Some issues remain though, as enlisted below:

1) The word “transversal” should be replaced by “transverse” all through the manuscript. 2) While the abstract has seen some change, it is still unclear. The word “peculiar” could be replaced with “strange”; “recently proven” should be changed to “recently proved”. I suggest an overall rewrite of the abstract. 3) It will be advisable to mention in the manuscript itself that the form of the dipolar potential used is an approximation and then indicate what the exact form should be. Then add a line or two to suggest what could be done to address the exact for, and why the present approximate form still gives a qualitatively good understanding of the problem. 4) What happens for the limiting case a->1? What physical realisation does it lead to? The author could simply solve Eq. (4) for the case a->1 to get this answer. 5) Eq. (2) does not have parts (a) and (b) as have been referred to in the manuscript. In a latex script, the “subequations” environment can be used to generate Eq. (2a) and Eq. (2b) from the present Eq. (2).

The article can be accepted after making these changes. Further review is not deemed necessary.