Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Solid Target production for Astrophysical Reasearch: the European target laboratory partnership in ChETEC-INFRA

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Europe-wide target-testing effort finds stable graphite for underground carbon fusion and extends 13C+16O cross sections to lower energies.

desk verdict Solid target progress report with genuinely useful comparative endurance tests and one preliminary cross-section extension; worth refereeing but the Fig. 20 normalization and systematics need to be addressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16147 v1 pith:5MMR5LF2 submitted 2025-04-22 physics.ins-det nucl-ex

Roberta Spartà , Alexandra Spiridon , Rosanna Depalo , Denise Piatti , Antonio Massara , Nicoleta Florea , Marcel Heine , Radu-Florin Andrei
show 23 more authors
Beyhan Bastin Ion Burducea Antonio Caciolli Matteo Campostrini Sandrine Courtin Federico Ferraro Giovanni Luca Guardo Felix Heim Decebal Iancu Marco La Cognata Livio Lamia Gaetano Lanzalone Eliana Masha Paul Mereuta Jean Nippert Rosario Gianluca Pizzone Giuseppe Gabriele Rapisarda Maria Letizia Sergi Jakub Skowronski Dana State Tamas Szucs Livius Trache Aurora Tumino
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detnucl-ex
keywords nuclearastrophysicssolidtargetstargetproductionbeamirradiationtestscarbonfusionactivationmethodsub-barrierfluorine
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 reports a coordinated effort by European target laboratories to find solid targets that can survive the intense beams needed for next-generation nuclear astrophysics measurements. The central results are concrete: among carbon materials tested under an 8.8 MeV carbon beam, two engineered graphites proved most stable in thermal and structural behavior and are put forward as candidates for the planned underground measurement of 12C+12C fusion; pressed cerium-oxide pellets survived long enough to yield new activation cross sections for 13C+16O, extending the known data toward lower energies; and barium fluoride was preferred over lithium fluoride for future carbon–fluorine fusion studies. The paper also documents failures—thin deposited carbon layers blister and detach, and anodized tantalum-oxide layers disappear completely in the beam spot—that set practical limits on what can be measured. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as establishing which targets are ready to use and which need further development.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the paired use of beam-irradiation endurance tests and activation gamma-ray spectroscopy. In an endurance test, a target is exposed to a beam of known energy and current while its temperature, surface structure, and vacuum behavior are monitored; the materials that survive are then used for physics runs. In the activation method, the beam-induced reaction products—here 28Al, 27Mg, and 24Na—are identified by their characteristic gamma decays after irradiation, and the cross section is obtained from the measured yield divided by the number of target atoms per area, with target thickness and stoichiometry fixed by ion-beam analysis (RBS) before and after. This combination converts a practical question—which target can take the beam—into a quantitative statement about fusion cross sections at sub-barrier energies.

What would settle it

Re-measure one of the new 13C+16O cross-section points with a cerium-oxide pellet whose areal density is verified by ion-beam analysis immediately before and after the same irradiation; if the yield per target atom changes with integrated charge, the constant-thickness assumption fails. Separately, hold an engineered graphite target under a 10 µA carbon beam for a full week; any cracking, delamination, or more than 10 percent thickness change would falsify the recommendation for the long underground run.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that target endurance, not detector sensitivity, is now the deciding constraint for several flagship fusion measurements, and that usable targets can be identified by comparative irradiation testing. The authors show that AXF- and ZXF-type graphites outperformed natural graphite, highly oriented pyrolytic graphite, and glassy carbon in thermal and structural stability under an 8.8 MeV carbon beam, making them the leading candidates for the planned long underground 12C+12C run. For 13C+16O, activation measurements using pressed CeO2 pellets produced cross sections for the 28Al+p and 27Mg+2p channels that reach lower center-of-mass energies than earlier data, while the Ta2O5 alternative failed completely: post-irradiation ion-beam analysis showed the oxide layer had vanished in the beam spot, so no astrophysical quantity could be extracted. For fluorine targets, barium fluoride gave cleaner decay spectra than lithium fluoride and is recommended for future sub-barrier fusion studies, while polymer and salt fluorine targets provide the background reference needed for the dark-boson search.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each target's thickness and composition stayed constant during the short irradiations used for the new cross-section points, and that endurance seen in minutes-to-hours tests at up to roughly 200 nA predicts survival over the planned weeks-long, 10–150 µA campaigns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The planned underground 12C+12C measurement can proceed with the two engineered graphite targets, assuming the short endurance tests carry over to multi-week high-current running.
  • The new 13C+16O activation cross sections down to lower energies give the fusion-hindrance debate additional data points in a light system, particularly for the 28Al+p and 27Mg+2p channels.
  • Future 12,13C+19F fusion measurements should use barium fluoride rather than lithium fluoride targets and keep beam currents below roughly 1 pµA to preserve the pellets.
  • Tantalum-oxide targets, though easy to handle and rich in oxygen, cannot be used for heavy-ion activation runs unless an online method to track the oxide-layer loss is added.
  • The fluorine background targets produced for the dark-boson search provide the subtraction reference needed to separate the lithium contribution in the measured spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the short-run endurance of the engineered graphites does not extrapolate, the next bottleneck for the underground carbon-fusion run will be beam-induced hydrogen or deuterium buildup rather than target survival; a cheap check would be to monitor contaminants online during a multi-day irradiation.
  • The single-irradiation limitation of pressed cerium-oxide pellets suggests that thinner pellets or active cooling could unlock the longer-lived 24Na channel at lower energies, which the paper's own data indicate is the next step to extend the excitation function further.
  • The complete loss of the tantalum-oxide layer could be converted into a usable measurement if the layer-removal time were determined online, for example by continuously recording backscattered particles; that would rescue a target material that otherwise offers the best oxygen content.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper, submitted as a physics.ins-det contribution, reports the collaborative target-production and characterization activities of the ChETEC-INFRA STAR network. It describes the development, characterization, and beam-irradiation tests of solid targets for several nuclear-astrophysics programs: carbon targets for 12C+12C measurements (STELLA rotating foils, HEAT hydrogen-desorption studies, and candidate graphite materials for LUNA), oxide and carbon targets for 13C+16O activation measurements, fluoride targets for 12,13C+19F studies and the NEW JEDI X17-boson search, and plans for solid noble-gas targets for s-process studies. The principal quantitative result is the measurement of 13C+16O cross sections for two short-lived activation channels using pressed CeO2 pellets, which the authors claim extends the known cross sections to lower energies. The paper also gives qualitative recommendations, most notably that AXF and ZXF graphite are the most stable carbon materials tested and are good candidates for the LUNA 12C+12C measurement.

Significance. If the cross-section data and target recommendations are reliable, the paper would provide useful support for upcoming measurements at LUNA, STELLA, and the NEW JEDI experiment, and the 13C+16O activation data would add new constraints on sub-barrier fusion in a light system. The paper is valuable as a survey of target preparation techniques, failure modes, and characterization results, with direct evidence from RBS spectra, microscope images, gamma spectra, and temperature curves. The collaborative infrastructure described is a genuine community asset. However, the quantitative cross-section result is presented without any systematic uncertainty assessment, and the qualitative recommendation for LUNA is explicitly preliminary. As they stand, these claims are not yet fully supported, so the paper's significance is contingent on strengthening the metrology and clarifying the extrapolation basis.

