Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Reaction Rate Of p14N --> 15Ogamma Capture To All Bound States In Potential Cluster Model

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A potential cluster model can describe 14N(p,γ)15O capture to all six bound states, but only with five D-wave resonances and an excited-14N ground-state channel.

desk verdict Useful compilation of a cluster-model S-factor calculation, but the ground-state mechanism is a fit, not a prediction, and the abstract mis-states the D-wave claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05525 v1 pith:O4P7EDLF submitted 2019-08-15 nucl-th

Sergey Dubovichenko , Nataliya Burkova , Albert Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov , Bekmurza Beysenov This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 21.60.-n25.60.Tv26.35.+c
keywords nuclearastrophysics14N(pγ)15OastrophysicalS-factorpotentialclustermodelD-waveresonancesexcited14N*CNOcyclereactionrate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that the astrophysical $S$-factor of the $^{14}\mathrm{N}(p,\gamma)^{15}\mathrm{O}$ reaction—the bottleneck of the CNO cycle in stars—can be reproduced for capture to all six bound states of $^{15}\mathrm{O}$ inside a two-body potential cluster model. The authors argue that this works only under two structural assumptions: the five resonances that shape the cross section between 260 keV and 3.2 MeV are $D$ scattering waves rather than the $S$ waves most earlier analyses used, and the ground state of $^{15}\mathrm{O}$ is dominated by the $p\,^{14}\mathrm{N}^{*}$ channel with the $^{14}\mathrm{N}$ cluster excited to 5.6914 MeV. With those choices the calculated $S$-factors match the measured magnitudes and resonance shapes, the total $S$-factor is 1.82(4) keV·b at 30–100 keV, and the reaction rate across 0.01–10 T$_9$ is captured by a 16-parameter fit with $\chi^2 = 0.06$. If the argument is right, a single cluster description now covers all bound-state captures of a key stellar reaction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a set of Gaussian intercluster potentials with a point Coulomb term, one potential per partial wave $(2S+1)L_J$, with forbidden bound states fixed by Young-diagram classification to implement the Pauli principle. Scattering potentials are pinned to the energy and width of each resonance; bound-state potentials are pinned to binding energy and asymptotic constant. Two structural choices carry the argument: assigning all strong resonances to $D$ scattering waves so the narrow experimental widths are reproduced, and assigning the ground state to the $p\,^{14}\mathrm{N}^{*}$ channel with an excited $^{14}\mathrm{N}$ cluster, whose Gaussian potential is fixed by the zero-energy $S$-factor. Radiative capture cross sections for E1, M1 and E2 transitions are then computed from the relative-motion wave functions and summed into the total astrophysical $S$-factor and the reaction rate.

What would settle it

A phase-shift analysis of elastic p14N scattering that places the 260 keV or 987 keV resonance in an S wave would disprove the D-wave assignment; separately, a measurement or ab initio calculation showing that the 15O ground state has negligible overlap with the p-14N*(5.6914 MeV) configuration would remove the basis of the ground-state S-factor and of the total rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the previously unexplained ground-state capture in $^{14}\mathrm{N}(p,\gamma)^{15}\mathrm{O}$ and the resonance structure of the reaction both follow from two assignments within the potential cluster model. The resonances at 259.4 keV, 987 keV, 1.447 MeV, 2.187 MeV and 3.211 MeV are placed in $D$ scattering waves ($^{4}D_{1/2}$ and $^{2+4}D_{3/2}$), with the narrow 2.312 MeV $3/2^-$ level in a $^{4}F_{3/2}$ wave, because $S$-wave potentials cannot produce the observed narrow widths. The ground state is assigned to a $^{4}D_{1/2}$ bound state of the $p\,^{14}\mathrm{N}^{*}$ channel in which the $^{14}\mathrm{N}$ cluster carries its 5.6914 MeV excitation, rather than to the conventional $^{2+4}P_{1/2}$ $p\,^{14}\mathrm{N}$ configuration that overpredicts the $S$-factor by orders of magnitude. Under these assumptions the model describes the $S$-factor for capture to the ground and five excited states, gives a total $S$-factor of 1.82(4) keV·b in the 30–100 keV interval, and yields a reaction-rate parametrization over 0.01–10 T$_9$.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest link is the unverified claim that the 15O ground state is dominated by the p-14N* channel with 14N excited to 5.6914 MeV, whose Gaussian potential was fitted specifically to reproduce the measured S-factor at zero energy rather than determined by independent data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The commonly used S-wave assignment for the 260 keV and 987 keV resonances would be ruled out; the same resonance data are reproduced only with D-wave scattering potentials.
  • Ground-state capture no longer needs to be treated separately: the same potential-cluster machinery that handles the excited states produces the ground-state S-factor once the excited-14N channel is admitted.
  • The total S-factor at stellar energies is 1.82(4) keV·b for 30–100 keV, consistent with recent total measurements, and the total reaction rate is given by the 16-parameter fit with $\chi^2 = 0.06$ over 0.01–10 T9.
  • The narrow 2.312 MeV 3/2− resonance contributes only through an F wave and has negligible influence on the reaction rate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable corollary not pursued in the paper: if the 260 keV resonance is really 4D1/2, elastic p14N scattering phase shifts should show the corresponding l=2 behavior, which a dedicated phase-shift analysis could distinguish from the S-wave alternative.
  • If the excited-cluster picture of the ground state is correct, the 15O ground-state wave function should contain a measurable $p\,^{14}\mathrm{N}^{*}$(5.6914 MeV) component; one could look for that overlap in transfer or knockout reactions, or check it against ab initio many-body calculations.
  • The same strategy—admitting an excited cluster state of the core—might resolve similar ground-state S-factor puzzles in other radiative-capture reactions where simple cluster channels overpredict the cross section.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports modified potential cluster model calculations of the astrophysical S-factor and reaction rate for 14N(p,γ)15O capture to the ground state and five bound excited states of 15O. The central claims are that the measured S-factors for capture to the excited states can be described only if the resonances from 260 keV to 3.2 MeV are D scattering waves, and that the ground-state capture requires a p14N* channel with the 14N cluster excited to 5.6914 MeV. The paper also gives parametrized reaction rates for T9 from 0.01 to 10.

