Dear Paul:

I am working my way through the revised manuscript.  Here are comments as they 
occur to me:

p. 13, last sentence, which compares the poleward edge of DPY currents with the
poleward boundary of backscatter in Nipawin beam #1: there is some discrepancy 
between Figs. 5a and 5b.  E.g., around 2000 the DPY poleward edge is stable and
nearest to BA in Fig. 5b while in Fig. 5a the poleward limit of backscatter 
ranges from about 680 km (near BA) to 900 km (beyond CH).  The time resolution 
of the MARIA estimate of DPY poleward edge is less than the duration of the
backscatter excursion; why doesn't the DPY boundary reflect the motion?  (This
comment started out to express concern over the discrepancy in range of the two
boundaries prior to 1930, when DPS is 1100 km from Nipawin and backscatter stops
at 950 km, but I'm guessing that the coarseness of the MARIA grid is the cause.
However, this can't explain the situation around 2000 UT.)

p. 16, 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph: you might want to revise a few words to
say " ... riometer time record than _would be the case for_ a softer 
precipitation band ... "

Fig. 12: two points; (1) the 180 deg phase change is located almost a degree 
equatorward of the peak power at 2 mHz, whereas I would have thought that the
phase change ought to occur right at the location of peak power; (2) the peak
spectral power in beam #11 (Fig. 12) occurs between 66.7 and 67.8 PGMLat, 
whereas Fig. 11 shows that the peak backscatter power in the neighbouring beam, 
irrespective of spectral content, occurs between 66 and 67 PGMLat during the 
2000 - 2100 UT interval.  Am I comparing apples and oranges in comparing 
spectral power and backscatter power?  

p. 19, 1st line: The reference for Banks et al. (1984) is not in the reference
list, but in case you don't have it handy, here it is:

Banks, P. M., T. Araki, C. R. Clauer, J. P. St. Maurice, and J. C. Foster, The
     interplanetary electric field, cleft currents, and plasma convection in 
     the polar caps, Planet. Space Sci., 32, 1551-1557, 1984.

p. 20, 2nd line: "[Stauning et al.] ... found a good agreement with calculated
values." - whose calculated values?  Yours?  Theirs?  I guess I could go and
read the paper but perhaps you could clarify this a bit.  (As I read on I 
inferred that Stauning et al. calculated theoretical delays between IMF 
observations at IMP 8 and ground magnetometer observations, and found their 
observations matched their own calculations.  I still think clarification would
be worthwhile.)

p. 22, 1st line of section 3.8: there is no reference for Rodger et al. (1993).
Should there be, or is this 1994a or 1994b?

p. 23, 2nd sentence of last paragraph: Do you mean to say that [IMF] By lead 
BARS power by ~5 min or more, rather than "lagged"?  The discussion in the rest
of the paragraph only makes sense to me if By changes precede flow bursts.

referee #2, comment #60: As I mentioned in an e-mail to you on October 30/95, I
disagree with your identification of the patches observed at Eureka.  The images
in Fig. 17 show a distinct NW - SE orientation to the patches, at least from J
on.  While the orientation of patch G probably would allow it to pass over
Eureka within 2-3 min of being overhead at Resolute, and just maybe patch H 
could make it too, there is no way that patches J and following could extend 
from Resolute to Eureka having the observed orientation.  I recommend that you
change the identifications of the patches at Eureka as follows:

old label:        J  K  L  M
new label:        I  J  K  L

p. 31, line 7: either " ... field lines _whose_ ionospheric footprint ... " or
" ... field lines the ionospheric footprint _of which_ they were studying ... "

P. 32, last paragraph, line 7: Berchem and Russell, 1984 is not in the 
reference list; the correct reference is 

Berchem, J, and C. T. Russell, Flux transfer events on the magnetopause: 
spatial distribution and controlling factors; _J. Geophys. Res._, _89_, 
6689-6703, 1984.

p. 35, 1st pragraph, last sentence: I don't understand this sentence, as it
appears to me to say that "elevated plasma temperatures" would increase the 
ionization density ratio between patch and trough.  I think you mean that the
"depleted plasma densities in the trough" increase the ratio, but this isn't
what the words say.

p. 35, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: " ... link between the poleward 
progressing DPY currents" and what?  What link are you referring to?

p. 45: The correct reference is 

Steele, D. P., and L. L. Cogger, Polar patches and the "tongue of ionization",
     Radio Science, in press, 1996.
     
Sorry to take so long getting these to you.  I hope they are in time to be
useful.  If it doesn't take too much work to change the labels on Fig. 17 I
recommend that you do it because the patch orientation as seen in the images
argues pretty strongly against the last few patches being seen "simultaneously"
at Resolute and Eureka.  There had to be a few-minute delay between the 
Resolute zenith passage and that at Eureka.  I wouldn't want this (admittedly 
trivial) discrepancy to cast doubt by implication on the much more important 
results of the paper.

Best regards, and good luck.  Sorry I can't offer any help with ref. 2, #9,
except to say that it sounds like a legitimate subject for another paper to me.

Dave