ksl4

main.tex

@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ We are actually not very familiar with Mathematica GLMT Scripts, however, fast r
 \item It does not use Mathematica ability to do arbitrary precision for calculation of Mie coefficients for multilayer sphere. Actually GLMT Script itself references our previous paper in CPC, and uses the same evaluation of spherical functions via series with the same error due to $N_{\mathrm{stop}}$ selection. Equations needed to do the evaluation of the near-field distribution inside the multilayered spherical particle are provided in our present manuscript.
 \end{itemize}
 
-Finally, we should point out that the authors of Mathematica GLMT started using Scattnlay and, at least the initial versions of their scripts, were heavily based on our code. Indeed, even now most of their varibles use exactly the same names than Scattnlay. Hence, it is safe to say that Mathematica GLMT is a derivative work of our code, even if both projects have diverged over time. To the best of our knowledge the only code available which provide similar posibilities is MSTM by Mackowski and Mishchenko. However, it uses T-matrix approach (which is conisderably less efficient for the case of concentric spheres) to do the evaluation and has no usage license defined. We  had actually verified our code against MSTM results too, however, we do not include them to the manuscript due to abovementioned license restrictions of MSTM.
+Finally, we should point out that the authors of Mathematica GLMT started using Scattnlay and, at least the initial versions of their scripts, were heavily based on our code. Indeed, even now most of their varibles use exactly the same names than Scattnlay. Hence, it is safe to say that Mathematica GLMT is a derivative work of our code, even if both projects have diverged over time. To the best of our knowledge the only code available which provide similar posibilities is MSTM by Mackowski and Mishchenko. However, it uses T-matrix approach (which is considerably less efficient for the case of concentric spheres) to do the evaluation and has no usage license defined. We  had actually verified our code against MSTM results too, however, we do not include them to the manuscript due to abovementioned license restrictions of MSTM.
 
 \vspace{0.5em}
 \begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
@@ -129,32 +129,26 @@ is described in a 1970 textbook [3].
 \end{tabular}
 \vspace{0.5em}
 
-We already provided Ref. 13 in the manuscript to the Wait paper. However, we found a small small typo (both in our list and in the reviewer comment). According to journal`s web-site Wait published his paper in 1962 \href{http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02923455}{http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02923455} )  
+We already provided Ref. 13 in the manuscript to the Wait paper. However, we found a  small typo (both in our list and in the reviewer comment). According to journal`s web-site the  Wait paper was published in 1962 \href{http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02923455}{http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02923455} )  
 TODO fix reference 12 Wait, J.R. Appl. sci. Res. (1962) 10: 441. doi:10.1007/BF02923455 
 
 \vspace{0.5em}
 \begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
-\quad &  	It is the personal experience of this reviewer that the long history of
-published work on sphere scattering has led to many layers of derivative
-1publications that have introduced and propagated mathematical and typo-
-graphical errors in sloppy work that has not been properly checked by its
-authors or reviewers.
-To the credit of the authors, they have corrected two typographical er-
-rors in their re-statement of equations from Yang [1], but have created ty-
-pographical errors of their own and propagated a misunderstanding from
-Yang.
-\end{tabular}
-\vspace{0.5em}
-
-\vspace{0.5em}
-\begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
 \quad & 
-3 The Write-up
 The introductory section of the write-up includes an incidental citation of the
 authors’ reference [18], which is a paper on the T-matrix method. This re-
 viewer understands the T-matrix method as being applicable to a collection
 of spheres side-by-side, not to a multi-layered sphere defined by concentric
 spherical shells. If the authors agree, reference [18] should be omitted.
+\end{tabular}
+\vspace{0.5em}
+
+No, the only restriction of T-matrix formulation as stated in Red. 18 is that spheres surfaces should not intersect. This way it is quite legal to use several spheres embedded into each other to simulate a stratified sphere, which is an object of interest in the presented manuscript and this way is highly relevant to the subject of our work. However, it is considerably less efficient for the case of concentric spheres. Moreover, it does not provide any appropriate license condition, particularly it is not clear, is it valid to distribute this code, to modify it (e.g. to put your own model parameters), to use it for academic or corporate research, etc. Our code Scattnlay is distributed under GPL (version 3) --- a well-known permissive license for open source software.   See the details at the MSTM web-page \href{http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/scatcodes/}{http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/scatcodes/} 
+
+\vspace{0.5em}
+\begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
+\quad & 
+
 This reviewer approves of the level of detail provided by the authors in
 their derivation of the background theory and their algorithm. However, he
 makes the following suggestion to improve the logical progression of the de-
@@ -167,12 +161,6 @@ using the expressions [12, Section 4.3], re-stated in terms of Ricatti-Bessel
 functions for numerical reasons [17] as. . . ” followed by equations (9.1)–(9.4).
 (1)
 (3)
-\end{tabular}
-\vspace{0.5em}
-
-\vspace{0.5em}
-\begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
-\quad & 
 % The definitions of r n , ψ n , ζ n , D n and D n should be given at this early
 %point in the presentation so that they are ready to be used in equations
 %(5.1)–(5.4), (6.1)–(6.4) and (7.1)–(7.4), rather than being left until later.
@@ -182,6 +170,9 @@ functions for numerical reasons [17] as. . . ” followed by equations (9.1)–(
 \end{tabular}
 \vspace{0.5em}
 
