- Access by Xinjiang University
() Reaction on Heavy Elements at Low Deuteron Energies
Phys. Rev. 121, 613 – Published 15 January, 1961
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.121.613
Abstract
Deuterons of 9.1, 8.3, and 7.4 Mev were used to produce () reactions in and targets. The proton differential cross section was measured for different values, each of which corresponds to a final state of known assignment. With one exception, all of the observed angular distributions were broad peaks with maxima near 180°. The theoretical approximations which apply for low deuteron energy predict a Gaussian distribution peaked in the backward direction. Although the measured distributions are not of Gaussian form, a comparison of the measured and predicted width variation with shows fair agreement with one theoretical result and poor agreement with the other. For the reaction with the highest a peak near 120° was observed. This more forward peak would be expected both from a reduced Coulomb effect and from the influence of the nuclear potential on the proton. As expected when the Coulomb field is dominant, there was only a small observed correlation between the measured angular distribution and the angular momentum of the captured neutron. In a few cases, triton angular distributions from () reactions were measured, and these also showed peaks at large scattering angles.
References (21)
- S. T. Butler and O. H. Hittmair, Nuclear Stripping Reactions (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1957)
- D. H. Wilkinson, Phil. Mag. 3, 1185 (1958)
- W. Tobocman and M. H. Kalos, Phys. Rev. 97, 132 (1955)
- J. R. Oppenheimer and M. Phillips, Phys. Rev. 48, 500 (1935)
- K. A. Ter-Martirosian, J. Exptl. Theoret. Phys. U.S.S.R. 29, 713 (1955) [translation: Soviet Phys.—JETP 2, 620 (1956)]
- L. C. Biedenharn, K. Boyer, and M. Goldstein, Phys. Rev. 104, 383 (1956)
- L. C. Biedenharn and G. R. Satchler, paper given at the International Conference on Polarization Phenomena of Nucleons, Basel, 1960 (unpublished)
- M. T. McEllistrem, H. J. Martin, D. W. Miller, and M. B. Sampson, Phys. Rev. 111, 1636 (1958)
- G. B. Holm, J. R. Burwell, and D. W. Miller, Phys. Rev. 118, 1247 (1960)
- J. P. Schiffer and L. L. Lee, Jr., Phys. Rev. 115, 1705 (1959)
- W. W. Pratt, Phys. Rev. 97, 131 (1955)
- G. C. Phillips, Phys. Rev. 80, 164 (1950) D. de Jong, P. M. Endt, and L. J. G. Simons, Physica 18, 676 (1952) E. Baumgartner and H. W. Fulbright, Phys. Rev. 107, 219 (1957) I. B. Teplov and B. A. Iur'ev, J. Exptl. Theoret. Phys. U.S.S.R. 34, 334 (1958) translation: Soviet Phys.—JETP 7, 233 (1958)
- L. Madansky and G. E. Owen, Phys. Rev. 99, 1608 (1955)
- H. E. Wegner and W. S. Hall, Phys. Rev. 119, 1654 (1960)
- R. E. Peterson, R. K. Adair, and H. H. Barschall, Phys. Rev. 79, 935 (1950)
- R. H. Stokes, Rev. Sci. Instr. 31, 768 (1960)
- R. H. Stokes, J. A. Northrop, and K. Boyer, Rev. Sci. Instr. 29, 61 (1958)
- J. A. Northrop and R. H. Stokes, Rev. Sci. Instr. 29, 287 (1958)
- J. A. Harvey, Can. J. Phys. 31, 278 (1953)
- L. S. Rodberg (private communication)
- L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, Zhur. Eksp. i Theoret. Fiz. U.S.S.R. 18, 750 (1948)