English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a recent paper Moretto et al. [ Phys. Rev. C 66, 041601 (2002) ] claim that the negative heat capacities presented in our previously published paper [ Chomaz, Duflot, and Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3587 (2000) ] are "artifacts" coming from the use of periodic boundary conditions in the lattice-gas calculations. We stress in this Comment that this claim is wrong: in Chomaz, Duflot, and Gulminelli we did not use periodic boundary conditions and anyhow the boundary conditions are irrelevant for the statistical ensemble used in Chomaz, Duflot, and Gulminelli. The second claim of Moretto et al. is that, because of the Coulomb repulsion, systems "with A>60 should present no anomalous negative heat capacities." We show that this conclusion is contradicted by exact lattice-gas simulations including Coulomb forces which present negative heat capacities even for A>200

Comment on “Negative heat capacities and first order phase transitions in nuclei”