Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this Comment, we show that the expression for as proposed by R. Breban, R. Vardavas, and S. Blower, Phys. Rev. E 72, 046110 (2005) is incorrect and we reveal the underlying conceptual mistake.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bootsma et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: