SciPost Submission Page
Highlights of the results from the GRAPES-3 experiment
by Hariharan Balakrishnan, S. Ahmad, M. Chakraborty, S.R. Dugad, U.D. Goswami, S.K. Gupta, Y. Hayashi, P. Jagadeesan, A. Jain, P. Jain, S. Kawakami, H. Kojima, S. Mahapatra, P.K. Mohanty, R. Moharana, Y. Muraki, P.K. Nayak, T. Nonaka, A. Oshima, D. Pattanaik, B.P. Pant, M. Rameez, K. Ramesh, L.V. Reddy, S. Shibata, F. Varsi, M. Zuberi
|Authors (as Contributors):||Hariharan Balakrishnan · Fahim Varsi|
|Date submitted:||2022-10-10 09:25|
|Submitted by:||Balakrishnan, Hariharan|
|Submitted to:||SciPost Physics Proceedings|
|Proceedings issue:||21st International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions (ISVHECRI 2022)|
The GRAPES-3 experiment is a unique, extensive air shower experiment consisting of 400 scintillator detectors spread over 25000 m2 and a 560 m2 muon telescope. The experiment located at Ooty, India, has been collecting data for the past two decades. The unique capabilities of GRAPES-3 have allowed the study of cosmic rays over energies from a few TeV to tens of PeV and beyond. The measurement of the directional flux of muons (Eµ ≥1 GeV) by the large muon telescope permits an excellent gamma-hadron separation, which then becomes a powerful tool in the study of multi-TeV gamma-ray sources and the composition of primary cosmic rays. However, the high precision measurements also enable studies of transient atmospheric and interplanetary phenomena such as those produced by thunderstorms and geomagnetic storms. This paper presents some exciting new and recent results, including updates on various ongoing analyses.
For Journal SciPost Physics Proceedings: Publish
(status: Editorial decision fixed and (if required) accepted by authors)
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
1) Comment: "The quality and description of the experiment are outstanding, and the work deserves publication. However, the authors must improve the English of the manuscript to get a more quality paper. I strongly suggest a native English speaker or Angloparlant must review the manuscript. I gave some suggestions (in red) in the attached pdf file. This file also includes my suggestions and comments in blue."
Reply: We thank the referee for the critical comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. All the suggestions and comments are implemented. It was also reviewed and corrected by a native English speaker.
2) Comment: "The only significant comment is on the angular resolution issue. The authors compare it with other successful experiments. In some sentences, they said it is better, and in another sentence, they commented it is comparable. The authors must choose the right one. If the angular resolution is better, the issue must be clarified and described in more detail. In case of comparison, values of other experiments are needed to add for contrast. However, for all comparisons, the angular resolution value of all experiments must be mentioned and concluded after contrasting them."
Reply: We thank the referee for bringing this critical suggestion. We rephrased the sentences and added other experiments' values. Furthermore, we added references to other experiments' work. We would also like to clarify that there are two different results from GRAPES-3 on angular resolution discussed, namely (i) Section 3.3.1 [V.B. Jhansi et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle
Physics 07, 024 (2020)] and (ii) Section 3.3.2 [D. Pattanaik et al., Phys. Rev. D 106, 022009 (2022)]. Thus, the quoted values have small differences, but within error.
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page