Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Improved direct measurement of low-energy resonances in the $^{21}$Ne(p,$\gamma$)$^{22}$Na reaction

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two low-energy resonances in the 21Ne(p,γ)22Na reaction, the 272.3 and 352.6 keV states, have strengths more than 1.5 times higher than previously measured, raising the thermonuclear rate by about 23% in the nova temperature range.

desk verdict LUNA's new strengths for 21Ne(p,γ)22Na are well measured and the two big discrepancies with literature are credible; just don't expect the abundance changes in novae to move. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22426 v1 pith:XVRCSV5U submitted 2025-05-28 nucl-ex hep-ex

R.S.Sidhu , F.Casaburo , E.Masha , M.Aliotta , C.Ananna , L.Barbieri , F.Barile , C.Baron
show 52 more authors
D.Bemmerer A.Best R.Biassisi A.Boeltzig R.Bonnel C.Broggini C.G.Bruno A.Caciolli M.Campostrini F.Cavanna T.Chillery G.F.Ciani P.Colombetti A.Compagnucci P.Corvisiero L.Csedreki T.Davinson R.Depalo A.Di Leva A.D'Ottavi Z.Elekes F.Ferraro A.Formicola Zs.Fulop G.Gervino R.Gesue G.Gosta A.Guglielmetti C.Gustavino Gy.Gyurky G.Imbriani J.Jones J.Jose M.Junker M.Lugaro P.Marigo J.Marsh R.Menegazzo D.Mercogliano D.Piatti P.Prati D.Rapagnani V.Rigato D.Robb M.Rossi R.Sariyal J.Skowronski O.Straniero T.Szucs S.Turkat M.Vagnoni S.Zavatarelli
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exhep-ex
keywords 21Ne(pgamma)22Naresonancestrengththermonuclearreactionratenovanucleosynthesisneon-sodiumcycleundergroundnuclearastrophysicsbranchingratiosgamma-rayspectroscopy
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

Classical novae forge radioactive sodium-22, but the nuclear reaction that makes it—proton capture on neon-21—has carried large uncertainties because the relevant resonances sit at low energies where backgrounds are high. This paper reports direct measurements of five low-energy resonances in 21Ne(p,γ)22Na performed in a low-background underground facility. The strengths of the 272.3 keV and 352.6 keV resonances come out more than 1.5 times the previously published values, and revised branching ratios improve the decay schemes. The resulting thermonuclear reaction rate is about 23 percent higher than the standard evaluation in the temperature window of classical novae (0.1–0.4 GK), although hydrodynamic nova models show essentially unchanged sodium-22 yields. If the new strengths hold, the long-standing uncertainty in this reaction's contribution to the NeNa cycle is substantially reduced.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the thick-target yield formula $\omega\gamma = \frac{2}{\lambda_r^2} Y \varepsilon_r \frac{M}{m+M}$, which converts the measured thick-target yield $Y$ into the resonance strength $\omega\gamma$ using the de Broglie wavelength $\lambda_r$ at the resonance energy, the effective stopping power $\varepsilon_r$ of protons in the neon gas target, and the projectile and target masses $m$ and $M$. The formula is valid because all five resonances are narrow compared with the beam energy loss in the windowless gas target. The experiment exploits the low environmental background of an underground laboratory and two large high-purity germanium detectors, with detection efficiencies derived from a Monte Carlo simulation of the setup that also accounts for true coincidence summing and beam straggling. The resonance strengths are propagated into the thermonuclear rate with a Monte Carlo reaction-rate code that samples the input uncertainties.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the proton stopping power in neon gas at proton energies between roughly 130 and 350 keV, or an independent resonance-strength measurement using a target whose stopping power is known from first principles, would confirm or refute the new strengths. A re-measurement of the 272.3 and 352.6 keV resonances by another group using a different experimental technique would also decide whether the 3.4σ and 4.3σ deviations from the literature are real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that two of the five measured resonances in 21Ne(p,γ)22Na are substantially stronger than previously published: the 272.3 keV resonance at (129.9 ± 5.8) meV and the 352.6 keV resonance at (14.9 ± 0.8) meV, both more than a factor of 1.5 above the literature values, with deviations of 3.4σ and 4.3σ respectively. The remaining three resonances, at 127.3, 271.4, and 291.5 keV, are consistent with earlier measurements within 1σ. New branching ratios for the 127.3, 272.3, and 352.6 keV resonances update the decay schemes, and a Monte Carlo propagation of the new strengths yields a thermonuclear 21Ne(p,γ)22Na rate about 23% higher than the standard evaluation in the 0.1–0.4 GK classical nova window. Hydrodynamic simulations of oxygen-neon novae and nucleosynthesis calculations for AGB stars using the revised rate show essentially unchanged abundances of 22Ne, 22Na, and 25Mg, so the expected 1.275 MeV gamma-ray signal from 22Na decay is not affected.

