search

mostafa-razavi / ITIC-paper

0 stars 0 forks source link

Reviewer 2, Round 2, 2.3 Uncorrected error in Equation 13 #42

Open ramess101 opened 5 years ago

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi response looks good:

image

image

image

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi Some minor comments though:

This statement sounds way too combative and should be removed:

The reviewer seems to believe that this is not allowed, because T is not a constant, however we believe that it is mathematically correct to multiply and divide the integrand by any constant or variable as long as it is not equal to zero.

I don't think the reviewer ever made such a statement and, even if they did, we should take the high road on this one.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

Should this be T1=0?

Assuming that T!=0, we can integrate TUdep instead of (U-Uig)/R and obtain exact same result.

OK, never mind. Just read your previous sentence about T not being equal to zero. I would avoid using coding syntax (not the same in all languages), just say: "Assuming that T is not equal to zero," or remove this altogether.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi

I think the response is good, but because other readers could be confused as well, we probably need to modify the manuscript slightly to clarify how Equation 13 is derived. We should mention that we use Eq 4 with T1=Tsat_old and T2=Tsat_new. We should mention this change at the end of the response. It is always polite to make some modification so that we are not implying that only this reviewer would be confused.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi

For example, I think right here we should point out that Adep_new and Adep_old are obtained from Equation 4 with T1=Tsat_old and T2=Tsat_new:

image

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi

The revised manuscript has a subscript "liq" for Adep but not for Udep. We could probably get away with the "liq" subscript since the sentence before says that we are updating Adep_liq. Or we would need to make this Equation Udep_liq,old and Udep_liq,new. Note that this notation is included in the previous paragraph.

image

mostafa-razavi commented 5 years ago

The revised manuscript has a subscript "liq" for Adep but not for Udep. We could probably get away with the "liq" subscript since the sentence before says that we are updating Adep_liq. Or we would need to make this Equation Udep_liq,old and Udep_liq,new. Note that this notation is included in the previous paragraph.

Yes. I was kind of hesitant to use "liq" notation here. Adding liq to Udep makes the equation long. So maybe we should revert to previous form.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi

Yeah we should revert this if we aren't going to make Udep "liq" and "vap" too. I think you made some changes for Figure 2 as well, but I think it is fine to use Adep_liq,new and Udep_liq,new there.

mostafa-razavi commented 5 years ago

@ramess101

image

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

Doesnt look terrible to me

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019, mostafa-razavi notifications@github.com wrote:

@ramess101 https://github.com/ramess101

[image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/16358113/55522352-99d9b700-5652-11e9-8eff-6282d862bbdf.png

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mostafa-razavi/ITIC-paper/issues/42#issuecomment-479709477, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWUvhDUTPeuef2vEBRLu2LWwtRCX4TMcks5vdU02gaJpZM4cWRng .