4.4 Article

Study of the threshold anomaly in the elastic scattering of d+197Au

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6471/acb452

关键词

elastic scattering; theoretical and experimental differential cross section; breakup threshold anomaly; distance of closest approach; critical distance; sensitivity radius; notch method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measurements of elastic scattering angular distribution for the d+ Au-197 system were conducted at deuteron incident energies ranging from 5 to 16 MeV, covering approximately 50% below and above the Coulomb barrier. A critical interaction distance of d (I) = 2.49 fm, comparable to that of the radioactive halo nucleus He-6, was determined from these distributions. Two alternative models, the semi-microscopic Sao Paulo and the effective Woods-Saxon optical potentials, were used to systematically analyze the experimental angular distributions, and the best-fitting parameters were determined. The energy dependence of the integrals calculated using these potentials exhibited the breakup threshold anomaly around the Coulomb barrier, characteristic of weakly bound nuclei.
Measurements of the elastic scattering angular distribution for the d+ Au-197 system were carried out covering deuteron incident energies in the range from 5 to 16 MeV, i.e. approximately 50% below and above the Coulomb barrier. A critical interaction distance of d (I) = 2.49 fm was determined from these distributions, which is comparable to that of the radioactive halo nucleus He-6. The experimental angular distributions were systematically analyzed using two alternative models: the semi-microscopic Sao Paulo and the effective Woods-Saxon optical potentials, for which the best-fitting parameters were determined. These potentials, integrated with the vicinity of the sensitivity radius, were calculated for each energy. For both models, the energy dependence of these integrals presented the breakup threshold anomaly around the coulomb barrier, a typical signature of weakly bound nuclei.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据