Significance. If the ground-state mechanism were supported by independent evidence, this would constitute a new potential-cluster description of all bound-state captures and provide an alternative reaction rate for the CNO-cycle bottleneck reaction. The manuscript is transparent about several limitations: it admits the absence of p14N elastic scattering phase-shift analysis, states that several bound-state potentials were refined to reproduce the low-energy S-factor data, and acknowledges that the 3rdES capture is not correctly described. These admissions are important because they directly affect the strength of the central claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.5.2, Table 15] The ground-state S-factor is not predicted but fitted: the p14N* potential parameters in Table 15 are explicitly "selected to best describe S-factor at zero energy" because no asymptotic constant is known for this channel. The reported S(0)=0.24 keV·b in Section 4.5.2 is therefore the target of the fit, not an independent result. No spectroscopic factor, transfer-reaction ANC, phase-shift analysis, or coupled-channel calculation is supplied to show that the 14N* (5.6914 MeV) component dominates the 15O ground state. This is a load-bearing circularity for the ground-state capture claim and for the total S-factor.
  2. [Abstract and §2.2/Table 1] The statement that "all five resonances are D scattering waves" is contradicted by the manuscript's own resonance list. The 2312 keV resonance has Jπ=3/2− and is assigned to the 4F3/2 wave in Table 1 (No. 10); Section 3.2 states that its width "can be described only at the assumption that it exists in the F wave." Since an F wave has odd L and negative parity, it is not a D wave. The abstract and Section 1 should be corrected to "D and F waves" or the claim should be limited to the five positive-parity resonances, and the total claim in the title and conclusion must be revised accordingly.
  3. [§3.2, Tables 2 and 6] Several bound-state potentials are adjusted to the same S-factor data they are then said to describe. The text states that the 1stES, 2ndES, 5thES, and 3rdES potentials were "refined to correctly describe" the experimental S-factor at low energies, and the GS p14N* potential is fitted to S(0). Consequently the agreement shown in Figs. 2–6 is partly imposed by construction and does not by itself validate the D-wave assignment. An independent constraint—for example a phase-shift analysis or measured ANCs for the relevant partial waves—is needed before the "only under assumption" claim in Section 4.5 can be maintained.
  4. [§4.4.2, Figs. 6a–6c] The manuscript admits that the 3rdES capture cannot be correctly described in either option: for the 2+4P3/2 wave "it is not possible to correctly describe behavior of the experimental S-factor," and for the 4F3/2 option the results at high energies "describe available experimental data noticeably worse than they did in previous cases." Since the title and conclusion claim capture to all bound states, this admitted failure directly limits the central claim and propagates into the total S-factor and reaction rate.
  5. [§5 (Reaction rate)] The reaction rate for 0.01–10 T9 uses S-factors evaluated at 10 and 20 keV by taking "the average calculated S-factor" from 30 keV. At the lowest temperatures the Gamow window lies near 10–20 keV, so this approximation can bias the rate, and yet no uncertainty estimate is given. The error budget and the χ2=0.06 quoted for the parametrization should be assessed with this approximation included.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "Quality new physical interpretation" appears to be a typo; it should read "Qualitatively new physical interpretation."
  2. [Introduction] The notation 2+4D3/2 is introduced briefly but a reader would benefit from a more explicit explanation of the spin-mixing notation, for example in a footnote defining the channel spin and total angular momentum couplings.
  3. [Table 17] Table 17 lists two sets of parameters but the columns are not labeled; the authors should specify which column corresponds to which fit (with and without the two lowest-temperature points).
  4. [Figures 9a and 9b] The figures are not consistently referenced in the text; Fig. 9b is introduced only implicitly, which makes it difficult for the reader to locate the 10–250 keV panel.
  5. [Eqs. (1)–(4)] The units in the S-factor and cross-section formulas are not stated systematically; please specify the units for each quantity in Eqs. (1)–(4) to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The ground-state capture 'prediction' is a fitted value: the p14N* potential (Table 15) is tuned to reproduce S(0), and the same fitted S-factor is then reported as confirmation of the new GS mechanism; excited-state potentials are also refined to the low-energy data they are said to describe.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.5.2 (Second option of calculations, capture to GS), paragraph preceding Table 15]
    "Since we could not find information on asymptotic constant in such GS, potential parameters were selected to best describe S-factor at zero energy, which is entirely determined by the E1 transitions from P scattering waves with zero potential from Table 1."

    The new p14N* ground-state mechanism has no independent constraint: no phase-shift analysis, ANC, or spectroscopic factor for this channel is supplied. The Gaussian potential of Table 15 is selected by requiring the computed S-factor at zero energy to match the target experimental value. The reported result, S(30 keV)=0.24 keV·b, is therefore the fitted input returned as a calculated prediction, and it enters the total S-factor and reaction rate. The mechanism's success is imposed by construction, not derived.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (two-body potentials for bound states), paragraph on the 2ndES potential]
    "The parameters of the 2ndES potential were also refined to correctly describe the magnitude of the experimental S-factor at the lowest energies of 150–200 keV."

    The bound-state potential is explicitly adjusted until the model reproduces the low-energy experimental S-factor. The same low-energy data are then shown as agreement in Fig. 3 and summarized as the model's S(0) value. Comparable adjustments are stated for the 1st, 3rd, and 5th excited states. These 'descriptions' are fittings of the target data, so they do not constitute independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central new result is the ground-state capture mechanism (p14N* with excited 14N at 5.6914 MeV). The only constraint listed for the Table 15 Gaussian potential is reproduction of the zero-energy S-factor, so the resulting S(0)=0.24 keV·b is a fit, not a prediction. The same fitted value is then used to build the total S-factor and reaction rate, making the headline GS claim circular by construction. The excited-state calculations are also partially circular: at least three bound-state potentials are said to be 'refined' to match the low-energy S-factor data that are later displayed as successful descriptions. The D-wave assignment of resonances is a model ansatz rather than a circular reduction, and the self-citations to the authors' prior work Ref. 7 for Table 15 simply document the same fitted potential. Because the central ground-state claim reduces to a fitted input, the circularity score is high, although not all parts of the paper are equally affected: some bound-state binding energies and ACs provide partial, independent constraints.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central calculation rests on dozens of potential parameters. Most are fit to binding energies, radii, and asymptotic constants, which are legitimate constraints; several, however, are explicitly refined to the S-factor data they later 'describe', and the ground-state channel is an invented configuration fitted to the same observable. This makes the ledger heavily weighted toward parameter fitting and ad hoc assumptions.

