Related papers: Reply to "Comment on the 'Decrease of the surface …
In a recent comment [1], Masud Mansuripur presented some concerns with theoretical and experimental interpretations of She's paper [2], and concluded that She's conclusion is incorrect. We agree that, some of the She's work required further…
The quantum Monte Carlo study [S. Gandolfi, H.-W. Hammer, P. Klos, J. E. Lynn, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 118}, 232501 (2017), arXiv:1612.01502] of few-neutron resonant states provided results incompatible with rigorous few-body…
This paper reports on a surface impedance measurement of a niobium titanium superconducting radio frequency (SRF) cavity in a magnetic field (up to $10\,{\rm T}$). A novel method is employed to decompose the surface resistance contributions…
In this Reply we respond to the comment by Das Sarma and Pan [1] on Hess et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 207001, "Trivial Andreev Band Mimicking Topological Bulk Gap Reopening in the Nonlocal Conductance of Long Rashba Nanowires" [2]. First,…
An apparatus was developed to obtain, for the first time, 2D maps of the surface resistance of the inner surface of an operating superconducting radio-frequency niobium cavity by a low-temperature laser scanning microscopy technique. This…
A recent article [ B. T. McAllister et al., J. Appl. Phys. 122, 144501 (2017), arXiv:1611.08939] claims to show the existence of "new" higher order reentrant post modes. Indeed, such modes do exist and are known to scientists and engineers…
We endorse the comment on our recent paper [En{\ss}lin and Weig, Phys. Rev. E 82, 051112 (2010)] by Iatsenko, Stefanovska and McClintock [Phys. Rev. E 85 033101 (2012)] and we try to clarify the origin of the apparent controversy on two…
We provide comments on the article by Shannon et al. (Sep 2015) entitled "Gravitational waves from binary supermassive black holes missing in pulsar observations". The purpose of this letter is to address several misconceptions of the…
I discuss the Comment by L'vov and Nazarenko (arXiv:1208.4593) aiming at refutation of my perviously published criticism of their mechanism of the Kelvin-wave cascade. It is important that in their Comment L'vov and Nazarenko admitted that…
In a recent Comment, Kolf et al. (cond-mat/0503669) state that our analysis of the Fano resonance for Anderson impurity systems [Luo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 92, 256602 (2004)] is incorrect. Here we want to point out that their comments are…
This Comment points out a number of errors in the recent paper by Zarechnaya, Dubrovinskaia, Dubrovinsky, et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 185501 (2009)). Results and conclusions presented by Zarechnaya et al. (2009) are either incorrect or…
The Comment by Xiong et al. (arXiv:1610.06275) criticizing my Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)] was rejected by Physical Review Letters. In this Reply, I show that all their claims are wrong.
Recent advancement in superconducting radio frequency cavity processing techniques, with diffusion of impurities within the RF penetration depth, resulted in high quality factor with increase in quality factor with increasing accelerating…
We reply to the criticisms of our publication (N. Hasegawa, K. Hagino, and Y. Tanimura, Phys. Lett. B808, 135693 (2020)) made by A. Ono in his recent article, arXiv:2201.02966.
Comment on the article by S. Gandolfi et al. Phys.Rev.Letters 118 (2017), 232501; arXiv:1612.01502 [nucl-th]
We show that the reply by Tamburini et al (2012 New J. Phys. 14 118002) to our previous comment (2012 New J. Phys. 14 118001) on the experiment reported in (2012 New J. Phys. 14 033001) actually does not invalidate any of the issues raised…
It is shown that the various claims made in the comment by M. Ya. Azbel (physics/0403106) on the two publications Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 055502 (2003) and Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4988 (2000) are invalid. They are a result of a misinterpretation…
This is a Reply to the Comment (cond-mat/9812331) by Kravchenko et al. on our earlier work (cond-mat/9812216).
The comment gives principal arguments proving that the claims given in the title of the commented paper and some its conclusions have to be wrong for principal reasons. An example illustrating the arguments is provided via atomistic…
As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.