Paper detail

Reply to Comment on "Spectra of strong magnetohydrodynamic turbulence from high-resolution simulations"

In a Comment by Perez et al (2014) it is claimed that recently published simulations of Beresnyak (2014) are grossly underresolved, compared to theirs, and that Beresnyak (2014) failed to estimate numerical error. Both claims are contrary to the fact. Firstly, as far as numerical resolution is concerned, Beresnyak (2014) was using $k_{\rm max}η_{41}$=1.06 resolution criterion, while Perez et al has been using $k_{\rm max}η_{41}$=0.8. Obviously, $1.06>0.8$. Secondly, Beresnyak (2014) have estimated numerical error and found it to be below $3\times 10^{-3}$, which is properly explained in the paper. On close inspection of the Comment I have not found a single numerical value or parameter pertaining to the criticized paper, Beresnyak (2014), and it is completely unclear how the Authors came to their conclusions.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.