section 3.4: this case study ignores a paper where a Mie force field (also lamda=16) was earlier proposed for cyclohexane, with (I guess) essentially the same results. Differences should appear only because the objective function is slightly different here. The conclusion of this work is that the here proposed force field is „the most accurate“. Omitting the previous study is (at least) awkward, because the authors seem to be aware of the line of developments from these authors, as the reference list shows. Is there a reason for omitting the study mentioned above from the list of „most reliable force fields from literature. Ref 22,24,27,55,56,57“ ?
The reviewer never clarifies what paper has a Mie force field for cyclohexane. @jpotoff @msoroush Any ideas which paper the reviewer is referring to? Who are "these authors" that are included in our reference list? I can't find one for TAMie (the only other Mie family we cite). I know there are parameters obtained with SAFT-gamma that use fractional lambda values and some single-cite cyclohexane Mie models. But I don't think we have any data for those models.
@mrshirts @jpotoff @msoroush
The reviewer never clarifies what paper has a Mie force field for cyclohexane. @jpotoff @msoroush Any ideas which paper the reviewer is referring to? Who are "these authors" that are included in our reference list? I can't find one for TAMie (the only other Mie family we cite). I know there are parameters obtained with SAFT-gamma that use fractional lambda values and some single-cite cyclohexane Mie models. But I don't think we have any data for those models.