English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We address a conflicting report on the value and uncertainty of theastrophysical cross section factor of the 12C(a,g) reaction extracted fromexisting data. In sharp contrast to previously reported ambiguities (by up to afactor 8), Schuermann et al. suggest an accuracy of 12%. We demonstrate thatthe so claimed "rigorous data selection criteria" used by Schuermann et al.relies on the s-factors extracted by Assuncao et al. But these results wereshown in a later analysis (by this author) to have large error bars(considerably larger than claimed by Assuncao em et al.) which render thesedata not appropriate for a rigorous analysis. When their "rigorous dataselection" is adjusted to remove the results of Assuncao et al. theastrophysical cross section factor cannot be extracted with 12% accuracy, oreven close to it. Such data on the S_E2 values at low energies deviate by up toa factor two from their fit and exhibit a sharper slope rising toward lowenergies, leading to strong doubt on their extrapolated S_E2(300) value and thequoted small error bar. Contrary to their claim the small value of S_E1(300)~10 keVb cannot be ruled out by current data including the most moderngamma-ray data. As previously observed by several authors current data revealambiguities in the value of S_E1(300) ~10 keVb or ~80 keVb, and the newambiguity that was recently revealed (by this author) of S_E2(300) ~60 keVb or~154 keVb, appear to be a more reasonable evaluation the status of currentdata.

On the sensitivity of extracting the astrophysical cross section factor  of the 12C(a,g) reaction from existing data [Comment on Schuermann et al.  Phys. Lett. B711(2012)35]