Load-bearing premise

All five resonance strengths scale linearly with the effective stopping power of protons in the neon gas target, which is adopted from external data rather than measured in this work, so any error in that stopping power would shift every reported strength—including the two discrepant ones—proportionally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 21Ne(p,γ)22Na thermonuclear rate is about 23% higher in the 0.1–0.4 GK range, which is the temperature window of classical novae.
  • Below 0.1 GK, relevant to AGB stars, the new rate is consistent with the previous evaluation but with smaller uncertainties.
  • The updated branching ratios and decay schemes for the 127.3, 272.3, and 352.6 keV resonances are available for future reaction-rate compilations and gamma-ray spectroscopy.
  • Hydrodynamic models of oxygen-neon novae and nucleosynthesis models of AGB stars show essentially unchanged abundances of 22Ne, 22Na, and 25Mg when the revised rate is used.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the two newly higher resonance strengths share the same external stopping-power normalization, a systematic error in that normalization would move both in the same direction; the 23% rate increase should be read with that common-mode caveat in mind.
  • The 4–5% statistical precision demonstrated here suggests the same approach could be used to re-measure the 23Na(p,α)20Ne reaction, the other main unconstrained input to the NeNa cycle in nova models.
  • If the higher strengths are confirmed, the 21Ne(p,γ)22Na reaction's competition with other NeNa-cycle channels could change the predicted neon isotopic ratios in presolar grains, since those ratios are used to identify grain origins.
  • The 19% uncertainty on the 271.4 keV strength, which had to be derived from a single transition using an adopted branching ratio, points to that resonance as the next target for a dedicated measurement.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a new direct study of five low-energy resonances in the 21Ne(p,γ)22Na reaction, measured at the LUNA underground accelerator using a windowless gas target and two HPGe detectors. Resonance strengths are extracted from thick-target yields using Eq. (1), with efficiency calibrated by radioactive sources and the 14N(p,γ)15O resonance and implemented in a GEANT4 simulation. The authors report that the strengths of the 127.3, 271.4, and 291.5 keV resonances agree with previous measurements within 1σ, while the 272.3 and 352.6 keV resonances are measured to be (129.9 ± 5.8) meV and (14.9 ± 0.8) meV, respectively, more than a factor of 1.5 above literature values and discrepant at 3.4σ and 4.3σ. New branching ratios are presented for three resonances. A revised thermonuclear rate is computed with the Monte Carlo code RATESMC and is about 23% higher than the Iliadis et al. evaluation in the 0.1–0.4 GK nova temperature range. Hydrodynamic ONe nova models and AGB nucleosynthesis calculations show negligible changes in final abundances when using the new rate.

Significance. If the reported strengths are correct, the paper provides an important improvement in a nuclear reaction of astrophysical interest, reducing the uncertainty on several resonance strengths from the previous 15–20% level to about 4–5% and resolving a large discrepancy for the 272.3 and 352.6 keV resonances. The three resonances that agree with literature act as a useful internal consistency check on the absolute normalization. The work is strengthened by the low-background LUNA environment, the use of two HPGe detectors with efficiency anchored to both radioactive sources and a well-known resonance, the Monte Carlo treatment of summing and detection efficiency, and the direct (not fitted) extraction of strengths from measured yields. The astrophysical impact section is appropriately cautious: despite the 23% rate increase, the stellar models show no significant abundance changes, which is a useful negative result. The manuscript would be fully convincing once a few methodological details, in particular the stopping-power input and the 271.4 keV branching-ratio dependence, are stated explicitly.