major comments (2)
  1. [1.2.2, Fig. 20] The cross-section normalization in Fig. 20 assumes that the CeO2 target areal density and stoichiometry remained constant during each 30–60 min irradiation. The paper itself documents the opposite: visible beam-spot damage after ~1 mC (Fig. 11), severe damage after ~10 mC (Fig. 12), and the statement that targets could be irradiated at most 3 times at high current before becoming unusable. The beam-current ramp of Fig. 14 is said to be recorded and corrected for in the yield calculations, but no analogous correction or monitoring for loss of target material during irradiation is reported. If oxygen is sputtered or evaporated, the deduced cross sections are systematically biased, and the size of this bias is not bounded. The figure caption reports only statistical errors. Please provide a quantitative assessment of target material loss, e.g., post-irradiation RBS or a comparison of production and post-run thickness, and include the resulting systematic uncertainty in the cross-section values. Without this, the claim that the data 'extend the known cross sections towards lower energies' is not quantitatively defensible.
  2. [1.1.2] The recommendation that AXF and ZXF graphite are 'good candidates for the LUNA measurement' is based on preliminary analysis of short tests (beam currents of 2–5 pµA, integrated charges up to ~3 C, as shown in Fig. 6). The planned LUNA campaign will use beam intensities up to 150 pµA and multi-week irradiations. The paper acknowledges that contamination analysis and beam-induced degradation studies are still ongoing, but no scaling argument or dedicated test is provided to connect the endurance seen in these short tests to the much more demanding LUNA conditions. Please either present additional endurance data at higher charge, provide a reasoned extrapolation (e.g., based on thermal modeling), or explicitly label this as a preliminary finding that does not yet support a final target choice.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'Reasearch' should be 'Research'.
  2. [Abstract] In the abstract, 'ST AR' should be 'STAR' with no space.
  3. [Section 2] The text says 'Czeck Republic'; the correct spelling is 'Czech Republic'.
  4. [Figure 20] The caption refers to a Gamow window at T9 = 1K; for completeness, define T9 as 10^9 K in the text or caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all reported results are direct measurements or protocol recommendations, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental target-development report, not a derivation or prediction. Each deliverable is a direct measurement or observational test: RBS thickness determinations, SEM and visual damage assessments, beam-endurance observations, desorption factors, activation gamma spectra, and comparative target-yield spectra. The Figure 20 cross sections are activation measurements normalized by target properties; the paper itself openly documents the associated limitations, including CeO2 damage after 1–10 mC of beam charge, the need to correct for beam-current variation during irradiation, and the complete deterioration of Ta2O5 layers. These are acknowledged systematic uncertainties, not circular reductions: the cross sections are not equal to any fitted input by construction, and no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then presented as an independent prediction. The self-citations (Tumino 2018, Depalo 2021, Caciolli 2012, Heine 2018) are used as external context or as previously published measurement techniques, and none carries the load of a claimed new result in a way that reduces the paper's conclusions to the citations themselves. The qualitative recommendation of AXF/ZXF graphite for LUNA is a cautious extrapolation from short tests, explicitly labeled as based on preliminary analysis, so it is a judgment about endurance rather than a circular derivation. Overall, no circular chain is present, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper reports no explicit free parameters; the only quantitative result depends on an unreported effective target thickness. The protocol recommendations assume standard ion-beam characterization works as claimed (RBS/SIMNRA), that the activation gamma lines can be attributed unambiguously, and that short endurance tests predict long-run behavior. No new physical entities are postulated; the X17 boson is cited from prior work as the object of an experimental search.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective CeO2 areal density during irradiation (target normalization for Fig 20) = not reported
    The 13C+16O cross sections in §1.2.2 are yields divided by target atom areal density, but the paper gives no post-irradiation thickness accounting and documents beam-driven material loss, so this normalization is an unexamined input.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RBS spectra simulated with SIMNRA 7.0 determine the thickness and stoichiometry of the deposited target layers reliably
    Invoked in §1.2.1 for 13C-on-Ta targets and in §1.2.2 for Ta2O5 targets to set the areal densities used in activation runs.
  • domain assumption The 1368 keV and 1779 keV gamma lines uniquely identify the 24Na and 28Al decay channels with no unresolved interferences
    Used in §1.2.2 to attribute activation yields to specific fusion exit channels and to build the Fig 20 cross sections.
  • domain assumption Target areal density during irradiation equals the pre-irradiation RBS value
    The cross-section normalization in §1.2.2 requires constant target thickness; the paper's own images show beam damage (Figs 11, 12, 18) and it concedes that the Ta2O5 layer 'disappears' during irradiation.
  • standard math Standard energy-loss and charge-integration inputs for 8-15 MeV heavy-ion beams apply without correction
    Implicit in converting beam energy, target thickness, and recorded beam charge into center-of-mass energy and yields in §1.2; no stopping-power tables or charge-state corrections are given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solid Target production for Astrophysical Reasearch: the European target laboratory partnership in ChETEC-INFRA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MMR5LF2

@misc{pith2026250416147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solid Target production for Astrophysical Reasearch: the European target laboratory partnership in ChETEC-INFRA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MMR5LF2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16147}
}
read the original abstract

