1995
DOI: 10.1103/physrevc.52.r1732
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Polarized proton capture by deuterium and theH2(p, γ)He

Abstract: The 2H(p, y) He reaction has been studied in the energy region E =80 -0 keV (E, =53,3 -0 keV), where the quantities measured were a(H, E) and A (//, E') Our res.ult for the total H(p, y) He 5 factor at E Oi=s S(0) =0.121~0.012 eV b (including systematic error), which is 52% lower than the presently accepted value. Some astrophysical aspects of this result are discussed. We have also extracted the El and M 1 S(E) components using our detailed angular distribution data. These data will provide sensitive tests fo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
51
1

Year Published

1996
1996
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
4
51
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The previous measurements by the same authors gave 1.21(12)·10 −4 keV b [24] and the value 1.85(5)·10 −4 keV b was received in [25]. The average of these experimental measurements equals 1.69(58) · 10 −4 keV b what is in a good agreement with the value 1.65(5) · 10 −4 keV b calculated here only on the basis of the E1 transition.…”
mentioning
confidence: 73%
“…The previous measurements by the same authors gave 1.21(12)·10 −4 keV b [24] and the value 1.85(5)·10 −4 keV b was received in [25]. The average of these experimental measurements equals 1.69(58) · 10 −4 keV b what is in a good agreement with the value 1.65(5) · 10 −4 keV b calculated here only on the basis of the E1 transition.…”
mentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Some discrepancies exist for the lower energies data, but in [90] the authors stress on the presence of a systematic error in their previous data (see e.g. [89]), with an upward correction that reduces the compatibility problem with the older data reported in [92]. Moreover, the latter data set by Griffiths is likely to be affected by a 10%-15% normalization error due to the wrong stopping powers used for the heavy-ice targets [91,93], so that the disagreement is now reduced with respect to the first claims.…”
Section: Reaction Dpγmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In the following, we detail the experimental data that we considered in this evaluation, in general taken from published tables, but when scanned from a figure, we provide here tables of the extracted numerical values. It was found, that NACRE overlooked the overall scaling factor of 1.37 [103] missing in the Schmidt et al [31] data. Here, we follow DAACV and use instead A 0 (multiplied by 4π) from Table II in Schmidt et al [36].…”
Section: Appendix B: the D(pγ)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33], plus a few high energy experiments and a polynomial fit, while Descouvemont et al [15] (DAACV hereafter) used a slightly different set of data, from Refs. [21,[24][25][26][32][33][34][35][36] and included the data from Ref.…”
Section: The D(pγ)mentioning
confidence: 99%