Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Coulomb-Corrected Wormhole Model for Neon-20

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding Coulomb repulsion to a wormhole configuration space turns most of Neon-20's old bound states into resonances, and the resulting energies and decay widths reproduce the observed 0_1^+, 0_1^-, and 0_4^+ rotational bands, including…

desk verdict Worthwhile extension of the Wormhole model with a new over-barrier WKB tool, but the abstract overstates agreement: the 0_4+ width predictions miss by factors of 6 and 75, and the key method is benchmarked only without the Coulomb term. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02428 v1 pith:VNJKCVIS submitted 2025-08-04 nucl-th hep-th

Ruoxin Bai , N.S. Manton This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-th
keywords Neon-20nuclearspectrumwormholegeometryCoulombpotentialWKBapproximationrotationalbandsresonancewidthsalphaclusteringover-barrierresonances
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 asks whether a purely geometric "wormhole" picture of the Neon-20 nucleus—where an $\alpha$ particle and an Oxygen-16 cluster move on a curved three-dimensional configuration space whose throat is the five-$\alpha$ bipyramid—can survive the addition of the real Coulomb repulsion between clusters. Its central claim is that it can: with a repulsive Coulomb tail added to the short-range attraction, most bound states of the original model turn into resonances, and the computed real energies and decay widths match experiment for the 0_1^+, 0_1^-, and 0_4^+ rotational bands. The payoff is an explanation of why the higher-nodal 0_4^+ band is so broad: those states sit above the effective potential barrier and are over-barrier resonances. If right, the model gives a single dynamical picture that predicts both where the bands are and how fast they decay.

What carries the argument

The central object is the double-humped effective potential $u_{\mathrm{eff}}(x)$ in Eq. (24), combining the wormhole metric (1) with a short-range attraction and a smoothed Coulomb repulsion. The argument is carried by generalized WKB quantization: bound states use the Bohr-Sommerfeld rule, under-barrier resonances use the improved WKB approximation [12] with a phase correction, and over-barrier resonances use the analytically continued contour-integral condition (21), whose two complex turning-point integrals supply both the real energy and the width. This is what lets a single model produce both the band energies and the decay widths without solving the full scattering problem.

What would settle it

Directly solving the one-dimensional radial Schrödinger equation for the full potential (24) and locating its complex-energy poles would settle the central claim; if the widths of the $l=4$ and $l=6$ states in the 2-phonon band come out far from the predicted 2300 keV and 4500 keV, or close to the experimental 350 and 60 keV, the over-barrier WKB calculation is not capturing the physics. A measurement of the decay width of the alternative 6+ candidate near 15.35 MeV would test the band assignment directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the full low-energy dynamics of Neon-20 as an $\alpha$ + Oxygen-16 cluster system can be described by one smooth potential on a wormhole-shaped configuration space once the long-range Coulomb repulsion between the clusters is included. The original short-range attraction alone produced bound states up to a 15.19 MeV threshold; adding $V_{\mathrm{Cou}}(r)=Q_0/(r^\kappa+b^\kappa)^{1/\kappa}$ with $\kappa=8$ lowers the breakup threshold to the experimental 4.73 MeV and turns most of those states into resonances. With parameters fixed by the ground-state band and by the physical Coulomb tail, the model produces Table 4: real energies within about 8% of experiment and widths spanning 1.5 keV to 8900 keV. The 0-phonon states $l=0,2,4$ are bound; $l=6,8$ are narrow under-barrier resonances; the 1-phonon states $l=1,3,5$ are under-barrier and $l=7,9$ over-barrier; and the 2-phonon 0_4^+ band states are over-barrier, which is why their widths are large. The paper reads the level-by-level agreement, especially for the widths, as evidence that the wormhole geometry is physically meaningful and that the higher-nodal band's breadth is a barrier-penetration effect.

