4.4 Review

Review of even element super-heavy nuclei and search for element 120

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL A
卷 52, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epja/i2016-16180-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC05-00OR2272, DE-AC52-07NA27344, DE-FG-05-88ER40407]
  2. Slovak grant agency VEGA [1/0576/13]
  3. Slovak Research and Development Agency [APVV-0105-10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reaction Cr-54 + Cm-248 was investigated at the velocity filter SHIP at GSI, Darmstadt, with the intention to study production and decay properties of isotopes of element 120. Three correlated signals were measured, which occurred within a period of 279 ms. The heights of the signals correspond with the expectations for a decay sequence starting with an isotope of element 120. However, a complete decay chain cannot be established, since a signal from the implantation of the evaporation residue cannot be identified unambiguously. Measured properties of the event chain are discussed in detail. The result is compared with theoretical predictions. Previously measured decay properties of even element super-heavy nuclei were compiled in order to find arguments for an assignment from the systematics of experimental data. In the course of this review, a few tentatively assigned data could be corrected. New interpretations are given for results which could not be assigned definitely in previous studies. The discussion revealed that the cross-section for production of element 120 could be high enough so that a successful experiment seems possible with presently available techniques. However, a continuation of the experiment at SHIP for a necessary confirmation of the results obtained in a relatively short irradiation of five weeks is not possible at GSI presently. Therefore, we decided to publish the results of the measurement and of the review as they exist now. In the summary and outlook section we also present concepts for the continuation of research in the field of super-heavy nuclei.

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

4.4
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