Comments for the Authors

The presented manuscript details experimental results of a new design of a wood fiber grinder used in the production of fiberboards that lowers the total power consumption. The new design shows a lower power consumption for the grinding of wood fibers to the same degree and even an increase in the quality of the wood fibers.

Before I can recommend publication, the following comments need to be addressed by the authors.

Major Comments

1. There is no abstract. Please add.
2. In addition, there are no section headings. Including these would greatly benefit the flow of the manuscript
3. There is no description or figure of the new design. I do not know how the new design differs from the traditional tools. This is essential to add. I know you are referring to a patent but it is should also be included in the manuscript. In addition, what settings were used? How did you arrive at this new design? Is the new design easier or more difficult to construct/set up?
4. Moreover, I do not know which ‘traditional’ tool the new design is compared to. Be more specific and give the make and model number.
5. You mention power consumption can be improved by adjusting the main parameters. But what parameters did you adjust specifically? And by how much? And why would this improve power consumption? All this information is missing in the manuscript.
6. The manuscript should state how the power consumption was measured for both the new design and the traditional design and show that the method is equal.
7. How many production cycles were compared? It is not stated in the manuscript. The results must be from a comparison of at least three cycles with the traditional tools and three cycles with the new design. Preferably 10 cycles or more. If not, then additional comparison experiments must be run. The fit could then be done on the mean Power consumption values with the standard deviation as weights.

Minor comments

1. The values on the last line of on page 1 would be clearer if it were presented in a table.
2. Emphasize that the subscript d in the values on the last line of on page 1 refers to the after defibrator step as now this is unclear.
3. The listing of the values in line 10-15 on page 2 is unnecessary as it is already shown in the table and makes the paragraph hard to read. Just refer to the table.
4. Give the fitted power consumption curves from figure 1 so the efficiency improvement can be calculated for all grinding degrees without referring to the figure.
5. Improve the resolution of Figure 1.

The manuscript is rejected with the following comments. The presented manuscript details experimental results of a new design of a wood fiber grinder used in the production of fiberboards that lowers the total power consumption. The new design shows a lower power consumption for the grinding of wood fibers to the same degree and even an increase in the quality of the wood fibers.

Major Comments

1. There is no abstract.
2. In addition, there are no section headings. Including these would greatly benefit the flow of the manuscript
3. There is no description or figure of the new design. I do not know how the new design differs from the traditional tools. This is essential to add. I know you are referring to a patent but it is should also be included in the manuscript. In addition, what settings were used? How did you arrive at this new design? Is the new design easier or more difficult to construct/set up?
4. Moreover, I do not know which ‘traditional’ tool the new design is compared to. Be more specific and give the make and model number.
5. You mention power consumption can be improved by adjusting the main parameters. But what parameters did you adjust specifically? And by how much? And why would this improve power consumption? All this information is missing in the manuscript.
6. The manuscript should state how the power consumption was measured for both the new design and the traditional design and show that the method is equal.
7. How many production cycles were compared? It is not stated in the manuscript. The results must be from a comparison of at least three cycles with the traditional tools and three cycles with the new design. Preferably 10 cycles or more. If not, then additional comparison experiments must be run. The fit could then be done on the mean Power consumption values with the standard deviation as weights.

Minor comments

1. The values on the last line of on page 1 would be clearer if it were presented in a table.
2. Emphasize that the subscript d in the values on the last line of on page 1 refers to the after defibrator step as now this is unclear.
3. The listing of the values in line 10-15 on page 2 is unnecessary as it is already shown in the table and makes the paragraph hard to read. Just refer to the table.
4. Give the fitted power consumption curves from figure 1 so the efficiency improvement can be calculated for all grinding degrees without referring to the figure.
5. Bad resolution of Figure 1.