free parameters (9)
  • GS p14N* potential V0 = 134.246725 MeV
    Selected to best describe S-factor at zero energy (Section 4.5.2).
  • GS p14N* potential alpha = 0.09 fm^-2
    With V0, chosen to reproduce S(0); no independent constraint (Table 15).
  • 1stES 2S1/2 potential V0 = 4334.4066 MeV
    Refined to describe S-factor below the first resonance (Section 3.2).
  • 1stES 2S1/2 potential alpha = 10.0 fm^-2
    Refined with V0 to the S-factor data.
  • 4thES 4S3/2 potential V0 = 112.77365 MeV
    Fitted to binding energy, radius, AC, and low-energy S-factor behavior.
  • 4thES 2+4D3/2 potential V0 = 57.154022 MeV
    Alternative BS potential for 4thES, fitted to binding and AC, used in describing resonance capture.
  • 3rdES 2+4P3/2 potential V0 = 149.970703 MeV
    Refined to reproduce S-factor at 119-124 keV (Section 4.4.2).
  • 5thES 2+4D5/2 potential V0 = 342.1775 MeV
    Refined to reproduce S-factor at 300-500 keV.
  • Scattering resonance potentials in Table 1 = Ten rows of (V0, alpha)
    Each V0 and alpha is fit to individual resonance energy and width; no scattering phase-shift data are available for p14N.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Single-channel two-body cluster model with 100% clusterization of 15O in the p14N channel
    Assumed for all bound states; the paper admits it is an obvious idealization (Section 1.1).
  • domain assumption Young diagram classification of orbital states for A=15 is qualitatively valid despite missing product tables for systems with more than eight particles
    Used to fix the number of forbidden states; the paper states exact tables are unavailable (Section 2).
  • ad hoc to paper All five considered resonances in p14N scattering belong to D partial waves
    Adopted because S-wave options fail to reproduce widths and peaks; no phase-shift analysis supports this assignment (Sections 3.2 and 6).
  • ad hoc to paper Ground state of 15O is dominated by the p14N* channel with 14N* at 5.6914 MeV
    Introduced after standard GS capture failed; the potential is fitted to the data it explains (Section 4.5.2).
  • domain assumption P-wave phase shifts for p14N scattering are zero up to about 1 MeV and the P potentials have zero depth
    Based on absence of wide negative-parity resonances, but no experimental phase shifts exist (Section 3.2, Table 1 No. 9).
  • ad hoc to paper S-factor at 10 and 20 keV is approximated by the average S-factor computed from 30 keV
    The reaction rate integration uses S-factors down to 10 keV although calculations begin at 30 keV (Section 5).
invented entities (1)
  • Excited 14N* cluster (5.6914 MeV, J^pi=1^-) as the dominant component of the 15O ground state in the p14N channel
    purpose: Explains the magnitude and shape of the GS astrophysical S-factor, which the normal p14N channel cannot reproduce
    The 14N level is known, but its dominance in the 15O ground state is not demonstrated; the p14N* potential is fitted to the S(0) value, so there is no falsifiable handle outside this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reaction Rate Of p14N --> 15Ogamma Capture To All Bound States In Potential Cluster Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4P7EDLF

@misc{pith2026190805525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reaction Rate Of p14N --> 15Ogamma Capture To All Bound States In Potential Cluster Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4P7EDLF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05525}
}
read the original abstract

