search

mostafa-razavi / ITIC-paper

0 stars 0 forks source link

Reviewer 2 comment 4.4: ITIC vs. GEMC+GDI #32

Open mostafa-razavi opened 5 years ago

mostafa-razavi commented 5 years ago

4.4 misleading statement “for reduced temperatures of 0.45 and 0.55 … GEMC is not feasible for n-dodecane” . The revised version includes a statement that GEMC + GDI is also able to provide low temperature VLE data. However this referee maintains that it would be fair to compare ITIC, which is basically an integration method, with other state-of the art integration methods. Among the references cited by the authors, there are at least five articles applying integration methods to VLE properties or to forcefield parametrization at low reduced temperatures (references 8, 10, 52, 60, 62). Answer is acceptable, but can be improved.

Rich's comment:

Although the reviewer is letting this pass, are we satisfied? Do we need to do a better job representing the literature integration methods and how they have been applied?

Mostafa' comment"

I’ve been thinking about digging into Gibbs-Duhem literature to compare ITIC at low T range with Gibbs-Duhem results. But I think that requires running simulations as it is not likely to find GD results for systems that we already simulated. Let’s discuss this further!

Rich's comment

I think the reviewer still wants us to compare both the temperature range and the computational cost of ITIC with GEMC+GDI. I don’t know if we want to open up that can of worms. I think we have made enough changes (especially if we include the ITIC at 0.3 for ethane) to show the value of ITIC.