4.7 Article

Possibilities of direct production of superheavy nuclei with Z=112-118 in different evaporation channels

期刊

PHYSICS LETTERS B
卷 809, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135760

关键词

Superheavy nuclei; Complete fusion reactions; Production of new isotopes; xn-, pxn-, and axn-evaporation channels

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung (Bonn)
  2. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation [2020-1902-01-181]
  3. RFBR [20-02-00176]
  4. Tomsk Polytechnic University Competitiveness Enhancement Program grant
  5. National Science Centre [UMO-2013/08/M/ST2/00257]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The production cross sections of heaviest isotopes of superheavy nuclei with charge numbers 112-118 are predicted in the xn-, pxn-, and axn-evaporation channels of the Ca-48-induced complete fusion reactions for future experiments. The estimates of synthesis capabilities are based on a uniform and consistent set of input nuclear data. Nuclear masses, deformations, shell corrections, fission barriers and decay energies are calculated within the macroscopic-microscopic approach for even-even, odd- Zand odd- Nnuclei. For odd systems the blocking procedure is used. To find saddle points, the Imaginary Water Flow technique is used and non-axiallity is taken into account. As shown, our calculations, based on a new set of mass and barriers, agree very well with the experimentally known cross-sections, especially in the 3n-evaporation channel. The dependencies of these predictions on the mass/fission barriers tables, the ratio af/a, and fusion models are discussed. A way is shown to produce directly unknown superheavy isotopes in the 1n- or 2n-evaporation channels. The synthesis of new superheavy isotopes unattainable in reactions with emission of neutrons is proposed in the promising channels with emission of protons (spxn similar to 10 - 200fb) and alphas (sigma(alpha xn) similar or equal to 50 - 500fb). (c) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据