4.5 Article

Systematic study of α decay of nuclei around the Z=82, N=126 shell closures within the cluster-formation model and proximity potential 1977 formalism

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
Volume 97, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044322

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11205083, 11505100]
  2. Research Foundation of Education Bureau of Hunan Province, China [15A159]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China [2015JJ3103, 2015JJ2121]
  4. Innovation Group of Nuclear and Particle Physics in USC
  5. Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation, China [ZR2015AQ007]
  6. Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation For Postgraduate [CX2017B536]
  7. Construct Program of the Key Discipline in Hunan Province

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present work, we systematically study the a decay preformation factors P-alpha within the cluster-formation model and alpha decay half-lives by the proximity potential 1977 formalism for nuclei around Z = 82, N = 126 closed shells. The calculations show that the realistic P-alpha is linearly dependent on the product of valance protons (holes) and valance neutrons (holes) NpNn. It is consistent with our previous works [Sun et al., Phys. Rev. C 94, 024338 (2016); Deng et al., ibid. 96, 024318 (2017)], in which P-alpha are model dependent and extracted from the ratios of calculated alpha half-lives to experimental data. Combining with our previous works, we confirm that the valance proton-neutron interaction plays a key role in the a preformation for nuclei around Z = 82, N = 126 shell closures whether the P-alpha is model dependent or microcosmic. In addition, our calculated alpha decay half-lives by using the proximity potential 1977 formalism taking P-alpha evaluated by the cluster-formation model can well reproduce the experimental data and significantly reduce the errors.

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