Response to "Comment on 'Sliding planar conjoined cut-wire-pairs: A novel approach for splitting and controlling the absorption spectra'" [J. Appl. Phys. 128, 126101 (2020)]

Karacan N., EKMEKÇİ E., SAYAN G.

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS, vol.128, no.12, 2020 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Editorial Material
  • Volume: 128 Issue: 12
  • Publication Date: 2020
  • Doi Number: 10.1063/5.0018386
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Aerospace Database, Applied Science & Technology Source, Compendex, Computer & Applied Sciences, INSPEC, zbMATH
  • Middle East Technical University Affiliated: Yes


In the Comment by S. C. Bakshi and D. Mitra [J. Appl. Phys. 128, 126101 (2020)], it is claimed that "cross-polarization reflection was ignored in calculation of absorptivity of that structure," "the actual absorptivity of the new peaks [is] extremely poor (around 40%)," and hence the vertical sliding mechanism of conjoined cut-wire-pairs (CCWPs) "can't be adopted for efficient switching/tuning of the absorption spectra." In this Response, we will demonstrate that these claims are not only unfair but also incorrect as they result from an unfortunate fundamental mistake they made in the attempt of replicating the effective free-space absorber array topology implied in the original article [J. Appl. Phys. 124, 105103 (2018)]. The use of "CCWP unit-cell within a metallic waveguide" scenario in the original work implies the realization of an infinitely large periodic array of a "super-cell," whose structure is determined by the well-known mirror image effect of the perfect electrical conductor type boundary condition imposed by the conducting walls of the waveguide. When this fact is ignored, but instead the free-space array is formed by simply repeating the same asymmetric CCWP unit-cell periodically, a completely different absorber array topology is obtained, which is clearly irrelevant to the original design. Therefore, the results reported in the Comment belong to an alternative absorber array; they do not represent the performance of the original design. In this Response, we will clarify our points outlined above to refute the claims made in the Comment to demonstrate the validity of the original results and the usefulness of the suggested absorber array for practical purposes.