Response to “Comment on ‘Third order susceptibilities in supercooled liquids and the “box model” theory versus experiments’” [J. Chem. Phys. 140, 247101 (2014)]

R. M. Pick (1)

1 IMPMC - Institut de minéralogie, de physique des matériaux et de cosmochimie

In the preceding Comment,1 on a paper2 recently publishedin The Journal of Chemical Physics, Samanta et al. analyzedDielectric Hole Burning very precise data obtained onPropylene Carbonate (PC) at 166 K. In this new experiment,they first applied during 8 periods a 500 Hz, sinusoidal, electricfield of 56.4 kV/cm. They then suddenly increased its amplitudeby a factor 5 (282 kV/cm) and recorded in both cases,the electric field, E(t), across the sample and the induced currentdensity, j(t). Following a suggestion made in Ref. 2, theyanalyzed those two quantities with the help ofR(t) − iI(t) =−2iTt+TtS(t) exp(iωt)dt, (1)T being the period of the electric field, and computed, for eachtime, and for each S(t), ϕ(t) = arctan(I(t)/R(t)), from wherethey deduced tan (δ(t)) = tan (π/2 − ϕE(t) + ϕj(t)). The resultof their analysis is reported on their Fig. 1 under the form(t) = (tan (δ(t)) − tan (δ(−T)))/tan (δ(−T)), where t = 0 isthe time when the amplitude of the electric field is multipliedby 5.

Domaines: Physique [physics]

R. M. Pick. Response to “Comment on ‘Third order susceptibilities in supercooled liquids and the “box model” theory versus experiments’” [J. Chem. Phys. 140, 247101 (2014)]. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 2: Molecular and Chemical Physics, 2014, 140 (24), pp.247102. ⟨10.1063/1.4885372⟩. ⟨hal-01087470⟩