Response to "comment on 'analysis of asymmetric giant magnetoimpedance in field-annealed Co-based amorphous ribbon'"

In a Comment [D. X. Chen, L. Pascual, and A. Hernando, Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 1727 (2000)] on our recent letter [C. G. Kim, K. J. Jang, D. Y. Kim, and S. S. Yoon, Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 2114 (1999); 76, 1345 (2000)] Chen et al. claimed that the unidirectional anisotropy due to bias field is unphysical one for the description of asymmetric giant magnetoimpedance (GMI) profiles. The symmetric two peaks of GMI profiles measured in the normal sample with an uniaxial anisotropy, allow one to take the minimum energy condition which assumes a jump of magnetization under the field from a metastable state to a stable one. However, the divergence in a calculated GMI profile should appear even in case of a uniaxial anisotropy of normal sample where there is no jump. Divergence indicates the asymmetry and hysteresis in GMI profile. The analysis of this calculation in Chen et al.'s Comment is simply a matter of hysteresis in GMI profile for the increasing and decreasing field, even in a normal sample with uniaxial anisotropy. Even though the hysteresis is ignored by taking the minimum energy condition, the asymmetric profiles with the negligible hysteresis are well ascribed by the model with two kinds of anisotropy fields, as proposed in our previous letter [C. G. Kim, K. J. Jang, D. Y. Kim, and S. S. Yoon, Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 2114 (1999); 76, 1345 (2000)]. In this model the bias field is quite physical, and is based on the observed experimental results in a specially prepared sample.