1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0375-9474(99)00030-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A compilation of charged-particle induced thermonuclear reaction rates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

63
1,575
19
13

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2,094 publications
(1,670 citation statements)
references
References 525 publications
63
1,575
19
13
Order By: Relevance
“…The thermonuclear reaction rate obtained based on our data is much lower than the previous rate by Caughlan and Fowler (CF88, [28] ) but also lower than all other previously reported thermonuclear reaction rates [15,27,29] (see Fig. 6 and Table 4 ).…”
Section: Thermonuclear Reaction Rate and Astrophysical Implicationscontrasting
confidence: 74%
“…The thermonuclear reaction rate obtained based on our data is much lower than the previous rate by Caughlan and Fowler (CF88, [28] ) but also lower than all other previously reported thermonuclear reaction rates [15,27,29] (see Fig. 6 and Table 4 ).…”
Section: Thermonuclear Reaction Rate and Astrophysical Implicationscontrasting
confidence: 74%
“…Metcalfe (2003) determined what the rates of the 12 C(α, γ) 16 O nuclear reaction needed to be in order to produce the carbon and oxygen abundance profiles infered from the asteroseismic study of GD 358 and CBS 114. For both stars, the rates found were consistent with the NACRE nuclear reaction rates (Angulo et al 1999). …”
Section: The 12 C(α γ) 16 O Ratesupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Actually, additional resonances might be populated in 20 Ne [32]. A recent experiment [33] measured the 19 F(p,α 0 ) 16 O astrophysical S (E)-factor by indirect means of the Trojan Horse method, and found that the largest rate difference, about 70%, occurs at temperatures relevant for post-AGB stars (∼0.1 GK), exceeding the upper limit set by the previous uncertainties [28]. Such difference is clearly due to the presence of the 113 keV resonance (E x =12.957 MeV, 2 + ).…”
Section: (Pα 0 ) Channelmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…However, these results were not included in the NACRE compilation as possible systematic errors affecting the absolute normalization might lead * Refer to five proposals submitted to NSFC in 2014, W.P. Liu et al, The 12 C(α,γ) 16 to an underestimate of S (E) by a factor of two [28]. The astrophysical factor was then extrapolated to low energies assuming a dominant contribution of the non-resonant part [28].…”
Section: (Pα 0 ) Channelmentioning
confidence: 99%