Load-bearing premise

The width predictions for the broad states rest on an unbenchmarked assumption: that a semiclassical (WKB) formula, verified only for the original no-Coulomb potential, stays accurate once the Coulomb barrier is added.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below-threshold states in the 0_1^+ band ($l=0,2,4$) remain bound and decay by gamma emission, while the $l=6,8$ states become narrow under-barrier resonances with widths near the measured values.
  • The large widths assigned to the 0_4^+ band states (e.g., 850, 1200, 2300, and 4500 keV for $l=0,2,4,6$) follow from those states being over-barrier resonances, so the model explains why the higher-nodal band is broad.
  • The observed 15.87 MeV 8+ and 15.37 MeV 7$^-$ states can be assigned to the 0_1^+ and 0_1^- bands, respectively, and the model predicts a 9$^-$ resonance near 22.54 MeV with a 2.2 MeV width, supporting the assignment of the 22.80 MeV state to the 0_1^- band.
  • States in the 3-phonon and higher bands are predicted to have widths exceeding 3 MeV, making them too broad to be observed; the Coulomb-corrected model therefore predicts a natural end of the rotational band structure.
  • An additional 10+ under-barrier resonance near 23.7 MeV with a width around 0.3 MeV is predicted in the 0_1^+ band, giving a specific observable target.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Coulomb-correcting recipe should transfer to other two-cluster nuclei where the threshold drop matters; a natural test is whether the analogous $^{12}$C + two-alpha splitting in other neon isotopes acquires the same over-barrier broadening pattern.
  • A direct numerical solution of the full radial equation would convert the paper's central width predictions from WKB estimates into testable pole positions, and would be especially decisive for the $l=4$ and $l=6$ over-barrier states where the paper itself flags a discrepancy.
  • If the alternative 6+ candidate near 15.35 MeV is confirmed with a broad width, that would support the paper's band assignment over the current one; if it has a narrow width, the model's over-barrier width pattern for high $l$ would need revision.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Manton-Dunajski wormhole model of Neon-20 by adding a screened Coulomb potential, which lowers the alpha+O16 break-up threshold from 15.19 MeV to the experimental 4.73 MeV and converts most bound states into resonances. The authors use standard WKB for bound states, Shepard's improved WKB for under-barrier resonances, and a new analytic-continuation WKB condition (21)-(22) for over-barrier resonances. Parameters are fixed in Section 5 by fitting the 0-phonon band energies and imposing the experimental threshold and Coulomb tail, and the resulting energies and widths for the 0-, 1-, and 2-phonon bands are compared with experiment in Table 4, identifying the bands with the 0_1^+, 0_1^-, and 0_4^+ bands of Ne-20. The paper claims close alignment with data, including the large widths in the higher-nodal 0_4^+ band, while acknowledging in Section 6 that the n=2, l=4 and l=6 width predictions are too large.

Significance. If the over-barrier WKB method is reliable for the Coulomb-corrected potential, the paper offers a compact, analytically tractable model that predicts not only real energies but also decay widths and the bound-to-resonance pattern for cluster bands in Ne-20. The strengths are the explicit potential ansatz, the transparent parameter determination, the numerical checks of WKB on the original potential (Tables 1-3), and the fact that the widths are not fitted parameters. The main risks are the lack of numerical validation of the over-barrier WKB condition for the actual Coulomb-corrected potential and the large quantitative discrepancies for the two signature 2-phonon states; both are testable and potentially repairable, so the model's core idea is not invalidated but the central quantitative claim is not yet supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 3] The over-barrier WKB condition (21)-(22) is validated only against the original potential veff of Eq. (5), for which the complex turning points and branch structure are known. The actual Coulomb-corrected potential ueff of Eq. (24) has a different analytic topology, including a long-range 1/x tail and a displaced barrier network, so the analytic continuation used in (19)-(22) is not tested where it is applied. Since the entries n=2, l=4 and l=6 in Table 4 are the central evidence for the abstract's claim about large 0_4^+ widths, the paper needs a benchmark of (21)-(22) against a direct numerical resonance calculation for ueff (for example complex scaling or a scattering-pole search) before those width predictions can be considered reliable.
  2. [Table 4, rows 2;4 and 2;6] The quantitative discrepancies for the two highest-l 2-phonon states are large: the model gives Gamma=2300 keV versus the cited experimental 350 keV for 2;4 (a factor of about 6.6), and Gamma=4500 keV versus 60 keV for 2;6 (a factor of about 75). These are the states with the largest widths in the 0_4^+ band, so the statement in the abstract that the results align closely with experiment 'including the large widths in the higher-nodal 0_4^+ band' is not supported by the table. Section 6 acknowledges the discrepancy and proposes alternative assignments or higher/wider barriers, but the abstract and conclusions should be revised to separate these two states from the states that are well reproduced, and the proposed reassignments should be treated as conjectures rather than as part of the established match.
  3. [Section 5, parameter determination] The close agreement for the 0_1^+ band and for the threshold energy is partly by construction: m=8 and sigma are chosen to fit the 0-phonon band, the calibration factor hbar^2/(2 mu a^2) is a least-squares fit to the l=0,2,4,6,8 energies, C0 is fixed by imposing the experimental threshold 4.73 MeV, and beta is fixed by the Coulomb tail condition. The paper should state explicitly that the real energies of the 0-phonon band and the threshold are fitted, and that the genuinely predictive content lies in the widths and in the relative energies of the 1- and 2-phonon bands; this distinction is important for interpreting Table 4 and for judging the model's success.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract's phrase 'align closely with experimental data ... including the large widths' should be qualified in light of the 2;4 and 2;6 rows of Table 4; the conclusions already contain the appropriate caveat, but the abstract does not.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (19)-(22)] The notation fW1, fW2, and ephi is used without an explicit statement that these are complex analytic continuations of the real integrals W1 and W2; adding a sentence to that effect after Eq. (22) would improve readability.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (16)] The symbol 'Gam' should be identified as the Gamma function, and the argument of arg Gam should be checked for consistency with Shepard's original notation, since this affects the numerical implementation of the width formula (15).
  4. [Table 3] The entry 'Barrier Height N/A' for l=5 should be explained; if veff has no barrier for l=5, the meaning of 'over-barrier resonance' in that row should be clarified.
  5. [Figure 9] The legend states that dotted lines connect experimental data points, but several experimental points carry brackets or have no measured width; the figure would benefit from marking which experimental points are tentative or missing.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 0_1^+ band energies are partly fit inputs through the least-squares energy calibration, while the width predictions and the 0_1^- and 0_4^+ band energies are computed after parameter fixing and retain independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5 (The Coulomb Correction), paragraph 4; used in Section 6, Table 4, rows for n=0;l=0,2,4 and in the abstract's claim of close alignment with the 0_1^+ band.]
    "For each value of σ, we perform a least-squares fit to the real energies E of the l = 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 states in the 0-phonon band. This yields an energy calibration factor ℏ2/2µa2 relating E and ε... For this choice, the calibration factor becomes ℏ2/2µa2 = 0.2265 MeV."

