This file collects all TODO items from across the repository.
Note: This TODO list is automatically generated from TODO comments in the codebase.
Add #TODO to your comments to have them appear here.
When completing a TODO, change #TODO to #TODO-DONE to move it to the completed section.
-
\vsy{: add the three experimental papers, \citet{cheny1996extravagant, rodriguez2023bubble, cabalganteeffect} if not already cited!!! and find the relevant parameter of interest from experiments.}(fromMain/bubbleBurstingVE_04.tex) -
\vsy{: following reviewer 3, I have basically rewritten \S~4.1 and 4.2.2. @Ayush: please check that I did not break any logic.}(fromMain/bubbleBurstingVE_04.tex) -
\vsy{ : Again, you cannot say that we agree with the reviewer and then go around in circles. It is okay to disagree with reviewer and take a stand. But, do not mix the two.}(fromRebuttal/Reviewer_3.tex) -
\vsy{: in the very next comment you say that there was a post processing glitch in 6b. In your new figure 6b. the transition is not abrupt.}(fromRebuttal/Reviewer_3.tex) -
\vsy{: here, we yield and accept to change.. but in the next point, we will push back.. a little.}(fromRebuttal/Reviewer_2.tex) -
\vsy{: Additionally, we should highlight the point that OB still has all the essential Physics in. We are not trying to make a digital twin. Of course, for that, one will need to worry about the exact constitutive relation. the important thing here is: we take the leading order Physics: relaxation and application of stress when there is deformation and we do so by moving in the G-$\lambda$ parameter space. We agree 100% with the reviewer that it is a good roadmap calling for future experiments and comparisons and refinement of the mode.}(fromRebuttal/Reviewer_2.tex) -
\vsy{: find a funny comeback about this misunderstanding.. Must highlight that quoting the level of resolution means nothing.. it is essentially useless. In order to get similar results on a uniform grid, one would need(from$N = 2^{\text{Level}}/L_0$ cells across the unit length. And in fact, if you calculate that for both Berny and so on and us, we are using grids finer than Berny... do we go higher in resolution? check?}Rebuttal/Reviewer_2.tex) -
\sos{: Ayush, can we add some of the plots regarding this point? Add two figures: (a) figure 8a but done with a zoo of grids and (b)(from$r_d(Ec, De \to 0)$ .}Rebuttal/Reviewer_2.tex) -
\vsy{: we need to add a commentary (short) on what these different models are....}(fromRebuttal/Reviewer_2.tex) -
..... \vsy{: need a stronger reply here.}(fromRebuttal/Reviewer_2.tex) -
\sos{: We must show(from$r_d(Ec)$ and$L_j(Ec)$ at different$Oh_s$ and$De$ , respectively. It will be repetitive to do so in the paper (given that we already have the contour plots)--we must still give it as a plot in the review and rewrite this part accordingly. @Ayush: please take care of this.}Rebuttal/Reviewer_2.tex) -
\vsy{Yes, the jet radius does not vary much with(from$De$ in the limit of$De \to 0$ as shown in figure 12b. Notably, in this limit, the dimensionless polymeric viscosity dictates the jet radius and subsequently the drop size. However, we caution against comparison with figures 4 and 6--both are at fixed$De$ of$\to \infty$ and$0.01$ , respectively. However, the apparent$De$ -independence is only for$De \to 0$ in figure 12b. : needs refinement.}Rebuttal/Reviewer_2.tex) -
\vsy{: add the three experimental papers, \citet{cheny1996extravagant, rodriguez2023bubble, cabalganteeffect} if not already cited!!! and find the relevant parameter of interest from experiments.}(fromRebuttal/Reviewer_1.tex) -
Consequentially, it is often referred to as ``quasi-linear” \citep{davoodi2018secondary, alves2021numerical}. %%: find papers to support this... preferably one with Gareth as he was the one to point this out.(fromRebuttal/Reviewer_1.tex)
Last updated: 2024-12-16 02:20:42