Review of manuscript #jas 1052 The manuscript ``A common misunderstanding about the Voigt line




Yüklə 10.32 Kb.
tarix29.02.2016
ölçüsü10.32 Kb.
Review of manuscript #JAS 1052

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The manuscript ``A common misunderstanding about the Voigt line

profile'' by X. Huang and Y. L. Yung is a worthwhile contribution

which clarifies a potential source of confusion, and therefore,

is recommended for publication in the Journal of Atmospheric

Sciences after a few very minor editorial changes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific Comments:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

First paragraph:
In the second sentence of the first paragraph the authors state:

``It describes the combined effect of the Doppler broadening and

the pressure broadening and is applicable when the Doppler half

width is comparable to the Lorentz half width.'' First, the use

of the indefinite article ``it'' is confusing. Second, the Voigt

profiles is applicable throughout the entire range of Doppler and

Lorentz half widths, not just when they are comparable. For the

sake of clarity, the authors should consider rewriting the second

sentence.
The fourth sentence begins with the word ``there.'' I believe the

authors meant to use the word ``their.''


The fifth sentence, the authors note ``In the line wings ... the

Voigt profile is flatter than the Lorentz profile and steeper than

the Doppler profile.'' To this reviewer, Figure 1 appears to

show that the Voigt profile is flatter than the Doppler profile

in the line wings (The comparison between the Lorentz and Voigt

profiles is somewhat difficult to determine). Instead, the authors

may wish to consider stating: ``In the line wings the Voigt profile

is intermediate between those of the Lorentz and Doppler profiles.''

The authors, of course, will demonstrate later that, in the line

wings, the Voigt profile will have a magnitude which is greater

and a slope which is flatter than both the Lorentz and Doppler

profiles.


The sixth sentence states: ``This plot (i.e., Figure 1) appears to

be reasonable and intuitively correct.'' This reviewer did not

find Figure 1 to be intuitively correct, and thus I suggest

combining this sentence with the next: ``Figure 1 appear to be

reasonable; however, after careful examination was found to be

incorrect.''


The last sentence of the first paragraph ends with the phrase

``in that figure.'' Which figure is being discussed, figure 3.11

in Andrews? The authors need to clearly identify which figure is

being discussed.


Second paragraph:
The second sentence begins ``In fact it is....'' For clarity, the

authors should begin this sentence ``In fact the Voigt profile

is....''
Third paragraph:
The authors state in the sixth sentence that ``As a result,

the contribution of the line core region to the convolution

is very small.'' Since this paragraph is not focused only

on the far wings, for clarity, may I suggest: ``As a result,

the contribution of the line core region to the far wings is

very small in this convolution.''


Fifth paragraph:
In the third paragraph, the authors quote a number of 29%,

but don't provide enough information to justify this value

which is not intuitively obvious. Could the authors provide

some details? For example, could the authors better define

their criteria for their division between the line core and

line wings?


Figures:
For clarity, the line styles for the Doppler, Lorentz and Voigt

profiles should be consistent for figures 1 through 3. That is,

the Doppler profile should always be a solid line, the Lorentz

profile should always be a dashed line, and the Voigt profile

should always be a dotted line. This will make comparing

figures 2 and 3 to figure 1 easier.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
--


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə