Dear Dr. Huang:

     The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referee(s).

     A critique drawn from the report(s) is enclosed.  On this basis,
we judge that the paper is not appropriate for Physical Review
Letters, but might be suitable for publication in another journal,
possibly with some revision.  Therefore, we recommend that you
submit your manuscript elsewhere.  In accordance with our standard
practice (see enclosed memo), this concludes our review of your
manuscript.

                             Sincerely yours,

                             Saad E. Hebboul
                             Assistant to the Editor
                             Physical Review Letters

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE:  LN7307                second report of Referee A

The revised version of the letter satisfactorily addresses the
point I raised on the first version and should be published in
its present form.
I just would like that the author receive the following note:
It's a bit surprising, at a first glance, that the trajectory
with smaller initial rotation makes a larger loop and viceversa
in figure 2a, although I cannot negate it in such a complex
system. The author should just check that it is indeed the case
(that there is not a mislabelling or similar) without the need
to comment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE:  LN7307                           Referee B

I would not object the publication of the content of the manuscript in
PRL, but NOT in the present form.

The author has a unique writing style which I find excessively colloquial.
Thus, 'It is' is written as It's. I appreciate his enthusiasm, but I never
read any body writing that his/her results are "amazing'. His description
of the response of Tanabe et al to the comments by Mahadevan et al is
quite inappropriate. What does he mean when he said "so and so
tried to defend the criticism by claimning "....."? The defense was an
honest and repspectable one and they do not deserve this kind of
down-grading remark. The author uses the format of using "we" although he
is the single author, a format that many of us use including myself.
But when he wishes to glorify himself, it changes to 'Notice that the
author.....'.

I would urge him to get some help from some one who writes frequently for
the APS jounrals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE:  LN7307                        Referee C

The author presented a method to calculate the motion of a solid particle
immersed in an incompressible fluid.  The interaction between a fluid and
particles has been the subject of active research.  And, Several
techniques, which are suitable for either (1) accurate solution of small
number of particles (e.g., finite element, finite volume or boundary
integral methods) or (2) many particle systems with phenomenological
interaction terms (e.g., by Tanaka's group and Herrmann's group), have
been developed.  In the case of small Reynolds number, Stokesian Dynamics
method by Brady and Bossis is also available.  The author should have
checked his method with one of these methods, explained how the present
method is different from them.  I cannot see how the present method is
drastically different, and (especially) advantageous for the problem than
those currently available.

I find that the application of the method to a curveball is amusing. But,
the findings alone are not substantial enough for publication in Phys.
Rev. Lett.