39:49 -0500 (EST)
From: gregc@jhu.edu
Sender: onbehalfof+gregc+jhu.edu@manuscriptcentral.com
To: A.Bowyer@bath.ac.uk
Message-ID: <1439705179.515221265639989039.JavaMail.wladmin@tss1be0008>
Subject: Robotica - Decision on Manuscript ID ROB-REG-09-0184
Errors-To: gregc@jhu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Errors-To: gregc@jhu.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: 0.0/6.0
---- Start SpamAssassin results
---- End SpamAssassin results
X-Scanner: 2b52620a1ff21207d4baea3c3e7facd477e5fa38
08-Feb-2010
Dear Dr. Bowyer:
Manuscript ID ROB-REG-09-0184 entitled "RepRap - The Replicating Rapid Prot=
otyper" which you submitted to Robotica, has been reviewed. The comments o=
f the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.
The guest editors recommend that the authors revise this submission in acco=
rdance with reviewer directions. Depending on the time required to complete=
this revision, as well as the outcome of the subsequent review process, th=
e revised work may be included in the special issue on Robotic Self-X Syste=
ms.=20
To revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/robotic=
a and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title =
listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Crea=
te a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revis=
ion.
You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted versi=
on of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word process=
ing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the change=
s to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in=
MS Word or by using bold or colored text.
Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it th=
rough your Author Center.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the=
comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this =
space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In orde=
r to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specif=
ic as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).
IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your r=
evised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the=
submission.
Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submi=
tted to Robotica, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as pos=
sible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonab=
le amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Robotica and I look=
forward to receiving your revision.
Sincerely,
Prof. Greg Chirikjian
Editor in Chief, Robotica
gregc@jhu.edu
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
This is a very excellent review of the kinematic replication field and summ=
ary of the history and accomplishments of the RepRap project. There=E2=80=
=99s the same exciting feel as in the earliest days in the PC industry back=
in the late 1970s, when Radio Shack and others started selling the first a=
ssemble-it-yourself home computers. I enthusiastically recommend this pape=
r for publication in Robotica.
I didn=E2=80=99t see a statement of the estimated lifetime of a typical mac=
hine, e.g., how many hours you can get out of key parts, such as a head, be=
fore it must be replaced; nor did I see a statement of the smallest attain=
able feature size on product objects that can be fabricated (this is differ=
ent from the raw positioning accuracy, which is stated to be 0.1 mm). Addi=
ng these two bits of information to the text would improve the paper, but a=
re not critical.
I could find only one minor factual error: on the last line of page 6, =E2=
=80=9CReproducing Concepts Team=E2=80=9D should be corrected to =E2=80=9CRe=
plicating Systems Concepts Team=E2=80=9D, which was the actual name of the =
group in this study.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
I found this to be a very interesting, well written narrative of the rep-ra=
p project. However, therin lies my greatest objection - that this reads lik=
e a narrative or a progress report more than a scientific paper. I think mu=
ch of the content is relevant, but it would benefit readers to reorganize t=
he paper from section 3 onwards to stress what the "result" is. Describe th=
e working, replicating printer clearly, in all its details, and fill in his=
tory, variations, and some future directions in separate sections to the ex=
tent it enlightens the reader.
=20
Specific comments:=20
-Since you do not give an exact definition of "raw" materials, it would be =
useful background to present the physical systems that have been demonstrat=
ed reproducing, albeit with varying levels of "raw" materials. IE Zykov et =
al at Cornell in addition to Chirikjian (JHU) whom your reference elsewhere=
.=20
-Although an interesting philosophical read, much of section 2 ("the genesi=
s of RepRap") seemed tangential to the results presented here. I would stro=
ngly suggest (but not require) that this section be distilled to its core i=
deas.
-A functional diagram would be helpful along with Fig 4.
-Awkward to references authors within the paper, ie "... one of us (VO) cam=
e up with a..."
-Replace hand-drawn sketch with a clear, computer-generated diagram. (Fig 5=
)=20
- Fig 7: functional diagram would be helpful in addition to one exterior vi=
ew. Actual picture would be worlds better than a Solidworks screenshot.
-"Unlike commercial machines, RepRap also allows interiors to be built full=
y dense." Incorrect. All major vendors I am familiar with (Stratasys, ZCorp=
, Objet, all laser sintering systems, etc) have this option, if not require=
ment. You may be speaking of the fact that stratasys leaves micro-voids eve=
n when set to print dense, but after the previous sentence comparing "dense=
" to "honeycomb" this is very confusing/misleading.
-In mentioning the FaH project, your comment "(this project, incidentally,=
was inspired by RepRap)" should be referenced if you wish to assert this. =
(quick survey of the FaH site you include as your reference doesn't verify =
this...)
-One could easily argue that the build precision of your child machines com=
es from the positioning system, not the parts produced by the parent machin=
e. Please address in your discussion - IE where you call it "self replicati=
ng" by your definition.
In summary, I believe this is valuable information that should be definitel=
y published, but a reader should have a stronger sense of "arrival" at a re=
sult than I get from reading this paper. Some relatively deep re-organizing=
is in order, but will (I believe) result in a much stronger paper.
Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
This paper is very interesting and useful to the engineering practitioner i=
nterested in producing a self-reproducing machine that is also capable of f=
abricating other useful engineering artifacts. The establishment of a clear=
lexicon around self-reproduction is particularly useful for categorizing e=
xisting attempts at self-reproducing kinematic machines. Additionally, the =
biomimetic approach provides an excellent justification for the design of t=
he RepRap as a kinematic assisted self-replication self-manufacturing machi=
ne.=20
To strengthen the paper it would be helpful to more clearly place the RepRa=
p in the broader ecosystem of personal fabrication robots (both self-replic=
ating and otherwise). For example, the MakerBot and Fab@Home projects are m=
entioned as RepStraps, but it would be nice to have an overview of how thei=
r capabilities compare to or complement the RepRap's.=20
Secondly, while the hardware design evolution is covered in-depth, the soft=
ware is ignored entirely. An overview of the control software, particularly=
slicing and filling algorithms would be illuminating. For example, the pap=
er mentions that the internal density of the part can be adjusted over a wi=
de range. One challenge for any solid free form machine is the production o=
f thin-walled parts. Though arbitrary part fabrication is clearly not the p=
rimary goal of RepRap, it would be useful to describe its limitations in th=
at regard. Also of interest are open source design tools. Are any design to=
ols included as part of the RepRap kit, or does the system simply except an=
d standard part representations like STL, depending on the user to provide =
the tools for designing parts?
|
