deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_The_basic_error_about__.tex b/textbf_The_basic_error_about__.tex  index d1ba480..539cbd4 100644  --- a/textbf_The_basic_error_about__.tex  +++ b/textbf_The_basic_error_about__.tex 
...
\textbf{The basic error about Pr} $P_{res}$}  The first sentence of the second paragraph of the section \textbf{Reservoir-Wave Concept} states:  \begin{quote}  \textit{The RWC assumes that diastole (diastasis) is wave-free} and that, therefore, the arterial system can be described by a reservoir (storage volume) and peripheral resistance (Frank Windkessel). (my italics)  \end{quote}  This is simply wrong. Nowhere in our work do we assume that diastole is 'wave-free'. Wave-free is used in the description of iFR. In the derivation of Pr we assume only that the major part of the diastolic pressure waveform can be described by a falling exponential function, which is predicted by the overall mass conservation equation when there is no flow into the aortic root. This is also predicted in the Frank Windkessel model and that model was important in our original conception of the RWC. In fact, in our first paper on the subject (ref 36), we did not define a reservoir pressure, but called it the Windkessel pressure. Further work on the subject, experimental and theoretical, showed that the 2-element Windkessel was not a viable model. It was clear that what we had called the Windkessel pressure was propagating down the aorta and so we introduced the reservoir pressure in our next paper (Wang et al. Am J Physiol 2005) and were careful to describe how it differed from the Windkessel pressure. All of our subsequent papers on RWC should make it clear that Pr is not the Windkessel pressure.