    The dimensionless energy scale and effectively σ are fixed by least-squares fitting to the same 0-phonon band energies that appear in Table 4 and in the abstract as evidence of agreement with experiment. Consequently, the close alignment of the 0;0, 0;2 and 0;4 rows is partly a restatement of the fit rather than an independent prediction. The circularity is partial because the 0_1^- and 0_4^+ bands, and all resonance widths, are computed after the parameters are fixed.

full rationale

The central novel output, the widths and the 0_1^- and 0_4^+ band energies, is not circular: the over-barrier WKB condition (21)-(22) is derived from Shepard's improved WKB and is benchmarked against numerical solutions of the original potential in Table 3, not fitted to Neon-20 data. The self-citation to [5] is a prior model rather than an imported uniqueness theorem, and the WKB bound-state method is checked against numerical data. However, the 0_1^+ band energies are not independent predictions because the calibration factor was obtained by a least-squares fit to those very states; the threshold energy is also imposed by fixing C0, so the statement that the Coulomb correction lowers the threshold to 4.73 MeV is an input. A separate validation gap, not itself circularity, is that the over-barrier contour-WKB method is tested only on the Coulomb-free original potential, while the Coulomb-corrected ueff in Eq. (24) has a different analytic structure; this affects confidence in the large 0_4^+ width predictions but does not make them fitted inputs. Overall the paper is a parameterized model with a fitted energy calibration, so the agreement in the ground-state band is partly by construction, but the predicted widths and higher-band spectrum retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on a phenomenological wormhole geometry and a chosen potential shape. Five parameters are fitted or chosen to reproduce the Ne-20 spectrum, and the WKB resonance formulas are used without a full numerical benchmark for the Coulomb-corrected potential.

