CNO_Bicycle_Loop.pdf (Fig. 12, \label{fig:CNO_Bicycle}) has the branching percentages baked into the artwork. They are the only text in the figure, and there are exactly four labels:
99.94% 0.06% <- the 15N branch point
64.39% 35.61% <- the 17O branch point
Both pairs were computed from the NACRE-I rates, so both are invalidated by the two open issues on the surrounding text. The figure currently disagrees with the manuscript body it illustrates.
What changes
${}^{17}$O branch — from #14 (already applied to the text). ETR25 median rates at $T_9 = 0.015$ give $R_{17} = 0.5429$ and $f_{p\gamma} = 0.35187$:
|
figure now |
should be |
| $(p,\gamma){}^{18}$F, into CNO-III |
35.61% |
35.19% |
| $(p,\alpha){}^{14}$N, back to CNO-I |
64.39% |
64.81% |
${}^{15}$N branch — pending #20. The figure's 99.94% / 0.06% comes from the NACRE-I ratio $5.9\times10^{-4}$. If the factor-2 LUNA revision discussed in #20 holds at solar core temperature, this becomes roughly 99.97% / 0.03%. These numbers should not be touched until #20 settles what the ratio actually is.
Precision is overstated
Independent of which evaluation is used, quoting four significant figures is not defensible. The ETR25 factor uncertainty on ${}^{17}\mathrm O(p,\alpha){}^{14}\mathrm N$ at $T_9 = 0.015$ is $\approx 1.7$ — the rate itself is uncertain at the tens-of-percent level, so "35.61%" claims precision the input does not support. Consider dropping to whole percentages (35% / 65%, >99.9% / <0.1%) to match how the body text now reads after #14.
Editing route
The percentage labels will be edited by hand in art/CNO_Bicycle_Loop.svg, then re-exported to CNO_Bicycle_Loop.pdf at the repo root, which is what the manuscript includes.
This is a clean edit: all four percentages are live <text> nodes in the SVG, each appearing exactly once, so they can be changed directly without touching the diagram geometry.
Note that art/CNO_Bicycle.svg is a separate, number-free version of the diagram and needs no changes.
Depends on
CNO_Bicycle_Loop.pdf(Fig. 12,\label{fig:CNO_Bicycle}) has the branching percentages baked into the artwork. They are the only text in the figure, and there are exactly four labels:Both pairs were computed from the NACRE-I rates, so both are invalidated by the two open issues on the surrounding text. The figure currently disagrees with the manuscript body it illustrates.
What changes
${}^{17}$O branch — from #14 (already applied to the text). ETR25 median rates at$T_9 = 0.015$ give $R_{17} = 0.5429$ and $f_{p\gamma} = 0.35187$ :
${}^{15}$N branch — pending #20. The figure's 99.94% / 0.06% comes from the NACRE-I ratio$5.9\times10^{-4}$ . If the factor-2 LUNA revision discussed in #20 holds at solar core temperature, this becomes roughly 99.97% / 0.03%. These numbers should not be touched until #20 settles what the ratio actually is.
Precision is overstated
Independent of which evaluation is used, quoting four significant figures is not defensible. The ETR25 factor uncertainty on${}^{17}\mathrm O(p,\alpha){}^{14}\mathrm N$ at $T_9 = 0.015$ is $\approx 1.7$ — the rate itself is uncertain at the tens-of-percent level, so "35.61%" claims precision the input does not support. Consider dropping to whole percentages (35% / 65%, >99.9% / <0.1%) to match how the body text now reads after #14.
Editing route
The percentage labels will be edited by hand in
art/CNO_Bicycle_Loop.svg, then re-exported toCNO_Bicycle_Loop.pdfat the repo root, which is what the manuscript includes.This is a clean edit: all four percentages are live
<text>nodes in the SVG, each appearing exactly once, so they can be changed directly without touching the diagram geometry.Note that
art/CNO_Bicycle.svgis a separate, number-free version of the diagram and needs no changes.Depends on