Thanks, George, for your opinion.

It dies not belong to my area!

Any paper, whether easy to read and understand depends on the interest of the reader.

hi;

I agree with George Stoica

I think it was very good, simple and accurate description

Good luck dear Alexander J. Babchin 

Ya... This paper is  well structured and explain clearly ....

Dear Alexander, hope you are in high spirit.

The language and the expression of the paper attached is very good. It will be "PERMEABILITIES" instead of  "PERMEABILITYIES" in the title section. Please check the spelling. The subject is not my area of expertise, although I understood the content of the paper.

Thank you for sharing the question.

Hello Alexander 

An interesting paper. I just had a quick look and thought I would jot my thoughts down - these are of course all personal views.

I noticed you define 1D flow term (q) as the Darcy flux while you keep the 3D grad term for P? Perhaps you assume K as anisotropic there. It might be worth clarifying that. Also noted that you define a quadrilateral packing of the capillary tubes. In such case I am not sure if K calculated from Carmen-Kozeny equation is consistent for the packing you have defined and it might be worth calculated porosity and K values depending on the distribution of the capillary tubes. You may have a look at the following paper as an example (equation 17):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.5785/epdf   

I hope your paper goes well..

Dear Alexander,

The work is very good for what it provides and is well understood. I have taken the attribution of to make some suggestions regarding the title and some of the wording (which attached)

One more suggestion: for the purpose of that a scientific work be intelligible and readable should respect a certain macro-structure. The most commonly used is: Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. I hope these tips will be useful.

Best Regards,

Dante.

Dear Alexander,

I agree with George’s comment about „computational details”.  Because it is not my fields of interesting I cannot comment your scientific achievements. For the person who is not deeply in this subject the paper looks clearly and interesting. I have one suggestion: I will try to correct visual form of equation (24) with integrals (lines 193, 195). I know that is difficult to do in Word but you can try.

I wish success in publishing the article.

Dear Alex,

thanks for the paper. It took some time for me because - as you know - it´s not my original field. But I think it´s well done and readable also for a layman.

Regards Hanno

Thank you for your article is good

 Dear Alexander,

Indeed the paper is readable and well structured that follows the standard article format. It is an analytical method of determining a particular curve which presumably is indicated to be valid empirically from a set of measured data as well. That is exactly where mathematics and science meets with no lack or excess of the other. But some how results from mere measured data are more discrete that approximates a presumed value while analytical ones are kind of continuous and analogue which fit the presumed solution perfectly.

Weldone!.      

The radius of the capillary in terms of the macroscopic characteristics of the porous medium—

Aldo, this is pretty comprehensive Review Article and is already submitted into ACIS.

Alexander:

Excellent work, my friend. The only area I might write differently is that I do not find it necessary to state the author. Just my opinion. For instance you phrased the following paragraph this way: 

In the current paper, the authors extended the theoretical background of the idea of the evaluation of the capillary pressure function based on the apparent specific surface area of porous media, revised the results of the calculations presented in [3], as well as presented a set of new calculations based on the experimental data coauthored by one of the coauthors of this paper.

I may have phrased the paragraph this way:

The current paper presents, the theoretical background regarding the evaluation of the capillary pressure function based on the apparent specific surface area of porous media, the revised results of the calculations, as well as, the presentation of a set of new calculations based on the experimental data.

You are the author therefore it is unnecessary. It is the same as writing in first person. 

Love the work. 

Your friend,

Marilyn

Thanks, Remi, for your opinion. The problem itself is notorious, was formulated by Bukhingham in 1907, but was never solved. I worked on this problem for some 25 years and came to a conclusion that neither analytical, nor numerical solution exist for porous media of arbitrary geometry. Then, I day last year solution came by itself, without any mental stress on me. Just a shear luck, once in 54 years of my professional activity. 

Thanks a lot to Aldo !