I thank you very much for the improvements of your paper; I think that you have responded well to the comments of the reviewers and (as you see) both reviewers are now satisfied with your paper and with your response.

However I still have a few remaining points. In your response, at the bottom of page 2 you present an equation that I do not understand. As far as I can see, the first two terms of the equation do not have the same units. Further, in equation (9), you write an equation which is not a mathematical identity. Is there an approximation involved here? In the sentence below you refer to Delta H -- is this considered the same quantity as dH in Eq. (9)?

I would ask you to clarify these points.

Regards

Rolf Müller

P.S. I apologize for the fact that the review process of your paper has taken some time

To derive the identity DH = -1/dH * H^2 in your reply, you make the
assumption that from H = 1/K it follows that dH = 1/dK. However, I
cannot agree here. I would argue that from H = 1/K one obtains

dH = - 1/K^2 dK

This is what one obtains if one takes H and K as a function of a variable
x and then H = 1/K is differentiated using the chain rule.

Further, following the reasoning in your reply one could also derive
the alternative form of Equation 9:

d^2H = - H^2

which is again no mathematical identity.

In any event moving from dH to Delta H involves an approximation which
probably should be briefly mentioned.

I apologise for being so stubborn here, but I really do not think the
mathematics is okay here. Please reconsider this derivation again.

Cogratulations to a very nice paper