- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review C

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Elastic scattering and fusion cross sections for Be7,Li7+Al27 systems

K. Kalita1,*, S. Verma1,†, R. Singh1, J. J. Das2, A. Jhingan2, N. Madhavan2, S. Nath2, T. Varughese2, P. Sugathan2 et al.

V. V. Parkar3, K. Mahata3, K. Ramachandran3, A. Shrivastava3, A. Chatterjee3, S. Kailas3, S. Barua4, P. Basu5, H. Majumdar5, M. Sinha6, R. Bhattacharya6, and A. K. Sinha7

  • 1Department of Physics & Astrophysics, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007, India
  • 2Inter University Accelerator Centre, New Delhi-110067, India
  • 3Nuclear Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai-400085, India
  • 4Department of Physics, Gauhati University, Guwahati-781014, India
  • 5Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata-700064, India
  • 6Gurudas College, Kolkata-700054, India
  • 7UGC-DAE Consortium for Scientific Research, Kolkata-700098, India

  • *Present address: Department of Physics, Gauhati University, Guwahati-781014, India.
  • †Corresponding author, electronic address: vermasvin@ rediffmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. C 73, 024609 – Published 27 February, 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.73.024609

Abstract

Quasi-elastic-scattering and transfer reaction cross-section measurements were made for the Be7+Al27 system at Elab=17, 19, and 21 MeV in the angular range θc.m.=12°−43°. An optical model (OM) analysis of the quasi-elastic scattering data was carried out. The fusion cross sections were derived at these energies by subtraction of the integrated transfer cross sections from the reaction cross sections obtained from the fits to quasi-elastic-scattering data. These fusion cross sections were found to be consistent with those obtained from the coupled-channels calculations. Elastic scattering and fusion cross sections were measured for the Li7+Al27 system at Elab=10, 13, 16, 19, and 24 MeV. For elastic scattering the angular coverages were in the θlab=12°−72° range and for fusion the α-evaporation spectra from the compound nucleus were measured in the angular range θlab=52°−132° (142° at 10 MeV). The elastic-scattering angular distributions were subjected to OM analysis. The α-evaporation spectra were reproduced with the statistical model calculations, and the fusion cross sections were extracted from them. The fusion cross sections were also extracted by subtraction of the integrated inelastic-scattering cross sections from the reaction cross sections obtained from the OM fits to the elastic-scattering data, and these fusion data were found to be consistent. The CCDEF calculations describe these data quite well. A comparison of the fusion data for the Be7+Al27 and Li7+Al27 systems shows a similar and consistent behavior.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (40)

  1. M. A. Eswaran et al., Nucl. Phys. A325, 269 (1979).
  2. M. Hugi et al., Nucl. Phys. A368, 173 (1981).
  3. Kalvir S. Dhuga et al., Phys. Rev. C 33, 1294 (1986).
  4. T. Madhusoodhanan et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 8, 347 (1999).
  5. L. Trache et al., Phys. Rev. C 61, 024612 (2000).
  6. R. M. Anjos et al., Phys. Lett. B534, 45 (2002).
  7. I. Padron et al., Phys. Rev. C 66, 044608 (2002).
  8. J. J. Kolata, Eur. Phys. J. A 13, 117 (2002).
  9. M. Ray et al., Phys. Rev. C 68, 067601 (2003).
  10. A. Pakou et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 054602 (2004).
  11. P. R. S. Gomes et al., Phys. Lett. B601, 20 (2004).
  12. A. Pakou et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 202701 (2003).
  13. G. V. Marti et al., Phys. Rev. C 71, 027602 (2005).
  14. A. Di Pietro et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 044613 (2004).
  15. N. Takigawa, M. Kuratani, and H. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. C 47, R2470 (1993).
  16. C. H. Dasso and A. Vitturi, Phys. Rev. C 50, R12 (1994).
  17. C. H. Dasso and A. Vitturi, Nucl. Phys. A597, 473 (1996).
  18. M. S. Hussein and A. F. R. Detoledopiza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2693 (1994); M. S. Hussein, M. P. Pato, L. F. Canto, and R. Donangelo, Phys. Rev. C 46, 377 (1992); M. S. Hussein et al., Nucl. Phys. A588, 85c (1995).
  19. J. Takahashi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 30 (1997).
  20. A. Szanto de Toledo et al., Nucl. Phys. A679, 175 (2000).
  21. Weiping Lie et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 611 (1996).
  22. J. J. Das et al., Nucl. Phys. A746, 561 (2004).
  23. S. Barua et al., Nucl. Phys. A746, 467c (2004); , Phys. Rev. C 72, 044602 (2005).
  24. S. Verma et al., Proc. DAE-BRNS Symp. Nucl. Phys. B 47, 340 (2004).
  25. N. Keeley, K. W. Kemper, and K. Rusek, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044605 (2002).
  26. N. Keeley et al. Nucl. Phys. A571, 326 (1994).
  27. J. J. Das et al., J. Phys. G 24, 1371 (1998).
  28. T. Varughese et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 521, 143 (2004).
  29. G. K. Mehta and A. P. Patro, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 268, 334 (1988).
  30. D. Kanjilal et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 328, 97 (1993).
  31. A. K. Sinha et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 339, 543 (1994).
  32. K. Kalita et al., Ind. J. Pure Appl. Phys. 43, 567 (2005).
  33. S. S. Kapoor et al., Ind. J. Pure Appl. Phys. 27, 623 (1989).
  34. P. Schwant, Indiana University Cyclotron Facility Report, SNOOPY (1984) (unpublished).
  35. S. Santra et al., Phys. Rev. C 60, 034611 (1999).
  36. C. H. Dasso and S. Landowne, Comput. Phys. Commun. 46, 187 (1987); J. Fernandez-Niello, C. H. Dasso, and S. Landowne, ibid. 54, 409 (1989).
  37. D. Sundholm and J. Olsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 927 (1992).
  38. A. Gavron, Phys. Rev. C 21, 230 (1980).
  39. S. Kailas et al., Pramana J. Phys. 35, 439 (1990).
  40. P. R. S. Gomes, J. Lubian, I. Padron, and R. M. Anjos, Phys. Rev. C 71, 017601 (2005).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. C 73, 024609– Published 27 February, 2006
  • Received 19 October 2005

© 2006 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation