Subject: Re: Hohlraum modeling paper - re-resubmitted to P.o.P. From: Otto Landen Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:02:58 -0700 To: "David H. Cohen" CC: "Joseph J. MacFarlane" , dcohen1@swarthmore.edu David, Reread again; if you do get to have another crack at it, I would suggest following tweaks: Page 1 and 14: Half-raum Page 5: I don't understand significance of comment on increasing C.E. to 0.69 so simulated Hohlraum Tr can match measured Dante Tr, which is apples to oranges comparison? Page 6: If space still an issue, could remove Fig. 6 and just say before Fig. 7 (which has quantitative info anyway) that Dante has no view of capsule. Page 9: "...one sees similar trends, with the only difference being that the low angle beams partially hit the back..." Page 10: I am suspicious of why the 100 ps data of Figure 13 shows Dante Tr less than sample Tr? It almost seems like 100 ps sample Tr points are 5-10 eV too high (bit higher than case without LEH shown in Fig. 12 which seems odd)? Page 11: ".. in the longer halfraums is partially offset..." Page 13: "...blocking much (some) of the LEHs seen by a sample (hot spots), decreasing...and preventing some of the radiation losses..." I would add after "...16% in flux. As expected, the boost at the midplane wall is significantly smaller (2 eV or 4% in flux) as it the same unobstructed view of the LEH with or without the shield." Nino At 9:50 AM -0400 10/5/05, David H. Cohen wrote: > Nino and Joe, > > I've modified and resubmitted our manuscript, "Numerical modeling of hohlraum..." to the Physics of Plasmas editorial office, based on the second round of referee's comments. The revisions were relatively minor, if somewhat numerous, and included further paring down of the figures, as well as the addition of three new references (and related discussion on our albedo model, the validity of assuming spatial uniformity, and assumptions about the albedo of the plastic capsule). > > I'm hopeful that the paper will now be accepted as-is (though I wasn't able, for technical reasons - see below - to modify all the figures that the referee requested; other than that, though, I did make all the changes he/she requested). > > Relevant files for your record are at: > > http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~cohen/projects/hohlraum/resubmitted_v2/ > > You may be especially interested in the referee's most recent report, annotated with my responses: > > http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~cohen/projects/hohlraum/resubmitted_v2/reply_to_ref_comments_second_time_3oct05.pdf > > and the referee's report itself: > > http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~cohen/projects/hohlraum/resubmitted_v2/ref_comments_second_time_26jul05.txt > > and an easy-to-read, preprint formatted, version of the revised paper: > > http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~cohen/projects/hohlraum/resubmitted_v2/preprint.pdf > > Other files in that directory include the "manuscript" formatted pdf version of the paper as it actually looks when resubmitted to the editorial office, some alternate versions of two figures (referred to in my response to the referee), the cover letter to the editor that went along with the resubmission, and a zip archive containing the latex manuscript, style file, bibliography file, and separate eps files for each figure. > > Thanks once again for your work on this project. > By the way, Joe, while working on these revisions, some potentially useful features that might be added to VisRad's capabilities came to light: > > 1. The ability to add visual highlighting to the exported images (and potentially the models themselves within the program). This of course would include things like the white ellipses we've added after the fact to highlight the LEH, but I could imagine additional, similar uses of such graphics. You'll note in my response to the referee that we couldn't effectively add this highlighting for images that show laser beams. Having this capability in-line could potentially take care of this problem. > > 2. As we discussed on the phone the other day, the ability to make elements completely transparent when viewed from the back might be useful. > > 3. (More involved) A more detailed ability to assess which surfaces are contributing in what proportions to the flux incident on a given surface could be very useful. This would be along the lines of the current capability of showing the spectrum due to each component separately, but might include things like a histogram of solid angle of a given component or, importantly, user-defined portion of a component, as seen from a user-chosen surface (e.g. dante or sample). This capability could help back up some of the statement we make in the paper about the causes of some of the trends we see (e.g. obliquity of hot spots as seen from the sample; relative contributions of hot spots, wall reemission and LEHs as seen from different positions or in different simulations). > > 4. (Also more involved) The ability to assign albedos (and XCEs?) based on temperatures rather than times. > > Finally, Joe, the Physics of Plasmas web submission form seems to tap into a database of authors (maintained by the AIP?) that seems to think you're still at U.W. I changed your affiliation on our web submission form by hand, but you might want to look into getting your listing in the database changed. > > I hope all is well with both of you, and I hope that I will soon be able to tell you that the article has been accepted. > > David