Dear authors,

Thank you for your revisions and careful replies to the comments. The reviewers considered the manuscript acceptable after minor revisions. I agree with their assessment and, overall, I am satisfied with the changes. However, I have a number of additional points which are mainly targeted at improving the readability of the manuscript. The paper is still rather difficult to read, mainly because methods and experiments are not always clearly motivated. The motivation sometimes comes later with the results and discussion, but it should not be necessary to read the manuscript twice to understand it.

Please submit an updated version of the manuscript considering these points (separate PDF) and include a brief response, especially for points where you disagree with my suggestion (or where there was a misunderstanding).

Best regards
Dominik Brunner

Dear authors,

It is my pleasure to let you know that I consider your manuscript acceptable for publication in its present form. Thank you for the careful replies and amendments. "Gut Ding will Weile haben". Congratulations!

I only have the following tiny technical corrections:
- page 2, line 4: "between" doesn't seem the right word here, probably it should be "in"
- page 4, line 25: change to "solely served to characterize"
- page 27, line 17: Change to"Cavity pressure estimated based on the external pressure sensor was lower than during the experiment with stable water vapor levels and at the same time inconsistent around the pressure bend position ..."

Best wishes
Dominik Brunner