The joint work of European target laboratories in the ChETEC-INFRA project is presented, to face the new experimental challenges of nuclear astrophysics. In particular, results are presented on innovative targets of 12,13C, 16O, and 19F that were produced, characterized, and, in some cases, tested under beam irradiation. STAR (Solid Targets for Astrophysics Research) is already acting to increase collaboration among laboratories, to achieve shared protocols for target production, and to offer a characterization service to the entire nuclear astrophysics community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16147 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Map of the ChETEC-INFRA STAR task members. The STAR collaboration aims to develop, test and make protocols of special solid targets complying with the new requirements of experimental studies of reactions of astrophysical interest, namely purity, enrichment, composition, thickness, and stability under irradiation. To this end, STAR is working towards the realization of: - ultra-pure material targets for low reaction… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Photograph of the target foil measurement station for characterizing large thin carbon target foils at IPHC Strasbourg. target Healy, M.J.F. (1997); Aguilera et al. (2006); Fruet et al. (2020) demonstrating the reliability and accuracy of the target foil normalization during the 12C+12C measurements with STELLA. Such routines are in high need, seen the challenges of exact target thickness determination in such exper… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sequences of target thickness determination measurements at IPHC Strasbourg for large thin carbon targets. Data are taken in iterative measurements on and off the irradiated target area and several target production patches are indicated by the color code of the fitting curves (see text for details). beam induced degradation in each of them. 1.2 12,13C+16O As mentioned at the beginning of this section, fusion reacti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Picture of the HEAT setup installed at the AN2000 accelerator facility of Legnaro National Laboratories. 12C(3He,p)14N 2H(3He,p)4He Before desorption After desorption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Natural graphite (0.95% nominal purity) spectra before and after a 1 MeV beam of 3He. System produced by Intercovamex company [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AXF ENTEGRIS graphite (black circles), Natural graphite (red stars), HOPG (blue squares) and glassy carbon (green triangles) temperature of the beam spot. The ENTEGRIS graphite shows the best thermal conductivity and after long irradiation (up to 3 C) showed the best e…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: RBS spectrum for the target on the left, showing the small peak corresponding to 13C and the larger one denoting the Ta backing. The slight disagreement between the simulation (blue line) and the experimental data (red dots) is due to the presence of rugosities on the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Picture taken of target in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: CeO2 target seen with microscope at 8x magnification showing damage after 1 mC irradiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Gamma decay spectrum after irradiation of CeO2 target with 13C at 10 MeV energy and ∼1 pµA beam intensity. Red arrows indicate the peaks of interest. The black arrow indicates a background peak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Photograph of the Ta2O5 target with layer thickness of ∼438 nm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Gamma decay spectrum after irradiation with 13C at 8 MeV, recorded for ∼3.5 hours. The red arrow indicates the peak from 24Na, at 1368 keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison between gamma decay spectra obtained with the three types of targets described. Blue (top) indicates Ta2O5, red (middle) shows CeO2 and black (bottom) is 13C. X-axis is zoomed around the two energies of interest which are shown with dashed lines. The spectr…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Experimental cross sections as a function of center of mass energy for the two short-lived active channels measured, 13C+16O → 28Al+p and 13C+16O → 27Mg+2p. Error bars indicate statistical errors and are too small to be seen on the plot at higher energies. Red points …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: shows a comparison between the prompt gamma spectra obtained with the two types of targets, the blue line representing LiF and red showing BaF2. The most significant difference between them comes from the better statistics due to the increased stoichiometry of fluorin…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: PTFE target tested with a Cyclotron proton beam of NPI of UJF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Yields from one detector of the NEW JEDI experiment obtained by a 1.070 MeV proton beam on different targets. Pink line is for a 154 µg/cm2 LiF target with a 40 µg/cm2 C backing. Black line for a 40µg/cm2 C target. Red line for a 153 µg/cm2 CaF2 target with a 34 µg/cm…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Sketch of a possible reaction to measure to get the 22Ne(α,n)25Mg cross section with the THM, taking advantage of the solid helium targets to be produced at LNS-INFN. The use of solid α-targets is conditional to keep the low energy and angular spread needed by the THM…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adsley, P. et al. (2021). Reevaluation of the ^ 22 N e( , ) ^ 26 M g and ^ 22 N e( ,n) ^ 25 M g reaction rates. Physical Review C , 103(015805)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Aguilera, E. et al. (2006). Carbon buildup monitoring using RBS : Correlation with secondary electrons. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B , 244:427--435

