Related papers: Letter/Comment on: Improved predictions for superc…

A number of misleading or incorrect comments by C.Giunti on seven arXiv preprints that I have written on the theory of neutrino oscillations are discussed. The essential new features of my approach are also briefly reviewed

It is pointed out that theoretical prediction in a paper published in 2020 were experimentally verified some 50 years ago.

This is a Reply to the Comment posted as arXiv:1207.1261.

Reply to the Comment by F. Corberi, E. Lipiello and M. Zannetti (cond-mat/0211609).

A Comment on the Letter by B. Kraus {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}{\bf 104}, 020504 (2010).

Comment on "Classifying Novel Phases of Spinor Atoms", Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 180412 (2006) by R. Barnett, A. Turner and E. Demler

Reply to the comment, cond-mat/0209398 by by N.W. Watkins, S.C. Chapman, and G. Rowlands

A comment on a recent Letter by Baker and Kawashima (Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 994 (1995)).

This paper is Comment on the paper: S.A.R. Horsley and M. Babiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010405 (2005).

A comment on cond-mat/0210707, cond-mat/0208230, cond-mat/0207153, and cond-mat/0202140.

A recent e-print (cond-mat/0604532) presented a proposed Comment to Applied Physics Letters on our publication Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 162503 (2006), cond-mat/0603260. Here is our Response. As the proposed Comment has now been rejected by…

A Comment on the Letter by Granger et.al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 135506 (2002).

This letter is my comment about the opinion paper: Transdisciplinary electric power grid science (PNAS, 2013 - http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12159.full). [arXiv:1307.7305].

I comment on a recent preprint "Neutrino Velocity Anomalies: A Resolution without a Revolution" that appeared recently as arXiv:1110.0989 [hep-ph]

This short article is a reply to the comment from E.B. Sonin on our paper on the domain structure in a superconducting ferromagnet published in Phys. Rev. Lett..

Reply to the Comment on "Unified Formulism of Andreev Reflection at a Ferromagnetic/Superconductor Interface" by Eschrig et al

Comment withdrawn. To be superseded by a subseqent paper.

We propose that early speculations on the nature of the normal state of the $CuO_2$ planes in high $T_c$ superconductors can be revised and brought into agreement with more modern theories, simulations and experimental observations.

This is a comment on J. Schmittbuhl, A. Hansen, and G. G. Batrouni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 045505 (2003). They offer a reply, in turn.

Reply to comment by Jain, Cond-mat 9409012 published in the Physical Review Letters, Number 73, 1052 (1994).