[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Tensor Correlations Measured in 3He(e,e′ pp)n

[Reinhard Schumacher]

Hi Larry, Hovannes, and Jean-Marc,
   
Your draft paper on \"Tensor Correlations Measured in 3He...\" was a
pleasure to read: quite clear for the non-specialist and interesting.
The first pages are, however, easier to digest that the last parts.  I
recommend that you introduce the notion of \"tensor correlations\" in
the introductory paragraphs, and explain the physics issue related to
them with the same clarity as you discuss the other generalities.  The
non-specialist reader will need this if he is expected to keep reading
the technical parts.  I don\'t have the feeling that it will be a
shoo-in at PRL, but it is worth a try.

My comments are given in order of the text:

Page 2, column 1 bottom: your use of the word \"quasielastic\" may be
problematical here.  In both the last line of the text and in the
caption, you specify what is, in fact, the ELASTIC (not quasielastic)
kinematics.  I would omit the \"quasi-\" qualifier and just say the
relationships given specify the elastic kinematics..

Page 2, column 2, paragraph 1 last line, and paragraph 2, line 5: You
use the word \"cut\" very many times in this paper, without
discriminating two senses of the word.  When asked, most people
construe a \"cut\" on data as a *rejection* of a certain class of
events.  On the other hand, sometimes you use the word in the sense of
*selection* of a set of events.  In the indicated places, you use it
in the *selection* sense.  With a little effort, you can clarify the
narrative by replacing the word \"cut\" with a more descriptive phrase,
such as \"selections\" or \"cut to select\", etc.  This would improve
readability.

Page 3 Fig 3 caption:  the last sentence in the caption is redundant
with the last sentence in the preceding paragraph.  I would say it
only once. 

Page 3, column 2, paragraph 3:  The discussion of the calculation by
Laget is weakened by the fact that the calculation is not shown in
this paper.  It renders the paper a little off kilter.  Can you not
add curves from his calculation?

Page 4, column 1, paragraph 2: You make several *key* assertions here
that the non-expert cannot possibly know about without diving into the
literature. How and why is it known that the pp pairs at low p_tot
have a minimum in relative momentum that the pn pairs do not? Exactly
how is it that the tensor interaction brings this about?  I would
invest a few sentences here to spell this out in some detail, since it
is a key step in arriving at your main scientific conclusion.  The
paper would be stronger if you explain this better.

That is all for now.
Good luck...

Reinhard.