A careful analysis of certain observations concerning the polaron nature of current carriers in rutile is presented. The criticism of our paper [l] given in [2] is shown to be unfounded.KpuTasecmx a a n i e r a~~f i , Some arguments confirming the polaron nature of current carriers in rutile were given in [l]. I n the two first sections of his paper Klinger [2] enumerates the well-known results of small polaron theory. I n Section 3 (see items 1' to 5') he criticizes the analysis of experimental data on rutile given in [l].We shall prove in this paper that all arguments given in 1' to 5' of [2] are misleading and do not invalidate our conclusions obtained in [l].1.' I n 1' one may read that "at T = const, a('P)(w) N (T N Ni (1 -K ) as well as a@p)(w) IV 0'' l ) , where d i p ) is the absorption coefficient for polarons localized on impurity ions, d S p ) the absorption coefficient for free polarons, Ni the impurity concentration, K the compensation degree, and (T the dc conductivity. It means that free carrier absorption and absorption due t o nonionized impurities are both proportional to (T, and if one takes G to be a measure of concentration it is impossible to distinguish between them a t T = const. Separation of these both types of absorption can be achieved in particular by taking into account their different T-dependence. On page 484 in [2] Klinger also mentions about this possibility. It is very strange indeed that he did not notice that precisely this simple method was used in [l], where it was shown that G ( O ) increases with increasing T (whereas diP)(w) should decrease with increasing T). The simultaneous increase of cr and a(w) with T for 300 O K < T < 600 OK in samples with deeper donor levels is shown in our recent papers [3].2'. I n 2 we read that "for the SP Seebeck coefficient in" pure "samples, y@P) = const should be observed a t T > T, ( 5 100 OK), while the experiment shows this rather a t T 2 300 OK". Herewith Klinger refers to papers [4] to [7].We reproduce Fig. 6 from [7] which clearly shows that y in rutile is independent of T till T = 70 to 100 OK (cf. Fig. 1). Thus the T-dependence of y is just the same as it should be in Klinger's opinion for small polarons.
1)The original text quoted from [2] is put in inverted commas.