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Ananna, C. et al. (2022). The shades neutron detection array. In European Physical Journal Web of Conferences , volume 260 of European Physical Journal Web of Conferences , page 11043

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Ananna, C. et al. (2024). Intrinsic background of EJ -309 liquid scintillator detectors. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , 1060:169036

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Barr \'o n-Palos, L. et al. (2006). Absolute cross sections measurement for the ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C system at astrophysically relevant energies. nphysa , 779:318--332

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Bastin, B. et al. (2023). Investigation of a light dark boson existence: The new jedi project, P roc. of the 11th E uropean S ummer S chool on E xperimental N uclear A strophysics. European Physical Journal Web of Conference , 275

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Becker, H. . et al. (1981). The ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C reaction at subcoulomb energies. ii. Zeitschrift fur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei , 303:305--312

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    Buchmann, L. (1996). New Stellar Reaction Rate for ^ 12 C( , ) ^ 16 O . Astrophysical Journal Letters , 468:L127

    work page 1996

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Busso, M. et al. (1999). Nucleosynthesis in asymptotic giant branch stars: Relevance for galactic enrichment and solar system formation. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 37(1):239--309

    1999

  2. [10]

    Caciolli, A. et al. (2012). Preparation and characterisation of isotopically enriched T a _2 O _5 targets for nuclear astrophysics studies. The European Physical Journal A , 48(144)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Chieffi, A. et al. (2021). Impact of the new measurement of the ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C fusion cross section on the final compactness of massive stars. The Astrophysical Journal , 916(79)

    2021

  4. [12]

    and Switkowski, Z

    Christensen, P. and Switkowski, Z. (1977). IWB analysis of scattering and fusion cross sections for the ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C , ^ 13 C + ^ 16 O and ^ 16 O + ^ 16 O reactions for energies near and below the Coulomb barrier . Nuclear Physics A , 280(1):205--216

    1977

  5. [13]

    Ciani, G. et al. (2021). Direct measurement of the ^ 13 C ( ,n) ^ 16 O cross section into the s-process gamow peak. Physical Review Letters , 127(15):152701

    2021

  6. [14]

    Mi s icu and Esbensen, H

    S . Mi s icu and Esbensen, H. (2006). Hindrance of heavy-ion fusion due to nuclear incompressibility. Physical Review Letters , 96(112701)

    2006

  7. [15]

    and Barnes, C

    C ujec, B. and Barnes, C. (1976). Total reaction cross section for ^ 12 C + ^ 16 O below the C oulomb barrier . Nuclear Physics A , 266(2):461--493

    1976

  8. [16]

    Dasmahapatra, B. et al. (1991). Fusion cross sections for ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C , ^ 12 C + ^ 13 C and ^ 13 C + ^ 13 C at low energies. Nuclear Physics A , 526(2):395--406

    1991

  9. [17]

    Depalo, R. et al. (2021). The heat project: study of hydrogen desorption from carbon targets. INFN‑LNL Report , 262:97--98

    2021

  10. [18]

    Drotleff, H. et al. (1993). Reaction rates of the s-process neutron sources ^ 22 N e( ,n) ^ 25 M g and ^ 13 C ( ,n) ^ 16 O . The Astrophysical Journal , 414:735--739

    1993

  11. [19]

    Fang, X. et al. (2017). Experimental measurement of ^ 12 C+ ^ 16 O fusion at stellar energies . Physical Review C , 96(4):045804

    2017

  12. [20]

    Fruet, G. et al. (2020). Advances in the direct study of carbon burning in massive stars. Physics Review Letters , 124(19):192701

    2020

  13. [21]

    Gaedke, R. et al. (1968). Cross-section measurements for the nucleon-transfer reactions ^ 10 B ( ^ 19 F , ^ 18 F ) ^ 11 B and ^ 10 B ( ^ 19 F , ^ 18 O ) ^ 11 C . Physical Review , 167(957)

    1968

  14. [22]

    Gallino, R. et al. (1988). On the role of low mass asymptotic giant branch stars in producing a solar system distribution of s-process isotopes. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , 334:L45

