Reviewer 2 Comment 6 - Githubissues

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mrshirts @jpotoff @msoroush

why is the pressure defined along a slope extrapolation? In HR-GCMC it is simply determined from the probability density function at N=0, where it the value relates to the grand canonical partition function.

Here is how this is described in the manuscript:

@jpotoff @msoroush Is our explanation not correct or inconsistent with the common approach for GCMC-HR?

jpotoff commented 5 years ago

@ramess101 This sounds like a miscommunication or a serious misunderstanding on the part of the reviewer. We're reweighting back to the ideal gas limit as the reference state for the partition function. Not sure what is so confusing about that (or what you wrote).

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@jpotoff

I will reference previous MiPPE studies that used this approach for HR-GCMC. Perhaps other methods exist but I think we just need to show that our approach is accepted and reliable.

mrshirts commented 5 years ago

If there is a misunderstanding, then you should state that (or perhaps state it as trying to understand what the reviewer is saying). Don't just say it's accepted, clarify things.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mrshirts

Good point. I will work on this

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mrshirts @jpotoff @msoroush

I am fairly confident that Reviewer 2 comes from Joachim Gross' group. The reviewer is likely confused because our approach is different than how they compute the ideal gas pressure. For example, this is taken from one of their publications:

I think we should probably explain in our response that different/acceptable approaches exist but that previous work has verified that our approach is also reliable.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@mrshirts @jpotoff @msoroush

msoroush commented 5 years ago

@ramess101 Would you please send me this paper.

@mrshirts @jpotoff @msoroush

I am fairly confident that Reviewer 2 comes from Joachim Gross' group. The reviewer is likely confused because our approach is different than how they compute the ideal gas pressure. For example, this is taken from one of their publications:

I think we should probably explain in our response that different/acceptable approaches exist but that previous work has verified that our approach is also reliable.

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@msoroush

See attached. Page 7091 is where they discuss this in detail.

Analytic_EOS_transferable_anisotropic_Mie.pdf

ramess101 commented 5 years ago

@msoroush @jpotoff

So are we comfortable with my response? Are we fine stating that our method is not the only way to compute pressure but that it is equally valid?