free parameters (6)
  • m (short-range potential depth) = 8
    Dimensionless depth parameter; lowered from 9 in ref [5] to improve the fit to experimental energies and lower the threshold (Section 2).
  • sigma (well width parameter) = sqrt(5/11) ≈ 0.6742
    Chosen by hand from a geometric argument (R^2 = (x^2 + 5/11) a^2) rather than the least-squares optimum 0.6652 (Section 5).
  • energy calibration factor hbar^2/(2 mu a^2) = 0.2265 MeV
    Least-squares fit to real energies of l=0,2,4,6,8 states in the 0-phonon band (Section 5).
  • C0 (Coulomb strength) = 26.62
    Fixed by imposing the experimental break-up threshold 4.73 MeV (Section 5).
  • beta (Coulomb cut-off length) = 0.7119
    Fixed by matching the asymptotic Coulomb tail 16 alpha / r (Section 5).
  • kappa (Coulomb smoothing exponent) = 8
    Chosen for smoothness as an approximation to the kappa = infinity uniformly charged shell limit (Section 5).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole metric (1) with throat radius a is the configuration space for Ne-20 cluster dynamics.
    Taken from Manton and Dunajski [5]; the paper does not derive the geometry from the alpha-particle dynamics.
  • domain assumption Z2 quotient of the wormhole and the parity rule that phonon number n and angular momentum l have equal parity.
    Needed to identify states with bosonic alpha particles and to assign bands (Section 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Potential ansatz (2): short-range attraction V0/(r^2+d^2)^2 plus screened Coulomb Q0/(r^kappa+b^kappa)^(1/kappa) with kappa = 8.
    Phenomenological choice; the regularized Coulomb term keeps the 0-phonon spectrum nearly unchanged and its smoothness fixes kappa = 8 (Section 5).
  • domain assumption The observed 0_1^+, 0_1^-, and 0_4^+ bands are identified with the n=0,1,2 phonon bands of the model.
    Band identification follows refs [2,4,19-23] and is used for the comparison in Table 4 (Section 6).
  • ad hoc to paper Shepard's improved WKB connection formulas and the analytic continuation (19)-(22) give accurate complex resonance energies for the Coulomb-corrected potential.
    The over-barrier extension is new and is not benchmarked numerically for the full potential (Sections 4 and 6).
  • standard math The reduced mass of the alpha + O-16 clusters is mu = 2982 MeV, with standard values of alpha and hbar c.
    Used for energy calibration and the Coulomb tail (Sections 2 and 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coulomb-Corrected Wormhole Model for Neon-20." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNJKCVIS

@misc{pith2026250802428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coulomb-Corrected Wormhole Model for Neon-20},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNJKCVIS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02428}
}
read the original abstract

Building on the spatial wormhole geometry proposed by Manton and Dunajski, we develop a modified model for the Neon-20 nucleus that incorporates a repulsive Coulomb potential. This reduces the large threshold energy for cluster break-up in the original model and converts most bound states to resonances. We use generalized WKB methods to calculate the energies of bound states, and also the energies and widths of under-barrier and over-barrier resonances. The results align closely with experimental data for the 0_1^+ , 0_1^- and 0_4^+ rotational bands of Neon-20, including the large widths in the higher-nodal 0_4^+ band.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.02428 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An incoming alpha particle approaches a tetrahedron of four alpha particles, instantaneously forms a D3h-symmetric bipyramid, and then the opposite alpha particle is ejected. The wormhole is a 3-dimensional manifold acted on by the rotation group SO(3), where all orbits are 2-spheres. The generic orbits are those of the separated 4 + 1 clusters. The smallest orbit, the throat of the wormhole, is that of the bipyrami… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Numerical bound states (dots), the anharmonic oscillator approximation (curves) and the WKB approximation (boxes), for the original wormhole model. n increases from 0 (red) to 4 (light blue) and beyond. We now introduce Shepard’s WKB approximations [12] for calculating the complex energies of under-barrier resonances in a potential v(x). Shepard delineates two versions: the ‘simple WKB approximation’ and the ‘improv… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The turning points ±x0 and ±x1, for real energy εr (horizontal, dashed line) in double-humped potential v(x). Shepard’s approach is particularly suited for a particle resonance in a double￾humped potential well (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The trajectories of ˜x0(εr) (blue) and ˜x1(εr) (orange) at fixed widths γ = 0 (solid) and γ = 3 (dashed) for the original effective potential veff with l = 9, m = 9. Next, we analytically continue the real integrals (9) and (13). Specifically, for z, ε ∈ C, the general…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The branch cut Cp (blue), illustrated for the function p(z, ε) with εr = 27.313 and γ = 3, and veff as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dimensionless Coulomb potential uCou(x) for various κ but fixed β = 0.7119 and C0 = 26.62. Dotted lines: x = ±β. As κ −→ ∞, uCou(x) becomes constant within the interval x ∈ [−β, β] and equals C0β/x outside, resembling the potential created by a charge uniformly dis…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The effective potentials veff(x) in the original wormhole model (blue) and ueff(x) in the Coulomb-corrected model (orange), for l = 6. The red dash-dotted lines show the real energies of 0-phonon, l = 6 states. The Coulomb potential shifts the energy upwards and conver…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experimental real energies (dots), WKB-approximated energies in Coulomb-corrected model (black boxes). Green solid line: threshold energy; Green dash-dot lines: effective potential barrier height for each l. The experimental 0+ 1 rotational band is identified with our …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The widths of states in the 0-phonon band (red), 1-phonon band (blue) and 2-phonon band (orange). Solid lines connect the model’s predictions; dotted lines connect experimental data points. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantifying alpha clustering in the ground states of 16-O and 20-Ne

