Reply on the comment on the paper "Superconducting transition in Nb nanowires fabricated using focused ion beam"
G. C. Tettamanzi, A. Potenza, S. Rubanov, C. H. Marrows and, S. Prawer

TL;DR
This paper defends the original interpretation of superconducting transition data in Nb nanowires, reaffirming the applicability of QPS theory over alternative models after further analysis and experimental evidence.
Contribution
It provides a detailed response to critiques, reinforcing the validity of QPS theory in explaining superconducting transitions in FIB-fabricated Nb nanowires.
Findings
QPS theory remains valid for Nb nanowires
Experimental evidence supports original interpretation
Alternative proximity model is less consistent
Abstract
In this communication we present our response to the recent comment of A. Engel regarding our paper on FIB- fabricated Nb nanowires (see Vol. 20 (2009) Pag. 465302). After further analysis and additional experimental evidence, we conclude that our interpretation of the experimental results in light of QPS theory is still valid when compared with the alternative proximity-based model as proposed by A. Engel.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
