Measurement of the 10 keV resonance in theB10(p,α0)Be7

Measurement of the B10(p,α0)Be7 cross section from 5 keV to 1.5 MeV

“…The THM can be regarded as an extension to the ultra-low energies of QF reactions, making it possible to apply the method to nuclear astrophysics [21,34,37]. The methodology behind the THM application has been described in different articles [16,26,31,38]. In the following paragraphs, we shortly summarize the main features, with particular reference to the 2 H( 10 B,α 0 7 Be)n case.…”

“…Unfortunately, the 8.699 MeV state sits right at the Gamow peak energy for the the 10 B(p,α) 7 Be reaction, making it necessary to disentangle the two contributions and to subtract from the experimental data the sub threshold state at 8.654 MeV. We apply the same procedure as in [16]. …”

“…The cross section of the 10 B(p,α 0 ) 7 Be reaction has been investigated in many different experiments, direct [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and indirect [14][15][16], and it has been calculated using DWBA and potential model [17]. Reviews of the data are reported in [18,19].…”

“…An indirect measurement was also attempted few years ago by means of the Trojan Horse Method (THM) [20][21][22], aiming at solving the inconsistencies among direct measurements [16]. The THM is a renowned indirect method, very useful in the study of reaction with charged particles in the exit channel, in contrast with ANC [23] and Coulomb dissociation [24], focused on radiative capture reactions.…”

“…The THM is a renowned indirect method, very useful in the study of reaction with charged particles in the exit channel, in contrast with ANC [23] and Coulomb dissociation [24], focused on radiative capture reactions. However, the 10 B(p,α 0 ) 7 Be cross section was measured in the energy range 0-100 keV [16], and the lack of a sufficient statistics did not allow us to extend the excitation function in the region 100 -1000 keV. Normalization was then performed by matching the THM Sfactor to a R-matrix calculation performed by introducing into the calculation the resonance parameters from the literature [25], and caused the measured S(E)-factor to be affected by an uncertainty of 20% mainly due to the normalization procedure [16].…”