Review of calculation results for astrophysical S-factor of the 14N(p,gamma)15O capture reaction in the p14N channel of 15O was presented. It was carried out in the frame of the modified potential cluster model, taking into account resonances in the 15O spectrum up to 3.2 MeV at energy of incident protons varying from 30 keV to 5 MeV. It is possible to describe experimental data for the astrophysical S-factors of the radiative proton capture on 14N to five excited states of 15O at excitation energies from 5.18 MeV to 6.86 MeV, only under assumption, that all five resonances are D scattering waves. Quality new physical interpretation of the capture mechanism is discussed in this channel to the ground state of 15O. Carried out by us assumption that the ground state of 15O is determined by the p14N* channel with excited 14N* cluster, immediately allowed us to correctly describe order of values of the experimental S-factor for capture to this state. Taking into account these results, the total S-factor of the proton capture on 14N and the reaction rates to the ground and five excited states of 15O were determined at temperatures from 0.01 to 10 T9. The parametrization of the total reaction rate with a simple form is performed, which allows to obtain xi2 equal to 0.06 with 5% errors of the calculated rate.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. B. Dubovichenko, Thermonuclear Processes in Stars and Universe in: Second English edition, revised and expanded (Lambert Academy Publ. , Saarbrucken, 2015); https://www.scholars -press.com/catalog/details/store/gb/book/978-3-639- 76478-9/Thermonuclear-processes-in-stars

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    S. B. Dubovichenko, Radiative neutron capture and primordial nucleosynthesis of the Universe in: Selected Methods for Nuclear Astrophysics, fifth Russian edition revised and expand ed (Lambert Academy Publ. , Saarbrucken, 2016); https://www.ljubljuknigi.ru/store/ru/book/radiative-neutron-capture/isbn/978-3- 659-82490-6 (Accepted to press in de Gruyter in 2019)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    V. G. Neudatchin et al., Phys. Rev. C 45 1512 (1992)

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and N. A. Burkova, Russ. Phys. J. 61 852 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and N. A. Burkova, Russ. Phys. J. 61 1299 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    S. B. Dubovichenko, N. A. Burkova, A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov and Ch. T. Omarov, Russ. Phys. J. 61 1613 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and N. A. Burkova, Russ. Phys. J. 61 2105 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    S. B. Dubovichenko , N. A. Burkova, A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov and T. A. Shmygaleva, Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii, Fizika 62 22 (2019) (in Russian)

    work page 2019

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Grineviciute and D

    J. Grineviciute and D. Halderson, J. Phys. G 35 055201(13p.) (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Y. Xu., K. Takahashi, S. Goriely et al., Nucl. Phys. A 918 61 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    J. T. Huang, C. A. Berutulani and V. Guimarães, Atom Data Nucl Data 96 824-47 48 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Reza Ghasemi and Hossein Sadeghi, Results in Physics 9 151-65 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. Mottelson Nuclear structure (Benjamin, New York, 1969)

    1969

  6. [14]

    Angulo and P

    C. Angulo and P. Descouvemont, Nucl. Phys. A 690 755-68 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    R. E. Azuma et al., Phys. Rev. C 81 045805 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and A. V. Dzhazairov -Kakhramanov, Astrophys. J. 819 78(8p.) (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov, Nucl. Phys. A 941 335- 63 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    S. B. Dubovichenko , A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov and N. V. Nucl. Phys. A 963 52-67 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and Yu. N. Uzikov, Phys. Part. Nucl. 42 251 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    V. G. Neudatchin and Yu. F. Smirnov Nucleon associations in light nuclei (Nauka, Moscow, 1969)

    1969

  13. [21]

    Costantini, et al., Rep

    H. Costantini, et al., Rep. Prog. Phys. 72 086301(25p.) (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov, Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. E 26 1630009(56p.) (2017) and refs. to our papers in this journal

    2017

  15. [23]

    Itzykson and M

    C. Itzykson and M. Nauenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38 95 (1966)

    1966

  16. [24]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov, Russ. Phys. J. 52 833 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    S. B. Dubovichenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 75 173 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Ajzenberg-Selove, Nucl

    F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nucl. Phys. A 523 1 (1991); Revised manuscript Energy Levels of Light Nuclei A=15, 10 May 2002

    1991

  19. [27]

