4.5 Article

Restricted spin-range correction in the Oslo method: The example of nuclear level density and γ-ray strength function from 239Pu(d, pγ)240Pu

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
Volume 100, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.024305

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway [263030, 262952]
  2. National Research Foundation of South Africa [118846]
  3. European Research Council [ERC-STG-2014, 637686]
  4. US Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  5. US Department of Energy by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  6. US Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) via the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development (DNN R&D) through the Nuclear Science and Security Consortium [DE-NA0002905, DE-NA0003180]
  7. DOE Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics, under the FRIB Theory Alliance [DE-SC0013617]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Oslo method has been applied to particle-gamma coincidences following the Pu-239(d, p) reaction to obtain the nuclear level density (NLD) and gamma-ray strength function (gamma SF) of Pu-240. The experiment was conducted with a 12 MeV deuteron beam at the Oslo Cyclotron Laboratory. The low spin transfer of this reaction leads to a spin-parity mismatch between populated and intrinsic levels. This is a challenge for the Oslo method as it can have a significant impact on the extracted NLD and gamma SF. We have developed an iterative approach to ensure consistent results even for cases with a large spin-parity mismatch, in which we couple Green's function transfer calculations of the spin-parity dependent population cross-section to the nuclear decay code RAINIER. The resulting gamma SF shows a pronounced enhancement between 2-4 MeV that is consistent with the location of the low-energy orbital M1 scissors mode.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available