Qin Et Al. Reply

Nan Qin,Emmanuelle Le Chatelier,Jing Guo,Edi Prifti,Lanjuan Li,S. Dusko Ehrlich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14852

IF: 64.8

2015-01-01

Nature

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by J. H. Chen and H. Y. Fan.Received 22 May 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.269502© 2013 American Physical Society

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Gaoet Al.reply:

H. J. Gao,K. Sohlberg,Z. Q. Xue,H. Y. Chen,S. M. Hou,L. P. Ma,X. W. Fang,S. J. Pennycook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.87.179707

IF: 8.6

2001-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Yanming Zhao et al.Received 2 June 2001DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.179707©2001 American Physical Society
Yanet Al.reply:

X. Q. Yan,C. Lin,Z. M. Sheng,Z. Y. Guo,B. C. Liu,Y. R. Lu,J. X. Fang,J. E. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.102.239502

IF: 8.6

2009-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Liangliang Ji et al..Received 13 February 2009DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.239502©2009 American Physical Society
Houet Al.reply:

J. G. Hou,Yang Jinlong,Wang Haiqian,Li Qunxiang,Zeng Changgan,Lin Hai,Bing Wang,D. M. Chen,Zhu Qingshi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.85.2654

IF: 8.6

2000-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by J. I. Pascual, et al.Received 10 May 2000DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2654©2000 American Physical Society
Zu et al. reply:.

C Zu,Y-X Wang,D-L Deng,X-Y Chang,K Liu,P-Y Hou,H-X Yang,L-M Duan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.110.078902

IF: 8.6

2013-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by E. Amselem et al.Received 4 December 2012DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.078902© 2013 American Physical Society
Xiang et al. reply.

H J Xiang,Bing Huang,Erjun Kan,Su-Huai Wei,X G Gong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.112.199802

IF: 8.6

2014-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by M. Amsler et al.Received 4 December 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.199802© 2014 American Physical Society
Wonet Al.reply:

C. Won,Y. Z. Wu,N. Kurahashi,H. W. Zhao,Z. Q. Qiu,A. Scholl,A. Doran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.94.039704

IF: 8.6

2005-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by P. J. Jensen et al.Received 19 March 2004DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.039704©2005 American Physical Society
Zhanget Al.reply:

Hui Zhang,Jin-Ho Choi,Yang Xu,Xiuxia Wang,Xiaofang Zhai,Bing Wang,Changgan Zeng,Jun-Hyung Cho,Zhenyu Zhang,J. G. Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.107.019702

IF: 8.6

2011-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Han Woong Yeom and Tae-Hwan Kim.Received 5 May 2011DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.019702© 2011 American Physical Society
Zhu et al. Reply:

Xin-Yang Zhu,Shi Wang,Zhen-Yu Jia,Li Zhu,Qi-Yuan Li,Wei-Min Zhao,Cheng-Long Xue,Yong-Jie Xu,Zhen Ma,Jinsheng Wen,Shun-Li Yu,Jian-Xin Li,Shao-Chun Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.125.079702

IF: 8.6

2020-08-13

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Zhu et al.

physics, multidisciplinary
Linet Al.reply:

Lin Liu,Hsin‐Fei Meng,Jow-Tsong Shy,Sheng-Fu Horng,L. S. Yu,C. H. Chen,H. H. Liaw,Chun-Ming Huang,Kang‐Yung Peng,S. A. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.92.059702

IF: 8.6

2004-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by M. Schott.Received 29 October 2003DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.059702©2004 American Physical Society
Yaoet Al.reply:

Ke Yao,Martin Andersson,Tomas Brage,Roger Hutton,Per Jönsson,Yaming Zou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.104.209602

IF: 8.6

2007-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Thad G. Walker and Charles J. Goebel.Received 5 February 2007DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.269304©2007 American Physical Society
Chen, Gong, and Wei Reply:

Shiyou Chen,X. G. Gong,Su-Huai Wei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.99.159602

IF: 8.6

2007-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Changfeng Chen and Hong Sun.Received 30 May 2007DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.159602©2007 American Physical Society
Wexleret Al.reply:

Carlos Wexler,D. J. Thouless,Ping Ao,Qian Niu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.81.4277

IF: 8.6

1998-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by E. B. Sonin.Received 9 September 1998DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4277©1998 American Physical Society
Dong and Li Reply

J. K. Dong,Shiyan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.104.259702

IF: 8.6

2010-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Taichi Terashima et al.Received 14 May 2010DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.259702©2010 American Physical Society
Comment on the Comment on Deformation of Quantum-Mechanics

YQ LI,ZM SHENG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0253-6102/24/3/384

1995-01-01

Communications in Theoretical Physics

Abstract:This is a reply to the comment by Chung and Chung [J. Phys. A27 (1994) 5037]. We point out that the discussion there is imperfect.
Comment on "Divergent and Ultrahigh Thermal Conductivity in Millimeter-Long Nanotubes".

Qin-Yi Li,Koji Takahashi,Xing Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.179601

IF: 8.6

2017-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:More than one year ago, Prof. Chih-Wei Chang and the co-authors published Divergent and Ultrahigh Thermal Conductivity in Millimeter-Long Nanotubes in PRL and we submitted a comment. After some while we received Prof. Chang et al.u0027s reply, which is almost the same as their arXiv preprint, and responded to the reply promptly. On the request of some readers, I personally post here the detailed response to Reply to comment on u0027Divergent and Ultrahigh Thermal Conductivity in Millimeter-Long Nanotubesu0027.
Reply to the Comment, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> by B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and. V. M. Mostepanenko

L. P. Pitaevskii

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0811.3081

2008-11-19

Abstract:It is shown that criticism of my paper <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0801.0656" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0656">arXiv:0801.0656</a> Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical physics.

Statistical Mechanics
Barbalinardo et al. Reply.

Giuseppe Barbalinardo,Zekun Chen,Haikuan Dong,Zheyong Fan,Davide Donadio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.259602

IF: 8.6

2022-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:Received 28 January 2022Accepted 23 May 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.259602© 2022 American Physical SocietyPhysics Subject Headings (PhySH)Research AreasPhononsThermal conductivityPhysical SystemsCarbon-based materialsNanotubesNanowiresTechniquesBoltzmann theoryMolecular dynamicsCondensed Matter, Materials & Applied Physics
Tang, Feng, and Golubovic Reply:

Chao Tang,Shechao Feng,Leonardo Golubovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.74.3500

IF: 8.6

1995-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by E. H. Brandt.Received 27 January 1995DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.3500©1995 American Physical Society
Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Lu-Ming Duan,Guang-Can Guo

1997-01-01

Abstract:In the comment, Zanardi and Rasetti argue that several claims in our recent letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1953, 1997) are questionable. The reply shows these claims remain true.
Chen and Itoi Reply

Wei Chen,Chigak Itoi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/9405182

1994-05-27

High Energy Physics - Theory

Abstract:We reply a Comment (hep-th/xxx) on our recent paper published in Phys Rev Lett 72 (1994) 2527-2530. We point out that the author of the Comment overlooks the highly non-trivial Chern-Simons interactions and his hand-waving arguments are totally groundless.