Reply to comment on “An alternate physical explanation of the Hall–Petch relation”

The three questions posed by Wert, regarding the assumptions made in the derivation of the model proposed by the authors, are addressed. The low dependence of the Hall–Petch slope upon temperature supports the averaging approach used by the authors in the original paper. The effect of in-grain dislocations is not considered, because it is outside the assumptions of the proposed model. The effect of grain boundary defects is acknowledged, but based on experimental evidence not considered significant. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]