    S. V. Artemov, et al., Phys. Atom. Nucl. 75 291 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    S. I. Sukhoruchkin and Z. N. Soroko, Excited nuclear states, Sub. G. Suppl. I/25 A-F, Springer, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    W. A. Fowler, G. R. Caughlan and B. A. Zimmerman, Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys. 13 69 (1975)

    1975

  22. [30]

    P. J. Mohr and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77(1) 1 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Angulo et al., Nucl

    С. Angulo et al., Nucl. Phys. А 656 3 (1999)

    1999

  24. [32]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov, Phys. Atom. Nucl . 58 579 (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov, Phys. Part. Nucl . 28 615 (1997)

    1997

  26. [34]

    J. M. Eisenberg and W. Greiner, Excitation mechanisms of the nucleus (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1976)

    1976

  27. [35]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev and V. K. Khersonskii, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989)

    1989

  28. [36]

    Atomic and nuc lear constants

    Constants in the category "Atomic and nuc lear constants"; http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mud|search_for=atomnuc!

  29. [37]

    V. V. Varlamov, B. S. Ishkhanov and S. Yu. Komarov, Chart of atomic nuclei; http://cdfe.sinp.msu.ru/services/ground/NuclChart_release.html

  30. [38]

    M. P. Avotina and A. V. Zolotavin, Moments of the ground and excited states of nuclei (Atomizdat, Moscow, 1979)

    1979

  31. [39]

    P. E. Hodgson, The Optical model of elastic scattering (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963)

    1963

  32. [40]

    O. F. Nemets, V. G. Neudatchin, A. T. Rudchik, Y. F. Smirnov and Yu. M. Tchuvil'sky, Nucleon association in atomic nuclei and the nuclear reactions of the 49 many nucleons transfers (Naukova dumka, Kiev, 1988)

    1988

  33. [41]

    Chart of nucleus shape and size parameters, 2015; http://cdfe.sinp.msu.ru/services/radchart/radmain.html

    2015

  34. [42]

    S. B. Dubovichenko, Selected method for nuclear astrophysics Second Russian Edition, corrected and enlarged (Lambert Academy Publ., Saarbrucken, 2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    S. B. Dubovichenko, Phys. Part. Nucl. 44 803 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    G. R. Plattner and R. D. Viollier, Nucl. Phys. A 365 8 (1981)

    1981

  37. [45]

    P. E. Bertone et al., Phys. Rev. C 66 055804 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    A. M. Mukhamedzhanov et al., Phys. Rev. C 67 065804 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    Bommer et al., Nucl

    J. Bommer et al., Nucl. Phys. A 172 618 (1971)

    1971

  40. [48]

    Bohne et al., Nucl

    W. Bohne et al., Nucl. Phys. A 113 97 (1968)

    1968

  41. [49]

    Li et al., Phys

    Q. Li et al., Phys. Rev. С 93 055806 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Imbriani, et al., Euro

    G. Imbriani, et al., Euro. Phys. J. A 25 455 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    Schroder et al., Nucl

    U. Schroder et al., Nucl. Phys. A 467 240 (1987)

    1987

  44. [52]

    R. C. Runkle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 082503 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    Marta et al., Phys

    M. Marta et al., Phys. Rev. C 83 045804 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    Wagner et al., Phys

    L. Wagner et al., Phys. Rev. C 97 015801 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Adelberger et al., Rev

    E.G. Adelberger et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 195 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    Formicola et al., Nucl

    A. Formicola et al., Nucl. Phys. A 719 94c (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    Depalo, Int

    R. Depalo, Int. Jour. Mod. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 46 1860003(8p.) (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Bemmerer et al., Nucl

    D. Bemmerer et al., Nucl. Phys. A 779 297 (2006)

    2006

  51. [59]

    G. R. Caughlan and W. A. Fowler, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tab. 40 283 (1988)

    1988

  52. [60]

    S. B. Dubovichenko and A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov, Indian J. Phy s. 92(8) 947 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1007/s12648-018-1190-8

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    S. B. Dubovichenko, A. V. Dzhazairov-Kakhramanov and N. A. Burkova, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 28 1930004(49pp) (2019); doi: 10.1142/S0218301319300042

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.