major comments (2)
  1. [Data taking and analysis, Eq. (1), Table II] Equation (1) shows that every resonance strength is proportional to the adopted effective stopping power ε_r, yet the manuscript does not state the numerical value, the source (e.g., SRIM or ATOMIC), or the uncertainty of ε_r. The quoted systematic uncertainties (e.g., ±5.8 meV for the 272.3 keV resonance) appear to include a stopping-power component, but this is never made explicit. Please add this information and clarify how ε_r enters the systematic budget. I note that the agreement of the 127.3, 271.4, and 291.5 keV strengths with literature makes a global ε_r error an unlikely explanation for the selective 272.3/352.6 keV discrepancies, but the absolute normalization and the 23% rate comparison require the ε_r uncertainty to be stated.
  2. [Data taking and analysis, 271.4 keV resonance] The strength of the 271.4 keV resonance is derived from a single 2287 keV primary normalized to an unspecified literature branching ratio, and the weak 5468.7 keV primary was not observed. Please give the adopted branching ratio and its uncertainty, show explicitly how it contributes to the quoted 19% uncertainty on the strength, and describe how the contribution of the nearby 272.3 keV resonance (which is much stronger and only 1 keV away) was subtracted from the 271.4 keV yield. Without this information the 271.4 keV result cannot be fully evaluated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] The word 'patternity' appears to be a typo; it should likely be 'parentage' or 'progenitor'.
  2. [Title/header] The first line of the manuscript contains a stray space in 'th e'; please fix the typo.
  3. [Figure 5 axis label] The axis label 'NA<σv>' should use proper angle brackets or a clear notation such as N_A⟨σv⟩.
  4. [Table I] The branching-ratio table is difficult to parse because the columns for transition energies are not clearly labeled and the LUNA and literature values do not align by row; please add a header for the first column and reformat so each transition is a single row.
  5. [Reference [31]] Reference [31] is listed only as 'Supplemental Material for more details'; please provide a full citation or a stable URL so that the supplemental data can be located.
  6. [Equation (1)] Please define λ_r explicitly as the de Broglie wavelength in the center-of-mass system and state the units used, to avoid ambiguity with the reduced wavelength.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central quantities are measured, not fitted, and the derived reaction rate is a Monte Carlo propagation of those measured strengths.

full rationale

The resonance strengths are obtained from measured thick-target yields via Eq. (1), with Y from detected primary gamma counts divided by SimLUNA efficiencies in Eq. (2). No parameter is fitted to reproduce a target rate or to force agreement with literature. The three resonances that agree with previous data and the two that disagree are all derived from the same formula and the same stopping-power input, so the discrepancy cannot be an artifact of a fit. The only externally borrowed input explicitly disclosed is the branching ratio for the 271.4 keV resonance, used for normalization because its primary gammas are blended; that resonance is not the central claim, and the paper states its strength agrees with literature. The companion paper [30] is cited for setup and simulation details and for the resonance-energy method, but the central strength measurement and the 23% rate change stand on the measured yields and efficiencies, not on that citation. The unquantified external stopping power is a systematic-uncertainty concern, not circularity, because a global epsilon_r error would shift all five strengths together and cannot selectively produce the 3.4-4.3 sigma deviations at 272.3 and 352.6 keV. Therefore no circular step is identifiable from the paper's own equations or citations.

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

The central results rest on standard experimental inputs: the thick-target yield formula, an external stopping power, one literature branching ratio, and a Monte Carlo efficiency simulation. No ad hoc parameters are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The thick-target yield formula (Eq. 1) applies because the resonance widths are much smaller than the target energy loss.
    The paper states Γ is less than a few eV and much smaller than ΔE_cm, so the thick-target condition is used for all five resonances (Data taking and analysis).
  • domain assumption The effective stopping power ε_r for protons in the neon gas mixture is accurate within the quoted systematic uncertainties.
    No stopping power measurement is reported; Eq. (1) scales all strengths linearly with ε_r.
  • domain assumption The literature branching ratio of the 2287 keV gamma ray is adopted for the 271.4 keV resonance.
    Explicitly stated in Data taking and analysis, paragraph 4; this is an external input.
  • domain assumption Electron screening corrections are neglected for narrow resonances, following Iliadis (2023).
    Data taking and analysis, last paragraph; the correction factors f are reported but not applied.
  • domain assumption The SimLUNA Monte Carlo correctly models detector efficiency and true coincidence summing.
    Efficiency is calibrated with radioactive sources and the 14N(p,γ) resonance; the simulation is described in ref [30].
  • domain assumption The 14N(p,γ)15O resonance strength at 278 keV from the literature is accurate.
    Used to extend the efficiency calibration up to 7 MeV (Experiment section).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved direct measurement of low-energy resonances in the $^{21}$Ne(p,$\gamma$)$^{22}$Na reaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XVRCSV5U

@misc{pith2026250522426,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved direct measurement of low-energy resonances in the $^21$Ne(p,$\gamma$)$^22$Na reaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XVRCSV5U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22426}
}
abstract

