| ²é¿´: 454 | »Ø¸´: 0 | ||
| ¡¾ÐüÉͽð±Ò¡¿»Ø´ð±¾ÌûÎÊÌ⣬×÷Õßtiancai203½«ÔùËÍÄú 20 ¸ö½ð±Ò | ||
tiancai203гæ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[ÇóÖú]
¹ØÓÚÒ»ÌõcommentµÄÒâ˼
|
|
|
Çë´ó¼Ò°ï°ï棬ÒÔÏÂcommentʵÔÚ²»Ã÷°×ʲôÒâ˼£¬Ê®·Ö¸Ðл£¡£¡ I can understand there could be no justification, but at least I would have expected a reference to another similar work¡ BTW, in section 4 (Pag. 9), there is a sentence that seems to give a sort of justification, even if related to the numerical simulations rather than to the model validation: ¡°If not other specified, the calculations will be performed at the fixed streamwise wave number ¦Á = 0.35, which corresponds to the maximum amplitude of two-dimensional waves, as shown in Fig 4.¡±. Maybe in this point it would be more correct to refer to Fig. 4, or even remove the sentence that refers to the value 0.35, otherwise it looks as a sort of ¡°magical number¡±¡ Please explain. |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
281Çóµ÷¼Á£¨0805£©
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
304Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
²ÄÁϹ¤³Ìר˶µ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Ìì´ó²ÄÁÏÓ뻯¹¤£¨085600£©×Ü·Ö338
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
085700×ÊÔ´Óë»·¾³308Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
Çó²ÄÁϵ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
294Çóµ÷¼Á²ÄÁÏÓ뻯¹¤×¨Ë¶
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸»ªÖпƼ¼´óѧ£¬080502£¬354·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸¼ªÁÖ´óѧ²ÄÁÏѧ˶321Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
085410È˹¤ÖÇÄÜר˶317Çóµ÷¼Á£¨0854¶¼¿ÉÒÔ£©
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´













»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