X-Sender: pa1a@dv.op.dlr.de
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:13:54 +0200
To: Sandra Yuter <yuter@atmos.washington.edu>
Subject: paper

Dear Sandra,

over the weekend I worked through our paper. I incoperated most of 
the comments of reviewer A, which was easy. I will send you the revised
version on Friday, since I have some computer troubles at my PC at home.
I can recover the disk, that is not the problem.

We should shorten the paper, it has to be max. 20 pages. Maybe we could
shorten the tables. 
And we should have the paper ready by 8 Aug., this is 3 month after the 
letter was writen, and it is the date when I go on vaccation for 3.5 weeks.

But now to reviewer B: this is much more tough to get him satisfied:

remark (1):
remark (1):
we could explain why we wrote the paper: to get a Z-R and Z-W relation.
We dont want to reinvestigate pdf's or something else. The 2 disdros where 
there because of the PRE-SOP and I wanted to have some calibration.
Since Z, R, and W are sensitive to calibration of the disdrometer it is
good if there are 2 instruments which are calibrated in a diferent way
but still give similar results. 
I can't follow why the 2 sets of measurements are not statistically
independent.

(2) 
This > 0.2 mm/h threshold is critical, I agree with the reviewer.
I should check how much data we loose through this threshold.
But I think we mainly care about the RDSD, since we need the distribution
to get Z and R.

(3)
o.k.

(4)
?, we could show the relation from Fig. 4 d and hopefully tho slope of 
the regression through all points is close to 4/7

(5)
Rev. A has also problems with a=1.5  We show the numbers from the regression,
they are 1.42 / 1.48

(6)
?

(7)
o.k. but it does not harm, and it shows the log distribution.

(8)
o.k. maybe he could give us some of them ?

(9)

So, what are your thoughts ?

Best regards
        Martin