This comparison provides information about the similaritiesand the differences between the models used during the calculations.
📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale
🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In the present study, we reexamine quasi-elastic scattering of7Li by120Sn at incident energies ELab= 19.5,20.5, and 25.0 MeV.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The theoretical results are obtained by using both a phenomenological model and double-foldingmodel (DFM) within the framework of an optical model.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:This comparison provides information about the similaritiesand the differences between the models used during the calculations.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri
Abstract
In the present study, we reexamine quasi-elastic scattering of7Li by120Sn at incident energies ELab= 19.5,20.5, and 25.0 MeV. The theoretical results are obtained by using both a phenomenological model and double-foldingmodel (DFM) within the framework of an optical model. We also investigate the role of the surface potential, which isconnected to direct reactions. The agreement between the phenomenological model and the DFM is shown in comparisonto each other in connection with the experimental data. This comparison provides information about the similaritiesand the differences between the models used during the calculations.
🔖
Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap
AYGÜN, M., AYGÜN, Z. (2016). A study on7Li +120Sn quasi-elastic scattering. Turkish Journal of Physics, Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 1, 12–23. https://ajindex.com/articles/377895
Bassani, G.; Saunier, N.; Traore, B. M.Nucl. Phys. A1972,189, 353{367. [2]Chua, L. T.; Becchetti, F. D.; Janecke, J.; Milder, F. L.Nucl. Phys. A1976,273, 243-252. [3]Keeley, N.; Bennett, S. J.; Clarke, N. M.; Fulton, B. R.; Tungate, G.; Drumm, P. V.; Nagarajan, M. A.; Lilley, J.S.Nucl. Phys. A1994,571, 326{336. [4]Poling, J. E.; Norbeck, E.; Carlson, R. R.Phys. Rev. C1976,13, 648. [5]Aygun, M.Eur. Phys. J. A2012,48, 145. [6]Fatemian, M.; Buck, B.Phys. Letts. B1989,231, 25{27. [7]Cutler, R. I.; Nadworny, M. J.; Kemper, K. W.Phys. Rev. C1977,15, 1318. [8]Pinilla, E. C.; Descouvemont, P.Phys. Rev. C2014,89, 054615. [9]Freiesleben, H.; Rizzo, G. T.; Huizenga, J. R.Phys. Rev. C1975,12, 42. [10]Potthast, K. W.; Brand, H.; Freiesleben, H.; Rosenthal, P.; Kamys, B.; Schieck, H. P. gen.; Sydow, L.Nucl. Phys.A1997,614, 95{111. [11]Palshetkar, C. S.; Thakur, S.; V.; Shrivastava, A.; Dokania, N.; Singh, V.; Parkar, V. V.; Rout, P. C.; Palit, R.;Pillay, R. G. et al.Phys. Rev. C2014,89, 024607. [12]Keeley, N.; Kemper, K. W.; Rusek, K.Phys. Rev. C2001,65, 014601. [13]Moore, G. E.; Kemper, K. W.; Charlton, L. A.Phys. Rev. C1975,11, 1099. [14]Lubian, J.; Correa, T.; Paes, B.; Figueira, J. M.; Abriola, D.; Fernandez Niello, J. O.; Arazi, A.; Capurro, O. A.;Barbara, E. de.; Mart, G. V. et al.Nucl. Phys. A2007,791, 24-35. [15]Potthast, K. W.; Freiesleben, H.; Rosenthal, P.; Kamys, B.; Rudy, Z.; Schieck, H. P. gen.; Sydow L.Nucl. Phys. A1998,629, 656-676. [16]Rudchik, A. T.; Chercas, K. A.; Kemper, K. W.; Rudchik, A. A.; Kliczewski, S.; Koshchy, E. I.; Rusek, K.;Mezhevych, S. Yu.; Ponkratenko, O. A.; Pirnak, V. M. et al.Nucl. Phys. A2014,927, 209-219. [17]Descouvemont, P.; Hussein, M. S.Phys. Rev. Letts.2013,111, 082701. [18]Davis, N. J.; Ward, R. P.; Rusek, K.; Clarke, N. M.; Tungate, G.; Griffith, J. A. R.; Hall, S. J.; Karban, O.;Martel-Bravo, I.; Nelson, J. M. et al.Phys. Rev. C2004,69, 064605. [19]Kalita, K.; Verma, S.; Singh, R.; Das, J. J.; Jhingan, A.; Madhavan, N.; Nath, S.; Varughese, T.; Sugathan, P.;Parkar, V. V. et al.Phys. Rev. C2006,73, 024609. [20]Martel, I.; Gomez-Camacho, J.; Blyth, C. O.; Clarke, N. M.; Dee, P. R.; Fulton, B. R.; Griffith, J. A. R.; Hall, S.J.; Keeley, N.; Tungate, G. et al.Nucl. Phys. A1995,582, 357-368.22 [21]Al-Sa'ad, A. A.Chinese J. Phys.2014,52, 1218.[22]Martel, I.; Gomez-Camacho, J.; Rusek, K.; Tungate, G.Nucl. Phys. A1998,641, 188-202. [23]Cook, J.; Kemper, K. W.; Drumm, P. V.; Fi eld, L. K.; Hotchkis, M. A. C.; Ophel, T. R.; Woo