SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Measurement for p–3He elastic scattering with a 65 MeV polarized proton beam

by S. Nakai, K. Sekiguchi, K. Miki, A. Watanabe, S. Shibuya, M. Watanabe, K. Kawahara, D. Sakai, Y. Wada, H. Umetsu, M. Itoh, K. Hatanaka, A. Tamii, N. Kobayashi, A. Inoue, S. Nakamura, T. Wakasa, S. Mitsumoto, H. Ohshiro, S. Goto, Y. Maeda and H. Sakai

This is not the latest submitted version.

This Submission thread is now published as SciPost Phys. Proc. 3, 019 (2020)

Submission summary

As Contributors: Shinnosuke Nakai
Preprint link: scipost_201911_00001v1
Date submitted: 2019-11-01 01:00
Submitted by: Nakai, Shinnosuke
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: 24th European Few Body Conference (University of Surrey, U.K.)
Academic field: Physics
  • Nuclear Physics - Experiment
Approach: Experimental


We measured the cross section and the proton analyzing power Ay for p–3He elastic scattering at the angles θ = 26.9◦–170.1◦ in the center of mass system with a 65 MeV polarized proton beam. We compared the data with the rigorous numerical calculations based on the various nucleon–nucleon potentials. For the cross section, clear discrepancy is seen at the angles where the cross section takes minimum. For the proton analyzing power Ay, the calculations have moderate agreements to the data. In this proceedings, we show only the experimental results.

Current status:
Has been resubmitted

Submission & Refereeing History

Published as SciPost Phys. Proc. 3, 019 (2020)

Resubmission scipost_201911_00001v5 on 14 January 2020

Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 1 on 2019-12-1 (Invited Report)

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_201911_00001v1, delivered 2019-12-01, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1352


The proceedings reports on recent measurement with a polarized proton beam and a He3 target. The data are very important for validation of the recently developed calculations for four-nucleon systems.
The paper is written quite clearly, but it would be more valuable if the authors draw also calculations together with the experimental data.
I have put my suggestions and remarks in "requested changes".

Requested changes

1- abstract:
"moderate agreements to the data"
change to:
"moderate agreements with the data"
2- section 2.2:
"The polarizations of the beam were measured by using.."
change to:
"The beam polarizations were measured using .."
3- section 2.2:
"The polarimetry was made ..."
"The polarimetry has been performed ..."
4- "In order to calibrate the absolute value of the cross section for p–3 He elastic scattering, we
measured p–p elastic scattering using the same experimental setup."
can you write something more about the p-p measurement (what target, how do you perform the data normalization),
5- section 2.2:
"The typical beam polarizations during the
experiment were 45–55 %."
polarizations - you mean states +/- 1/2 ?
6- section 3:
"Particle identification was made by using.." change to:
Particle identification has been performed using ...
7- section 3:
"The obtained data are compared..."
change to:
"The obtained data will be compared ..."
8- section 3:
"CD-Bonn [10] and the conbination of CD-Bonn and the degree of freedom of the ∆-isober"
change to:
"CD-Bonn [10] and the CD-Bonn potential with the ∆-isobar degree of freedom included"
9- section 3:
" We show only the
experimental results in this conference proceedings. "
change to:
"In this conference proceedings we present only the
experimental results."
10- section 3:
"For the cross section, clear discrepancy is found at the angles ..." - if you write such sentence then you should also draw theoretical calculations ...
11- Summary:
"using a 65 MeV polarized proton beam"
-> using the 65 MeV polarized proton beam
12- Summary:
" The experimental data are compared with the theoretical calculations" ->
The experimental data will be compared with the theoretical calculations."

  • validity: high
  • significance: high
  • originality: high
  • clarity: good
  • formatting: good
  • grammar: reasonable

Author:  Shinnosuke Nakai  on 2020-01-14  [id 707]

(in reply to Report 1 on 2019-12-01)

I apologize for my late response. Thank you for the referee comments.
I fixed my conference proceedings and re-submitted it.

Login to report or comment