    1988

  15. [23]

    Gao, B. et al. (2022). Deep underground laboratory measurement of ^ 13 C ( ,n) ^ 16 O in the gamow windows of the s and i processes. Physical Review Letters , 129(13):132701

    2022

  16. [24]

    Gharaei, R. et al. (2021). Survey of deep sub-barrier heavy-ion fusion hindrance phenomenon for positive and negative q-value systems using the proximity-type potential. Chinese Physics C , 45(124101)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Harms, V. et al. (1991). Properties of ^ 22 N e( ,n) ^ 25 M g resonances. Physical Review C , 43(6):2849

    1991

  18. [26]

    Healy, M.J.F. (1997). Minimising carbon contamination during ion beam analysis . Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B , 129:130--136

    1997

  19. [27]

    Heine, M. et al. (2018). The STELLA apparatus for particle-gamma coincidence fusion measurements with nanosecond timing. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , 903(1)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Heine, M. et al. (2022). Direct measurement of carbon fusion at astrophysical energies with gamma-particle coincidences. EPJ Web Conf , 260:01004

    2022

  21. [29]

    Iliadis, C. et al. (2010). Charged-particle thermonuclear reaction rates: Ii. tables and graphs of reaction rates and probability density functions. Nuclear Physics A , 841:31–250

    2010

  22. [30]

    Jaeger, M. et al. (2001). ^ 22 N e( ,n) ^ 25 M g: The key neutron source in massive stars. Physics Review Letters , 87:202501

    2001

  23. [31]

    Jayatissa, H. et al. (2020). Constraining the ^ 22 N e( , ) ^ 26 M g and ^ 22 N e( ,n) ^ 25 M g reaction rates using sub-coulomb -transfer reactions. Phys. Lett. B , 802(135267)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Jiang, C. et al. (2008). Fusion hindrance for a positive Q -value system. Physical Review C , 78(017601)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Jiang, C. L. et al. (2018). Reaction rate for carbon burning in massive stars. Physical Review C , 97(1):012801

    2018

  26. [34]

    Krasznahorkay, A. J. et al. (2016). Observation of anomalous internal pair creation in ^ 8 Be : A possible indication of a light, neutral boson. Physics Review Letters , 116:042501

    2016

  27. [35]

    La Cognata, M. et al. (2013). On the measurement of the ^ 13 C ( ,n) ^ 16 O s-factor at negative energies and its influence on the s-process. The Astrophysical Journal , 777(2):143

    2013

  28. [36]

    Longland, R. et al. (2012). Reaction rates for the s-process neutron source ^ 22 N e+ . Physical Review C , 85:065809

    2012

  29. [37]

    Mart \' nez-Rodr \' guez, H. et al. (2017). Observational Evidence for High Neutronization in Supernova Remnants: Implications for Type Ia Supernova Progenitors . The Astrophysical Journal , 843(1):35

    2017

  30. [38]

    Mayer, M. (1999). Simnra, a simulation program for the analysis of NRA, RBS and ERDA . AIP Conference Proceedings , 475(1):541--544

    1999

  31. [39]

    Mercogliano, D. et al. (2024). The new deep-underground direct measurement of ^ 22 N e( , ) ^ 26 M g with eas : A feasibility study. Galaxies , 12(6):79

    2024

  32. [40]

    Monpribat, E. et al. (2022). A new ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C nuclear reaction rate: Impact on stellar evolution. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 660:A47

    2022

  33. [41]

    Montagnoli, G. et al. (2020). Study of fusion hindrance in the system ^ 12 C + ^ 24 M g. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 1643(012098)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Morales-Gallegos, L. et al. (2018). Reduction of deuterium content in carbon targets for ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C reaction studies of astrophysical interest. European Physical Journal A , 54(8):132

    2018

  35. [43]

    Nippert, J. et al. (2024). Recent results on direct measurement of the ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C fusion cross section at deep sub-barrier energies with STELLA . Acta Phys Pol B Proc Suppl , 17:3--A33

    2024

  36. [44]

