diff options
| author | mfm94 <mfm94@cornell.edu> | 2020-04-22 17:39:06 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | overleaf <overleaf@localhost> | 2020-04-24 18:19:28 +0000 |
| commit | 5efe195e70f2f032683f0aefeba0d740ff4bf1ce (patch) | |
| tree | c795e2aad7ca575851783e68b5b159d2631e5a20 | |
| parent | 35302b8223fba17989caae63dc5289eb3d7886c7 (diff) | |
| download | PRB_102_075129-5efe195e70f2f032683f0aefeba0d740ff4bf1ce.tar.gz PRB_102_075129-5efe195e70f2f032683f0aefeba0d740ff4bf1ce.tar.bz2 PRB_102_075129-5efe195e70f2f032683f0aefeba0d740ff4bf1ce.zip | |
Update on Overleaf.
| -rw-r--r-- | referee_comments.txt | 13 |
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/referee_comments.txt b/referee_comments.txt index 21b6552..fd68ecc 100644 --- a/referee_comments.txt +++ b/referee_comments.txt @@ -28,12 +28,12 @@ black line. > parameters, or does the agreement result from a fine-tuning? (e.g., > the presence of a maximum at 120 K in 2b). -[Not exactly sure what this means.] +[Not exactly sure what this means.] [I don't know either... let's think] > Is it possible to say something about the c/a ratio, which displays a > non-trivial T-dependence? -[Not sure what this means either. Is this asking about the ratio of lattice constants?] +[Not sure what this means either. Is this asking about the ratio of lattice constants?] [yes] > At last, I understand that the model is meant to be purely > phenomenological, but given the plethora of publications on URu2Si2 @@ -43,7 +43,9 @@ black line. > simplest framework of localized f-electrons, what ionic moments would > fit the present proposal? -[Mike, can you help with this?] +In a picture of localized U-5f electrons this +This is a consistent with hexadecapolar order +[Mike, can you help with this?] [Yes I think he can! And it's a good point] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Report of the Second Referee -- BN13654/Kent-Dobias @@ -67,6 +69,9 @@ black line. > 1) The scheme for the coupled strains in this paper is quite standard > within the mean-field treatment and does not provide a novel > theoretical advance. + +[hmmmm what can you say to this. i guess we can emphasize the part you did that IS new, at least we think it's new. Also, what's wrong with using existing, working tools for sovling problem?!?!!!!?!?!?! Does everyone have to come up with some black-hole-based-nonsense every time they solve a problem?] + > > 2) One can generically expect several sources for softening elastic > constants. For example, the authors in ref.25 also succeeded in the @@ -74,7 +79,7 @@ black line. > T_HO. Thus, the fitting is not regarded as the decisive evidence on > the validity of the model. -[Not sure how to respond to this; Brad?] +[Not sure how to respond to this; Brad?] [yeah Curie-weiss is generic, that's true. ref 25 is also purely phenomenological (I'm guessing, haven't looked yet), we have testable predictions and connect to other experiments. ] > 3) The agreement of C[B1g] in the region T<T_HO is poor, though only > the cusp at T_HO seems qualitatively consistent with the experiment. |