search

mostafa-razavi / ITIC-paper

0 stars 0 forks source link

Reviewer 3, Round 2, Comment 1 #43

Open ramess101 opened 5 years ago

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi response:

image

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi @jrelliottoh

Could we make everything clearer if we avoided using (Aliq - Aig)/RTsat everywhere and instead used A^dep(Tsat,rho_liq)?

For example, we could rewrite Equation 3 with Adep instead:

image

And all of these equations:

image image

It just doesn't make sense to me that we hold on to the syntax of Aliq-Aig and Avap-Aig when we eventually only use Adep. Wouldn't it make life a lot easier to use Adep from the outset?

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi @jrelliottoh

To clarify, Equations 4 and 5 should stay as they are, I am only referring to the ()_T,V terms in Equations 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi @jrelliottoh

Any thoughts regarding changing the equations to Adep?

jrelliottoh commented 5 years ago

I'm ambivalent about the change to Adep everywhere. It's ok as long as we are very clear about conditions, e.g  Adep(Tsat,rhoLiq)  BTW, we should probably add the TV subscript to the defining eq for Adep, no matter what. JRE

On Tuesday, April 2, 2019, 10:36:51 AM EDT, Richard Messerly <notifications@github.com> wrote:

@mostafa-razavi @jrelliottoh

Any thoughts regarding changing the equations to Adep?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi @jrelliottoh

Yeah, I think that the idea would be to use Adep(Tsat,rhoLiq) and Adep(Tsat,rhovap) everywhere until maybe Equation 11 where we introduce that Adep_liq syntax.

I agree that the definition of Adep should have the subscript TV

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@jrelliottoh

@mostafa-razavi is working on changing the functions to Adep and creating a new equation defining Adep_liq and Adep_vap.

mostafa-razavi commented 5 years ago

@jrelliottoh @ramess101

I updated Section 2.1. We need to decide if this version is more suitable and less confusing than the previous version. We can always go back to previous version. If this is better, the RevLet3 should be updated based on new equation numberings, etc.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mostafa-razavi @jrelliottoh

So after rereading this reviewer's comment, I don't think we adequately address their concern about Equations 4 and 5. Dr. Elliott, we would really benefit from your input here. We are struggling to know whether the various versions of Equations 4 and 5 are actually valid. Could you please weigh in on this early tomorrow morning so we can figure this out before the midnight resubmission deadline?