Hi HekLeR,

I do not crop the CFX logo because I don't want to credit CFX in the work that they do. If you read this thread more carefully, you will find that people took issue with the logo as it becomes cumbersome and aesthetically unpleasing when one wants to include many plots on a single page. The visual presentation of ones data should be under the complete control of the user.

Obviously the users of this forum are professional enough to know that they must credit the code that they use.

Why don't you quit HekLing, and learn how to spell (Heckler)!

There are two copies of the offending paper, one was published at a conference and one was in a Journal. The conference version of the paper does not contain the same error, so it is likely an error in typesetting and proof reading by the Journal.

I have copied the two references below. I have not included the authors names as I thought that would be unfair. It wouldn't be very nice to have this error showing up everytime someone googles your name!

The offending article was in the Journal of Fluids Engineering -- January 2006 -- Volume 128, Issue 1, pp. 113-117 and was entitled: Experimental Study on the Helical Flow in a Concentric Annulus With Rotating Inner Cylinder.

The same paper was presented at the 6th World Conference on Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics: April 17-21, 2005, Matsushima, Miyagi, Japan.

I don't have access to the paper online anymore, it is possible that the error may have been flagged and corrected. I can assure you that what I said was true though!

I know exactly why there is an issue with the logo. I carefully read the thread and decided IMO that everyone that posted are a bunch of whining babies.

Not everyone is as professional as you (I think Robin mentioned this issue) and the code is not always credited. If CFX wants a logo on their graphics then that is their choice, not yours, and you have the ability outside of CFX to remove the logo if you want.

I agree with Robin about CFX vs MS Word. Unlike MS word, CFX costs at least 10 times as much (for good reason) and requires years of training to be correctly put to use.

The name is purposely spelled wrong BTW.

I think you missed the point Robin was making about CFX vs MS Word.

Unlike MS word, CFX costs at least 10 times as much (for good reason) and requires years of training and knowledge to be correctly put to use.

MS word is commodity software, used by the masses, CFD solvers are not.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree

So then your belitting of the reviewers is unwarranted since reviewers read only the the first draft sent to the journal and perhaps the second draft if they agree to review it again after revisions have been made...

I was just trying to give the reviewers/authors a way out. I am well aware of the review process being both an author and reviewer of many papers.

I am not sure about the ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, but some other ASME journals have changed the format in which they want papers submitted. The last paper I submitted, they wanted the text in Latex/Word format and a separate file for each figure. It is still possible that the authors submitted the same file for each figure and the reviewers missed it (if this was the format that was reviewed). It is also possible that the the person that typeset the final version of the paper accidentally used the same file for each figure. Not being omnipotent, I am not sure what went wrong ... but something definitely went wrong at some point.

Check out the link below, worse things than what I have just described have happened in other venues (although not as reputable as ASME)

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/