4.6 Article

a decay half-lives of nuclei W, Re, Os, Ir and Pt in the range 157=A=193 using the modified generalised liquid drop model (MGLDM)

期刊

PHYSICA SCRIPTA
卷 98, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1402-4896/acf34d

关键词

alpha radioactivity; generalised liquid drop model; Geiger-Nuttall law

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The α-decay half-lives of W, Re, Os, Ir, and Pt isotopes in the range 157 ≤ A ≤ 193 were studied using the Modified Generalised Liquid Drop Model (MGLDM). The predicted half-lives of some even-even nuclei using the deformed Two Potential Approach (TPA) were also considered for comparison. The results of MGLDM matched well with the TPA predictions and the use of empirical formulae, making it more reliable for calculating the half-lives of newly synthesized and unknown isotopes.
The a-decay half-lives for the isotopes of nuclei W, Re, Os, Ir and Pt in the range 157 = A = 193, have been studied by using the Modified Generalised Liquid Drop Model (MGLDM). The half-lives predicted for some even-even nuclei by using the deformed Two Potential Approach (TPA) [Comm. Theo. Phys. 74, 055301 (2022)] are considered and included for the comparison. Additionally, we have analysed the a-decay half-lives using eight l-dependent empirical formulae, and compared the results with the experimental data. The standard deviation and the average deviation for log10T1/2 by using MGLDM is obtained as 0.6025 and 0.5403, respectively. Also, the results of MGLDM match well with predictions of TPA, with standard deviation of 0.47 and 0.44 respectively. A dip in the half-life curve or a peak in the decay energy curve at 82, a magic neutron number of the daughter nuclei of W-158(74) increases the viability of the calculations. Also, the linear nature of Geiger-Nuttall law, Universal law, the relation connecting log(10)T(1/2) and ZQ(a)(-1/2), and the New Geiger-Nuttall law helps to calculate the half-lives of newly synthesized and unknown isotopes, making MGLDM more reliable.

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

4.6
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