In the nova temperature range, 0.1 GK $< T <$ 0.4 GK, several low-energy resonances dominate the $^{21}$Ne(p,$\gamma$)$^{22}$Na reaction rate, which is currently affected by large uncertainties. We present a high-precision study of the resonances at $E^{\rm{lab}}_{\rm{r}}$ = 127.3, 271.4, 272.3, 291.5, and 352.6 keV, measured directly at the Laboratory for Underground Nuclear Astrophysics in Italy. The strengths of the 127.3, 271.4, and 291.5 keV resonances are consistent with previous measurements within 1$\sigma$. However, for the 272.3 keV and 352.6 keV resonances, we report strength values of (129.9 $\pm$ 5.8) meV and (14.9 $\pm$ 0.8) meV, respectively, more than a factor of 1.5 higher than literature values. In addition, we report on new branching ratios for the 127.3, 272.3, and 352.6 keV resonances, leading to updated decay schemes. Finally, we present a revised thermonuclear reaction rate and investigate its impact on the NeNa nucleosynthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22426 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Partial level scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental scan of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experimental spectrum measured with the HPGe 130% de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Experimental spectrum measured with the HPGe 130% de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. LUNA thermonuclear reaction rate for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. G. Izzard, M. Lugaro, A. I. Karakas, C. Iliadis, and M. van Raai, Astronomy & Astrophysics 466, 641 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    J. B. Marion and W. A. Fowler, Astrophysical Journal 125, 221 (1957)

    work page 1957

  3. [3]

    Cavanna, R

    F. Cavanna, R. Depalo, M. Aliotta, M. Anders, D. Be- mmerer, A. Best, A. Boeltzig, C. Broggini, C. G. Bruno, A. Caciolli, et al. (The LUNA Collaboration), Physical Review Letters 115, 252501 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Depalo, F

    R. Depalo, F. Cavanna, M. Aliotta, M. Anders, D. Be- mmerer, A. Best, A. Boeltzig, C. Broggini, C. G. 7 Bruno, A. Caciolli, et al. (LUNA Collaboration), Physical Review C 94, 055804 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    K. J. Kelly, A. E. Champagne, L. N. Downen, J. R. Dermigny, S. Hunt, C. Iliadis, and A. L. Cooper, Physical Review C 95, 015806 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Ferraro, M

    F. Ferraro, M. P. Tak´ acs, D. Piatti, F. Ca- vanna, R. Depalo, M. Aliotta, D. Bemmerer, A. Best, A. Boeltzig, C. Broggini, et al. , Physical Review Letters 121, 172701 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Williams, A

    M. Williams, A. Lennarz, A. Laird, U. Battino, J. Jos´ e, D. Connolly, C. Ruiz, A. Chen, B. Davids, N. Esker, et al. , Physical Review C 102, 035801 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Masha, L

    E. Masha, L. Barbieri, J. Skowronski, M. Aliotta, C. Ananna, F. Barile, D. Bemmerer, A. Best, A. Boeltzig, C. Broggini, C. G. Bruno, et al. (LUNA collaboration), Physical Review C 108, L052801 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    M. P. Tak´ acs, F. Ferraro, D. Piatti, J. Skowron- ski, M. Aliotta, C. Ananna, L. Barbieri, F. Barile, D. Bemmerer, A. Best, et al. (LUNA Collaboration), Physical Review C 109, 064627 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Weiss and J

    A. Weiss and J. W. Truran, Astronomy and Astrophysics 238, 178 (1990)

    1990

  3. [11]

    M. S. Basunia, Nuclear Data Sheets 127, 69 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Foug` ereset al., Nature Communications 14, 4536 (2023)

    C. Foug` ereset al., Nature Communications 14, 4536 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    C. L. Fryer, F. Timmes, A. L. Hungerford, A. Couture, F. Adams, W. Aoki, A. Ar- cones, D. Arnett, K. Auchettl, M. Avila, et al. , Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 51 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Woosley and T

    S. Woosley and T. Janka, Nature Physics 1, 147 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Janka, K

    H.-T. Janka, K. Langanke, A. Marek, G. Mart ´ ınez- Pinedo, and B. M¨ uller,Physics Reports 442, 38 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    Junde, H

    H. Junde, H. Su, and Y. Dong, Nuclear Data Sheets 112, 1513 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Amari, The Astrophysical Journal 690, 1424 (2008)

    S. Amari, The Astrophysical Journal 690, 1424 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Amari, E

    S. Amari, E. Anders, A. Virag, and E. Zinner, Nature 345, 238 (1990)

    1990

  11. [19]

