Response to ``Comment on `Frequency-domain stimulated and spontaneous light emission signals at molecular junctions''' J. Chem. Phys. 142, 137101 (2015)]

In a recent work [U. Harbola, B. K. Agrawalla, and S. Mukamel, J. Chem. Phys. 141, 074107 (2014)], we have presented a superoperator (Liouville space) diagrammatic formulation of spontaneous and stimulated optical signals from current-carrying molecular junctions. We computed the diagrams that contribute to the spontaneous light emission SLE (fluorescence and Raman) signal using a diagrammatic method which clearly distinguishes between the Raman and the fluorescence contributions. We pointed out some discrepancies with the work of Galperin, Ratner and Nitzan (GRN) [M. Galperin, M. A. Ratner and, A. Nitzan, J. Chem. Phys. 130, 144109 (2009)]. In their response [M. Galperin, M. A. Ratner and A. Nitzan, “Comment on‘ Frequency-domain stimulated and spontaneous light emission signals at molecular junctions’” [J. Chem. Phys. 141, 074107 (2014)], J. Chem. Phys. 142, 137101 (2015)] to our work, GRN have argued that there are no differences in the choice of Raman diagrams in both works. Here we reply to their points and show where the differences exist.

Seismotectonics of the April-May 2015 Nepal earthquakes: An assessment based on the aftershock patterns, surface effects and deformational characteristics

Occurrence of the April 25, 2015 (Mw 7.8) earthquake near Gorkha, central Nepal, and another one that followed on May 12 (Mw 7.3), located similar to 140 km to its east, provides an exceptional opportunity to understand some new facets of Himalayan earthquakes. Here we attempt to assess the seismotectonics of these earthquakes based on the deformational field generated by these events, along with the spatial and temporal characteristics of their aftershocks. When integrated with some of the post-earthquake field observations, including the localization of damage and surface deformation, it became obvious that although the mainshock slip was mostly limited to the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT), the rupture did not propagate to the Main Frontal Thrust (MFT). Field evidence, supported by the available InSAR imagery of the deformation field, suggests that a component of slip could have emerged through a previously identified out-of-sequence thrust/active thrust in the region that parallels the Main Central Thrust (MCT), known in the literature as a co-linear physiographic transitional zone called PT2. Termination of the first rupture, triggering of the second large earthquake, and distribution of aftershocks are also spatially constrained by the eastern extremity of PT2. Mechanism of the 2015 sequence demonstrates that the out-of-sequence thrusts may accommodate part of the slip, an aspect that needs to be considered in the current understanding of the mechanism of earthquakes originating on the MHT. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Reply to Discussion on ``Bearing capacity of circular footings over rock mass by using axisymmetric quasi lower bound finite element limit analysis'' Comput. Geotech. 70 (2015) 138-149]

A discussion has been provided for the comments raised by the discusser (Clausen, 2015)1] on the article recently published by the authors (Chakraborty and Kumar, 2015). The effect of exponent alpha for values of GSI approximately smaller than 30 becomes more critical. On the other hand, for greater values of GSI, the results obtained by the authors earlier remain primarily independent of alpha and can be easily used. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.