We have examined Referee's C comments and we have changed our manuscript to reflect these changes.
Since the refereeing procedure followed for our paper was somewhat unorthodox
which delayed the acceptable of our paper significantly,
we would greatly appreciate your expedient desicion about our paper.

1. Referee C seems to be satisfied with the accuracy of our method
as far as finite-size effects and he agrees that given a microscopic
Hamiltonian our method can give accurate results about the
thermodynamic properties of the system characterized by this Hamiltonian.
Therefore, our method can be used to test the correctness of 
the assumed Hamiltonian. Our main calculations have been done
with the best known microscopic Hamiltonian which describes the
helium-helium interaction (Aziz potential) which describes 
both the gas as well as the condensed phases of helium very 
accurately. The referee knows that and poses no objection to
this part of the Hamiltonian. The part of the hamiltonian which 
describes the helium-graphite interaction which is  derived by 
Carlos and Cole is, to the best of our knowledge, the  most 
reliable interaction to describe experimental results, such as
chemical potential of helium adsorbed on graphite, etc.

2. It is true that our results might indicate that
the corrugation potential might require some modification
because we find that the melting of the commensurate solid
and solid clusters occurs at somewhat higher temperature 
than the experimental values. However, any simple modification
to account for this rather small difference 
has to be done carefully because the interaction is designed to
fit a number of other properties of the helium atom and graphite system.
Eventhough this was stated in the our original paper
we have attempted to further stress that following Referee's C suggestion.


3. One can think of a number of other perturbations
which have been ignored. One of these is the triple-dipole 
three-helium atom interaction. Other effects which have
been ignored are the zero point motion of the
graphite atoms.  In particular
the one term which was considered by Gottlieb and Bruch 
was the modification of the helium-helium interaction due to 
the presense of the graphite. We have included that interaction 
and our results and our conclusions are not altered.
It is true that at the low density of $0.0212 atims/\AA^2$ which is
near the energy minimum found that Gottlieb and Bruch we see no
well defined clusters but the energy of the system is higher than
that  of the commensurate solid. The referee wants us to explain why this
is so. This is clearly becuase of the energy cost to create the
interface between the solid cluster and the vapor (vacancies).
When the ratio of the surface atoms to volume atoms in a cluster is small
there is a large energy cost  to form an interface
between a cluster and isolated helium atoms on the graphite surface.
This surface energy is negligible compare to the volume energy in the
thermodynamic limit. Thus in a small size system the interface might
or might be formed (depending on which of the two is energetically 
less costly) but in both cases the energy of the system will be higher
indicating that the system is unstable against phase separation
into a solid cluster (which has lower energy) and vapors.
We have tried to explain this point in the paper also to 
satisfy Referee's C concerns.






