deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_C4_Our_experimental_measurements__.tex b/textbf_C4_Our_experimental_measurements__.tex  index 791145a..f661def 100644  --- a/textbf_C4_Our_experimental_measurements__.tex  +++ b/textbf_C4_Our_experimental_measurements__.tex 
...
\]  The model parameters $k_s$, $k_d$ and $P_{inf}$ are then found by minimising the difference during diastole between the measured pressure and the model pressure given by this expression. The reservoir pressure obtained using this method is very different from the backward pressure wave found by wave separation analysis (WSA).  \textbf{[C5].} Since $P_{res}$ is very close to $P^m$ during diastole, it follows that the relationships given here are true during diastole. However, $P_{res} \ne P^b$ during systole, and so these results are invalid during systole. The correlation obtained in Hametner et al. is \textit{et al.} is,  in fact fact,  a correlation between peak($P_{res}$) and peak($P^b$) which invariably occurred at different times during systole; a further indication that $P_{res} \ne P^b)$ during systole. \textbf{[C6].} We agree that $P_{res}$ propagates down the aorta as shown in our experiments in the dog aorta as well as our later studies in the human aorta. In fact, it was this observation that made us aware that our original paper was naive in calling it the Windkessel pressure  and provided the motivation for coining the term 'reservoir pressure'.