- Access by Xinjiang University
Measurement of (θ) for nPb from 6 to 10 MeV and the neutron-nucleus interaction over the energy range from bound states at -17 MeV up to scattering at 40 MeV
Phys. Rev. C 44, 2006 – Published 1 November, 1991
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.44.2006
Abstract
High-accuracy measurements of (θ) data for elastic scattering and inelastic scattering to the first excited state for nPb have been performed at 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 MeV. In addition, σ(θ) was measured at 8 MeV. These data provide an important subset for the growing database for the nPb system from bound-state energies to energies above 40 MeV, the limit of the range of interest here. This database has been interpreted via several approaches. First, a conventional Woods-Saxon spherical optical was used to obtain three potential representations for the energy range from 4 to 40 MeV: ‘‘best fits’’ at each energy, constant-geometry global fit with linear energy dependences for the potential strengths for the range 4.0–40 MeV, and an extension of the latter model to allow a linear energy dependence on the radii and diffuseness. A preference for a complex spin-orbit interaction was observed in all cases. Second, the dispersion relation was introduced into the spherical optical model to obtain a more ‘‘realistic’’ representation. In our approach, the strength and shape of the real potential was modified by calculating the dispersion-relation contributions that originate from the presence of the surface and volume imaginary terms. Two potentials were developed, one based only on the scattering data (from 4.0 to 40 MeV) and another based additionally on single-particle and single-hole information down to a binding energy of 17 MeV. In addition, the σ(θ) and (θ) measurements were compared to earlier conventional and dispersion-relation models. One of the latter of these included an l dependence in the absorptive surface term, and we applied this model in the 6- to 10-MeV region to describe all the σ(θ) and the new (θ). A reasonably good overall description was obtained by all the models; however, only the l-dependent model came close to giving a detailed agreement to the data around 7 MeV, a region where some abnormal angular dependences occur in the data.
References (27)
- C. Mahaux and H. Ngǒ, Nucl. Phys. A378, 205 (1982).
- H. Feshbach, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 5, 357 (1958).
- J.R.M. Annand, R. W. Finlay and F. S. Dietrich, Nucl. Phys. A443, 249 (1985).
- R. W. Finlay, J.R.M. Annand, T. S. Cheema and J. Rapaport, Phys. Rev. C 30, 796 (1984).
- J. Rapaport, T. S. Cheema, D. E. Bainum, R. W. Finlay and J. D. Carlson, Nucl. Phys. A296, 95 (1978).
- C. H. Johnson, D. J. Horen and C. Mahaux, Phys. Rev. C 36, 2252 (1987).
- J.-P. Jeukenne, C. H. Johnson and C. Mahaux, Phys. Rev. C 38, 2573 (1988).
- R. W. Finlay, J. Wierzbicki, R. K. Das and F. S. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. C 39, 804 (1989).
- C. E. Floyd, Jr., Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1981; C. E. Floyd, P. P. Guss, R. C. Byrd, K. Murphy, R. L. Walter and J. P. Delaroche, Phys. Rev. C 28, 1498 (1983).
- M. L. Roberts, Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1988.
- S. M. El-Kadi, Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1981; S. M. El-Kadi, C. E. Nelson, F. O. Purser, R. L. Walter, A. Beyerle, C. R. Gould and L. W. Seagondollar, Nucl. Phys. A390, 509 (1982).
- C. R. Howell, Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1984.
- G. G. Ohlsen, Jr. and P. W. Keaton, , Nucl. Instrum. Methods 109, 41 (1973).
- P. W. Lisowski, R. L. Walter, C. E. Busch and T. B. Clegg, Nucl. Phys. A242, 298 (1975).
- J. C. Hopkins and G. Breit, Nucl. Data Tables A 9, 137 (1971).
- E. Woye (unpublished).
- R. C. Byrd, C. E. Floyd, K. Murphy, P. P. Guss and R. L. Walter, Nucl. Phys. A427, 36 (1984).
- W. Tornow, C. R. Howell, M. L. Roberts, P. D. Felsher, Z. M. Chen, R. L. Walter, G. Mertens and I. Slaus, Phys. Rev. C 37, 2326 (1988).
- R. P. DeVito, Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979; R. P. DeVito, S. M. Austin, U.E.P. Berg, W. Sterrenberg and L. E. Young, Nucl. Instrum. Methods 215, 423 (1983).
- D. C. Larson, D. M. Hetrick and J. A. Harvey, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 25, 543 (1980); (private communication).
- R. L. Schutt, R. E. Shamu, P. W. Lisowski, M. S. Moore and G. L. Morgan, Phys. Lett. B 203, 22 (1988).
- The authors acknowledge R. Varner for recognizing an error in the earlier TUNL modifications described by Floyd in Ref. [9].
- P. Schwandt, H. O. Meyer, W. W. Jacobs, A. D. Bacher, S. E. Vigdor, M. D. Kaitchuck and T. R. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. C 26, 55 (1982).
- G. R. Satchler, in Isospin in Nuclear Physics, edited by D. H. Wilkinson (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969), p. 411.
- C. Mahaux and R. Sartor, Adv. Nucl. Phys. (to be published).
- D. J. Horen, C. H. Johnson and A. D. MacKellar, Phys. Lett. 161B, 217 (1985); D. J. Horen, C. H. Johnson, J. F. Fowler, A. D. MacKellar and B. Castel, Phys. Rev. C 34, 429 (1986).
- C. Mahaux and R. Sartor, Nucl. Phys. A493, 157 (1989).