foo

diff --git a/posic/publications/sic_prec_reply02.txt b/posic/publications/sic_prec_reply02.txt
index 16265d3..9cd5ee0 100644 (file)
--- a/posic/publications/sic_prec_reply02.txt
+++ b/posic/publications/sic_prec_reply02.txt
@@ -26,12 +26,9 @@ two manuscripts in a single comprehensive manuscript.
 Please find below the summary of changes and a detailed response to
 the recommendations of the referee.
 
-Most of the criticism is pasted from the previous review justified by
-the statement that we did ignore or not adequatley respond to it.
-However, we commented on every single issue and a more adequate
-answer is hindered if the referee does not specify the respective
-points of criticism. Thus, some part of the response might be
-identical to our previous one.
+Some arguments here were already put forward in our previous reply and
+are repeated for the sake of clarity. We would be glad to comment at
+length on further upcoming, more detailed questions.
 
 Sincerely,
 
@@ -115,23 +112,19 @@ A repsective statement was added (Change 3).
 > that compare with taking the energies of each defect in a
 > supercell.
 
-Again, we would like to point out that it is not our purpose to
-separate defects by a large distance in order to approximate the
-situation of isolated defects. However, we find that for increasing
-defect distances, configurations appear, which converge to the
-energetics of two isolated defects. This is indicated by the (absolute
-value of the) binding energy, which is approaching zero with
-increasing distance. From this, we conclude a decrease in interaction,
-which is already observable for defect separation distances accessible
-in our simulations.
-
-Nevertheless, the focus is on closely neighbored, interacting defects
-(for which an interaction with their own image is, therefore, supposed
-to be negligible, too). In fact, combinations of defects exhibiting
-equivalent distances were successfully modeled in a supercell
-containing 216 atoms in PRB 66, 195214 (2002). At no time, our aim was
-to investigate single isolated defect structures and their properties
-by a structure with increased separation distance of the two defects.
+We would like to remind the referee that the properties of isolated,
+non-intertacting defects were modeled in separate simulation runs.  It
+is not our purpose to separate defects by a large distance in order to
+approximate the situation of isolated defects.  We are rather
+interested in interacting defects. However, we did find that for
+increasing defect distances, configurations appear, which converge to
+the energetics of two isolated defects. This is indicated by the
+(absolute value of the) binding energy, which is approaching zero with
+increasing distance.  From this, we conclude a decrease in
+interaction, which is already observable for defect separation
+distances accessible in our simulations. Combinations of defects with
+similar distances were already successfully modeled in a supercell
+containing 216 atoms as described in PRB 66, 195214 (2002).
 
 An explanation of the binding energy and the relation to the
 interaction of defects was added (Change 8).
@@ -268,10 +261,10 @@ same extent in order to legitimate the increase in temperature to
 appropriately consider the overestimated barrier heights for
 diffusion.
 
-Indeed the cut-off effect increases if the system is deviated from
-equilibrium. Thus, to mimic IBS, a process far from equilibrium,
-increased temperatures are exceptionally necessary if short range
-potentials are utilized.
+Indeed the cut-off effect increases if the system is driven away from
+the equilibrium (such as by modeling IBS). Since this is to some
+extent cured by increasing the simulation temperature, the work-around
+is particularly helpful for short range potentials.
 
 
 --------------- Summary of changes ----------------