    Notani, M. et al. (2012). Correlation between the ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C , ^ 12 C + ^ 13 C , and ^ 13 C + ^ 13 C fusion cross sections. Physical Review C , 85(014607)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Oliva, A. et al. (2023). Study of the ^ 12 C + ^ 16 O fusion reaction in carbon burning via the T rojan H orse M ethod . In Nuclear Physics in Astrophysics - X (NPA-X 2022) , volume 279 of European Physical Journal Web of Conferences , page 11015

    2023

  38. [46]

    Patterson, J. et al. (1971). Experimental investigation of ^ 16 O + ^ 12 C nuclear burning at stellar energies . Nuclear Physics A , 165(3):545--559

    1971

  39. [47]

    Piatti, D. (2024). Laboratory for underground nuclear astrophysics. In European Physical Journal Web of Conferences , volume 297 of European Physical Journal Web of Conferences , page 01009

    2024

  40. [48]

    Picollo, F. et al. (2021). Creation of pure non-crystalline diamond nanostructures via room-temperature ion irradiation and subsequent thermal annealing. Nanoscale Advances , 3(14):4156--4165

    2021

  41. [49]

    Sargsyan, V. et al. (2022). Constraints on the appearance of a maximum in astrophysical S -factor. Physics Letters B , 824(136792)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Schatz, H. et al. (2014). Strong neutrino cooling by cycles of electron capture and -decay in neutron star crust. Nature , 505:62–65

    2014

  43. [51]

    Sen, A. et al. (2019). A high intensity, high stability 3.5 MV singletron accelerator. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B , 450:390--395

    2019

  44. [52]

    Spartà, R. et al. (2022). Neutron-driven nucleosynthesis in stellar plasma. Frontiers in Physics , 10(896011)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Spillane, T. et al. (2007). ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C fusion reactions near the gamow energy. Physics Review Letters , 98(12):122501

    2007

  46. [54]

    Spitaleri, C. et al. (2019). Astrophysics studies with the T rojan H orse method. The European Physical Journal A , 55:1--29

    2019

  47. [55]

    S olid T argets for A strophysics R esearch

    STAR (2021). S olid T argets for A strophysics R esearch. https://www.chetec-infra.eu/jra/star/

    2021

  48. [56]

    Tan, W. et al. (2024). Coincident measurement of the ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C fusion cross section via the differential thick-target technique. Physical Review C , 110:035808

    2024

  49. [57]

    Tan, W. P. et al. (2020). New measurement of ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C fusion reaction at astrophysical energies. Physics Review Letters , 124(19):192702

    2020

  50. [58]

    Tudor, D. et al. (2020). A facility for direct measurements for nuclear astrophysics at ifin-hh - a 3 MV tandem accelerator and an ultra-low background laboratory. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , 953(163178)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Tumino, A. et al. (2018). An increase in the ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C fusion rate from resonances at astrophysical energies. Nature , 557(7707):687--690

    2018

  52. [60]

    Tumino, A. et al. (2021). The T rojan H orse method: a nuclear physics tool for astrophysics. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science , 71(1):345--376

    2021

  53. [61]

    Tumino, A. et al. (2025). Indirect methods with transfer reactions: The T rojan H orse method and the asymptotic normalization coefficient. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics , 143:104164

    2025

  54. [62]

    Weaver, T. A. and Woosley, S. (1993). Nucleosynthesis in massive stars and the ^ 12 C( , ) ^ 16 O reaction rate . Physics Reports , 227(1-5):65--96

    1993

  55. [63]

    Wiescher, M. et al. (2012). Critical Reactions in Contemporary Nuclear Astrophysics . Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 50:165--210

    2012

  56. [64]

    Wiescher, M. et al. (2023). The resonances in the ^ 22 N e+ fusion reactions . European Physical Journal A , 59(1):11

    2023

  57. [65]

    Woosley, S. et al. (1971). Astrophysical Importance of the Reaction ^ 12 C+ ^ 16 O . Physical Review Letters , 27(4):213--216

    1971

  58. [66]

    Zhang, N. et al. (2020). Constraining the ^ 12 C + ^ 12 C astrophysical s-factors with the ^ 12 C + ^ 13 C measurements at very low energies. Physics Letters B , 801(135170)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Zickefoose, J. et al. (2018). Measurement of the ^ 12 C ( ^ 12 C ,p) ^ 23 N a cross section near the gamow energy. Physical Review C , 97(6):065806

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.