    E. Harris et al., Quantifying α clustering in the ground states of 16O and 20Ne, arXiv:2507.17059 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Bijker and F

    R. Bijker and F. Iachello, Cluster structure of 20Ne: Evidence for D3h symmetry, Nucl. Phys. A 1006 , 122077 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    von Oertzen, M

    W. von Oertzen, M. Freer and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Nuclear clusters and nuclear molecules, Phys. Rep. 432, 43 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Fujiwara et al., Chapter 2: Comprehensive study of alpha-nuclei, Prog

    Y. Fujiwara et al., Chapter 2: Comprehensive study of alpha-nuclei, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 68, 29 (1980)

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    N. S. Manton and M. Dunajski, Wormhole model for Neon-20, Nucl. Phys. A 1037 , 122702 (2023). 23

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Wen and T

    K. Wen and T. Nakatsukasa, Adiabatic self-consistent collective path in nuclear fusion reactions, Phys. Rev. C 96 , 014610 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    TUNL Nuclear Data Project, https://nucldata.tunl.duke.edu

    work page

  8. [8]

    Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File, https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/index.jsp

    work page

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    H. G. Ellis, Ether flow through a drainhole: A particle model in general relativity, J. Math. Phys. 14, 104 (1973)

    1973

  2. [10]

    K. A. Bronnikov, Scalar-tensor theory and scalar charge, Acta Phys. Polon. B 4 , 251 (1973)

    1973

  3. [11]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics - Course of Theo- retical Physics Vol. 3 (3rd ed.) , Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1977

    1977

  4. [12]

    H. K. Shepard, Decay widths for metastable states. Improved WKB approximation, Phys. Rev. D 27 , 1288 (1983)

    1983

  5. [13]

    R. E. Langer, On the connection formulas and the solutions of the wave equation, Phys. Rev. 51, 669 (1937)

    1937

  6. [14]

    S. C. Miller and R. H. Good, A WKB-type approximation to the Schr¨ odinger equation,Phys. Rev. 91, 174 (1953)

    1953

  7. [15]

    M. V. Berry and K. E. Mount, Semiclassical approximations in wave mechanics, Rep. Prog. Phys. 35, 315 (1972)

    1972

  8. [16]

    V. D. Mur and V. S. Popov, The WKB method for resonances, JETP 77, 18 (1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (3rd ed.), Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    C. A. Bertulani, Nuclear Physics in a Nutshell , Princeton U.P., Princeton NJ, 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    Bouten, α-particle model of 20Ne and 24Mg, Nuovo Cim

    M. Bouten, α-particle model of 20Ne and 24Mg, Nuovo Cim. 26, 63 (1962)

    1962

  12. [20]

    B. Buck, C. B. Dover and J. P. Vary, Simple potential model for cluster states in light nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 11 , 1803 (1975)

    1975

  13. [21]

    Michel, G

    F. Michel, G. Reidemeister and S. Ohkubo, Last members of the Kπ = 0+ 4 α-cluster rotational band in 20Ne, Phys. Rev. C 35 , 1961 (1987). 24

    1987

  14. [22]

    Cseh and G

    J. Cseh and G. L´ evai, Core-plus-alpha-particle states of20Ne and 16O in terms of vibron models, Phys. Rev. C 38 , 972 (1988)

    1988

  15. [23]

    Marevi´ c et al., Quadrupole and octupole collectivity and cluster struc- tures in neon isotopes, Phys

    P. Marevi´ c et al., Quadrupole and octupole collectivity and cluster struc- tures in neon isotopes, Phys. Rev. C 97 , 024334 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Zhou et al., Nonlocalized cluster dynamics and nuclear molecular structure, Phys

    B. Zhou et al., Nonlocalized cluster dynamics and nuclear molecular structure, Phys. Rev. C 89 , 034319 (2014). 25

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.