+TODO Ovidio, this looks resonable. Could you please reorganize the manuscrpit? Could you  additionally stress, that the restatement of vector spherical harmonics in terms of Ricatti-Bessel functions is new? Please, re-check the literature available to be sure that it is correct.
+After we omit 2.1-2.4 (reference them to Bohren) we can rewrite functions T1-T4 (eq. 7.1 - 7.2) using complex argument $z=m_{l+1}x_l$. This will make record much shorter.
+
 \vspace{0.5em}
 \begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
 \quad & This reviewer failed to reproduce the derivation of equations (6.1)–(6.4)
@@ -202,20 +193,21 @@ Thank you for pointing this out, for sure this is a typo which we correct in the
 \vspace{0.5em}
 \begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
 \quad & 
-%The authors have repeated the misunderstanding of Yang [1] regarding
-%the justification of the boundary conditions at the centre of the sphere:
-%(1)
-%(1)
-%a n = 0 and b n = 0. The correct reason is given by Bohren and Huffman [4]
-%in their Sections 4.3 and 8.1. The point is that only the j n (kr) dependence
-%gives a finite, non-singular behaviour at the origin, and so can be the only
-%2radial dependence occurring in the spherical wave expansion of the fields
-%in the core, region 1. A radial dependence of j n (kr) represents a standing
-%wave, that is, a superposition of both incoming and outgoing waves.
-%
+The authors have repeated the misunderstanding of Yang [1] regarding
+the justification of the boundary conditions at the centre of the sphere:
+$a_n^{(1)} = 0$ and $b_n^{(1)} = 0$. The correct reason is given by Bohren and Huffman [4]
+in their Sections 4.3 and 8.1. The point is that only the $j_n (kr)$ dependence
+gives a finite, non-singular behaviour at the origin, and so can be the only
+radial dependence occurring in the spherical wave expansion of the fields
+in the core, region 1. A radial dependence of $j_n (kr)$ represents a standing
+wave, that is, a superposition of both incoming and outgoing waves.
 \end{tabular}
 \vspace{0.5em}
 
+We would like to thank the reviewer for provided explanation and we will add the discussion about the singularity of Bessel functions to the manuscript. However, we would argue that this purely  mathematical representation of the problem  on the boundary conditions contradicts the explanation in terms of outgoing wave. Moreover, to our opinion, they nicely complement each other. Due to superposition principle we can always extract the outgoing wave from the total field. From the reciprocity non-zero outgoing wave is equivalent to some non-zero incoming wave, that will focus into a single point which will obviously lead to singularity.
+
+TODO We should add this description to the manuscript too.
+
 \vspace{0.5em}
 \begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
 \quad &