Dear Editor, 

we thank the referee for her/his comments. Below we list in detail our
response to the individual points and indicate how we have modified
the text. There is one point which we aren't quite sure how to deal
with. The NuTeV collaboration had the wrong numbers for the fiducial
volume of their detector in a hep-ex arXiv paper we used. They
mistakenly put in the half-width instead of the full width, and also
the incorrect length . We therefore used a too small detector in the
initial analysis we presented. In the published (PRL) version of their
paper they have corrected this error and kindly notified us directly.
We have rerun our program with the correct numbers and modified the
paper accordingly. The qualitative conclusions are unchanged, although
the prediction for NOMAD has changed somewhat. Our question is now
whether it is appropriate to put in a "Note Added", or to just put in
a footnote where we indicate the detector dimensions. We have chosen
the latter, since in the published version nobody will be interested
in that old incorrect version. When the paper has been accepted we
will modify the arXiv version. Please let us know if you agree with
this choice.


The detailed responses to the comments of the referee are:

1. 
Referee: "On page 3, first paragraph, last sentence: the phrase
"significantly longer lifetimes" is misleading since a few lines
earlier the word "lifetime" only appears in the context of cosmological
arguments. Therefore refering to cosmological limits, the
fixed-target experiments with remote detectors can probe significantly
shorter lifetimes."

Authors: We have changed the text to indicate "significantly longer
lifetimes than at collider experiments".


2.  
Referee: "The equation 4 and figure 1 apparently are not consistent:
none of the diagrams shown has an anti-neutrino in the final state. A
clarifying statement is in order."

Authors: In Eq.4 we have eliminated the two decay modes involving
the anti-neuitrinos and have indicated that the neutralino
can decay to the complex conjugate final state as well, since it is
a Majorana spinor.

3.
Referee: "Chapter 2, point 2, the last sentence is unclear; which
anomaly is referred to?"

Authors: We have rewritten the sentence saying that a related mechanism was
discussed in the context of the Karmen time anomaly.

4.
Referee: "page 19, first sentence: "We would now like to estimate the
event rate for OUR model." Which model: the authors' model of R-parity
violating neutralino production and decay, or rather "a special" case
(as called on the previous page) of an alternative model of a heavy
neutral lepton which is discussed in this chapter?"

Authors: We have specified that it is the NHL model discussed in the previous
paragraph.

***********************************************************************

Additionally the following changes have been made: We have changed the
fiducial volume of the NuTeV detector since NuTeV had published
incorrect numbers in their hep-ex arXiv version, as indicated
above. This modifies Figures 4, 5 and 6. The curves in Fig.4 and 5 are
shifted upward. The curves in Fig. 6 are shifted down and to the left.
This also modifies the ratio of expected events at NOMAD and NuTeV,
leading to a slightly LOWER prediction at NOMAD. We expect NOMAD to
have 3.4 times as many events as NuTeV. This should still be fully
testable. We have thus not modified our conclusions.


Sincerely,

Athanasios Dedes
Herbi Dreiner
Peter Richardson