Paper detail

Strengths of the resonances at 436, 479, 639, 661, and 1279 keV in the $^{22}$Ne(p,$γ$)$^{23}$Na reaction

The $^{22}$Ne(p,$γ$)$^{23}$Na reaction is included in the neon-sodium cycle of hydrogen burning. A number of narrow resonances in the Gamow window dominates the thermonuclear reaction rate. Several resonance strengths are only poorly known. As a result, the $^{22}$Ne(p,$γ$)$^{23}$Na thermonuclear reaction rate is the most uncertain rate of the cycle. Here, a new experimental study of the strengths of the resonances at 436, 479, 639, 661, and 1279 keV proton beam energy is reported. The data have been obtained using a tantalum target implanted with $^{22}$Ne. The strengths $ωγ$ of the resonances at 436, 639, and 661 keV have been determined with a relative approach, using the 479 and 1279 keV resonances for normalization. Subsequently, the ratio of resonance strengths of the 479 and 1279 keV resonances was determined, improving the precision of these two standards. The new data are consistent with, but more precise than, the literature with the exception of the resonance at 661 keV, which is found to be less intense by one order of magnitude. In addition, improved branching ratios have been determined for the gamma decay of the resonances at 436, 479, and 639 keV.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access14 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.