    Amari, L

    S. Amari, L. R. Nittler, E. Zinner, R. Gallino, M. Lugaro, and R. S. Lewis, The Astrophysical Journal 546, 248 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    G¨ orres, C

    J. G¨ orres, C. Rolfs, P. Schmalbrock, H. Trautvetter, a nd J. Keinonen, Nuclear Physics A 385, 57 (1982)

    1982

  13. [21]

    H. Berg, W. Hietzke, C. Rolfs, and H. Winkler, Nuclear Physics A 276, 168 (1977)

    1977

  14. [22]

    G¨ orres, H

    J. G¨ orres, H. Becker, L. Buchmann, C. Rolfs, P. Schmal- brock, H. Trautvetter, A. Vlieks, J. Hammer, and T. Donoghue, Nuclear Physics A 408, 372 (1983)

    1983

  15. [23]

    Becker, H

    H. Becker, H. Ebbing, W. Schulte, S. W¨ ustenbecker, M. Berheide, M. Buschmann, C. Rolfs, G. Mitchell, and J. Schweitzer, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei 343, 361 (1992)

    1992

  16. [24]

    Aliotta, A

    M. Aliotta, A. Boeltzig, R. Depalo, and G. Gy¨ urky, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 72, 177 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Caciolli, L

    A. Caciolli, L. Agostino, D. Bemmerer, R. Bonetti, C. Broggini, F. Confortola, P. Corvisiero, H. Costantini, Z. Elekes, A. Formicola, et al. , The European Physical Journal A 39, 179 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Sz¨ ucs, D

    T. Sz¨ ucs, D. Bemmerer, C. Broggini, A. Ca- ciolli, F. Confortola, P. Corvisiero, Z. Elekes, A. Formicola, Z. F¨ ul¨ op, G. Gervino, et al. , The European Physical Journal A 44, 513 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Cavanna, R

    F. Cavanna, R. Depalo, M. L. Menzel, M. Aliotta, M. An- ders, D. Bemmerer, C. Broggini, C. Bruno, A. Caciolli, et al. , The European Physical Journal A 50, 1 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Ferraro, M

    F. Ferraro, M. Tak´ acs, D. Piatti, V. Mossa, M. Aliotta, D. Bemmerer, A. Best, A. Boeltzig, C. Broggini, et al. , The European Physical Journal A 54, 1 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Daigle, K

    S. Daigle, K. J. Kelly, A. E. Champagne, M. Q. Buckner, C. Iliadis, and C. Howard, Physical Review C 94, 025803 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Masha, F

    E. Masha, F. Casaburo, R. S. Sidhu, M. Aliotta, C. Ananna, L. Barbieri, F. Bar- ile, D. Bemmerer, A. Best, A. Boeltzig, et al. , The European Physical Journal A 61, 45 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    R. S. Sidhu, F. Casaburo, E. Masha, et al. , (2024), Sup- plemental Material for more details

    2024

  24. [32]

    W. A. Fowler, C. C. Lauritsen, and T. Lauritsen, Review of Modern Physics 20, 236 (1948)

    1948

  25. [33]

    C. E. Rolfs and W. S. Rodney, Cauldrons in the cosmos: Nuclear astrophysics (Univer- sity of Chicago press, 1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    Bemmerer, F

    D. Bemmerer, F. Cavanna, R. Depalo, M. Aliotta, M. Anders, A. Boeltzig, C. Brog- gini, C. Bruno, A. Caciolli, T. Chillery, et al. , Europhysics Letters 122, 52001 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Assenbaum, K

    H. Assenbaum, K. Langanke, and C. Rolfs, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 327, 461 (1987)

    1987

  28. [36]

    Iliadis, Physical Review C 107, 044610 (2023)

    C. Iliadis, Physical Review C 107, 044610 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    A. L. Sallaska, C. Iliadis, A. Champange, S. Goriely, S. Starrfield, and F. Timmes, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 207, 18 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Iliadis, R

    C. Iliadis, R. Longland, A. Champagne, and A. Coc, Nuclear Physics A 841, 251 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Iliadis, R

    C. Iliadis, R. Longland, A. Champagne, A. Coc, and R. Fitzgerald, Nuclear Physics A 841, 31 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Jos´ e and M

    J. Jos´ e and M. Hernanz, The Astrophysical Journal 494, 680 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    Jos´ e,Stellar Explosions: Hydrodynamics and Nucleosynthesis (Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, 2016)

    J. Jos´ e,Stellar Explosions: Hydrodynamics and Nucleosynthesis (Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, 2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.