4.1 Article

Neutron Capture Cross Sections of Radioactive Nuclei

Journal

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
Volume 51, Issue 2, Pages 212-222

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13538-020-00824-0

Keywords

Neutron capture; Radioactive nuclei; Inclusive reactions

Funding

  1. U.S. DOE [DEFG02-08ER41533]
  2. LANL Collaborative Research Program by the Texas A&M System National Laboratory Office
  3. Los Alamos National Laboratory
  4. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2017/05660-0]
  5. CNPq [306433/2017-6]
  6. INCT-FNA project [464898/2014-5]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reports alternative methods for calculating neutron capture cross sections of radioactive nuclei, including the theory of inclusive non-elastic breakup (INEB) and statistical coupled-channels theory. The analysis extends to reactions involving different cluster nuclei and applications for scattering from a deuteron target. The theoretical developments discussed here offer new possibilities for obtaining information on neutron capture cross sections using indirect methods.
Alternative methods to calculate neutron capture cross sections on radioactive nuclei are reported using the theory of inclusive non-elastic breakup (INEB) developed by Hussein and McVoy (Nucl. Phys. A. 445, p. 124, 1985). The statistical coupled-channels theory proposed in Bertulani et al. (Eur. Phys. J. Web Conf. 69, 00020, 2014) is further extended in the realm of random matrices. The case of reactions with the projectile and the target being two-cluster nuclei is also analyzed and applications are made for scattering from a deuteron target (Hussein et al. 2020). An extension of the theory to a three-cluster projectile incident on a two-cluster target is also discussed. The theoretical developments described here should open new possibilities to obtain information on the neutron capture cross sections of radioactive nuclei using indirect methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available