1 |
gezelter |
4218 |
We are submitting a revised version of our manuscript titled "Real |
2 |
|
|
space electrostatics for multipoles. I. Development of methods" by |
3 |
|
|
Madan Lamichhane, Kathie Newman, and myself. |
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
We would like to thank the reviewers for providing valuable comments |
6 |
|
|
on two lengthy manuscripts. We have made some significant |
7 |
|
|
modifications to the paper in response to reviewer comments. These |
8 |
|
|
are: |
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
* At the suggestion of reviewer 1, we have changed the titles of the |
11 |
|
|
two manuscripts to make them more reflective of their content. |
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
* Reviewer 2 commented on some confusing notation, so we have modified |
14 |
|
|
our notation to make it more consistent. In this (and the following |
15 |
|
|
paper) we now use bold-face to denote vector quantities, sans-serif |
16 |
|
|
fonts for tensors and matrices, hats for unit vectors, and standard |
17 |
|
|
equation fonts for indices. |
18 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
* Reviewer 1 had some questions on our figures and specifically on the |
20 |
|
|
different scales being used for dipolar and quadrupolar arrays. We |
21 |
|
|
have remade figures 2-5 as figures 2 and 3 in the new manuscript |
22 |
|
|
showing the radial dependence of the dipolar and quadrupolar |
23 |
|
|
lattices on similar distance scales, and for identical values of the |
24 |
|
|
damping coefficient. We think this simplifies the manuscript |
25 |
|
|
considerably and helps to clarify the role of the damping |
26 |
|
|
coefficient. |
27 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
* Because the crystalline arrays only sample a small number of |
29 |
|
|
relative orientations of closely-packed multipoles, some of the |
30 |
|
|
questions reviewer 1 had about the damping coefficient are best |
31 |
|
|
answered in the second paper in our discussion of liquid structural |
32 |
|
|
and dynamical properties. Evaluation of the peformance of the |
33 |
|
|
methods as a function of the damping parameter has been moved to the |
34 |
|
|
second paper, and a discussion of the orientational sampling has |
35 |
|
|
been included on page 22 of this manuscript. |
36 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
* Reviewer 2 mentioned the enhanded damped coulomb potential of Zahn |
38 |
|
|
et al. We certainly recognize that the DSF potential was |
39 |
|
|
essentially correct in that paper, so we have clarified our |
40 |
|
|
discussion of the earlier real-space approaches in the introduction. |
41 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
* Reviewer 1 made a number of comments about the inclusion of the TSF |
43 |
|
|
method, when the SP and GSF methods do a much better job at |
44 |
|
|
reproducing energy constants. We have added a discussion of why TSF |
45 |
|
|
was included on page 23 of the manuscript. The basic reason is that |
46 |
|
|
the structure of the orientational / radial contributions would not |
47 |
|
|
have been made clear without the Taylor-series approach, and the |
48 |
|
|
performance of TSF relative to other methods (hard cutoff, reaction |
49 |
|
|
field) is actually quite good. It is only in comparison with GSF |
50 |
|
|
and SP that it does not look quite as good. TSF also generates |
51 |
|
|
electrostatic kernels with multiple vanishing derivatives, and this |
52 |
|
|
property has proven useful in computing dielectric properties in the |
53 |
|
|
past. |
54 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
* All of the typographical errors mentioned by both reviewers have |
56 |
|
|
been fixed. |
57 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
* A reference to the supplemental material has been added as reference 38. |
59 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
We hope that we have answered all reviewer concerns with these |
61 |
|
|
changes, and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in |
62 |
|
|
this form. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached via |
63 |
|
|
email at: gezelter@nd.edu, or by phone at (574) 631-7595. |