Folding model analysis of proton scattering from nuclei

Abstract

The elastic and inelastic proton scattering on 18,20,22 O nuclei are studied in a folding model formalism of nucleon-nucleus optical potential and inelastic form factor. The DDM3Y effective interaction is used and the ground state densities are obtained in continuum Skyrme-HFB approach. A semi-microscopic approach of collective form factors is done to extract the deformation parameters from inelastic scattering analysis while the microscopic approach uses the continuum QRPA form factors. Implications of the values of the deformation parameters, neutron and proton transition moments for the nuclei are discussed. The p-analyzing powers on 18,20,22 O nuclei are also predicted in the same framework.

From nuclear reactions to compact stars: A unified approach

“…These calculations provide reasonable estimates of half-lives for the observed proton [15], α [16][17][18][19] and cluster [20] radioactivities. Folding model potentials using this effective interaction provide excellent descriptions for elastic and inelastic scattering and the nuclear deformation parameters extracted from inelastic scattering of protons [21,22] agree well with other available results.…”

Calculations of 6He + p elastic-scattering cross-sections using folding approach and high-energy approximation for the optical potential

“…therein). However, in the case of more simple proton-nucleus scattering one can get fairly good applications (see, e.g., [64]) when using a single-folding pseudopotential [34] multiplied by the fitted complex renormalization factor (N R + iN I ) to obtain the complex potential with the unit shape of the real and imaginary parts. On the other hand, in the case of heavy ion scattering, many applications were made when the real part of OP was microscopically calculated while an imaginary part was taken in the WS form with three or more fitted parameters.…”

Cluster radioactivity in very heavy nuclei: a new perspective

“…The microscopic nuclear interaction potential is calculated by folding the density distributions of the emitted and daughter nuclei with density dependent M3Y effective interaction (DDM3Y). The DDM3Y effective nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction used here was peviously used successfully for elastic and inelstic scattering of protons [6,7], proton radioactivity [8] and α radioactivity [9,10] whose density dependence was obtained from nuclear matter calculations [11]. The cluster preformation factors are extracted from the calculated and * E-mail: trr1@rediffmail.com; E-mail: jagat.su˙ph@yahoo.in; Email: dnb@veccal.ernet.in the measured half lives of cluster radoactivity and its systematics are studied.…”

“…The density dependence parameters have been fixed by reproducing the saturation energy per nucleon and the saturation density of spin and isospin symmetric cold infinite nuclear matter. Although the density dependence parameters for single folding can be determined from the nuclear matter calculations and used successfully for proton radioactivity [8] and scattering [6,7], the transition to double folding is not straightforward. The parameter β can be related to mean free path in nuclear medium, hence its value should remain same ∼ 1.6f m 2 as obtained from nuclear matter calculations [11] while the other constant C which is basically an overall normalisation constant may change.…”

“…Using DDM3Y effective interaction the saturation conditions can be fulfilled and in turn the constants of density dependence can be obtained from the saturation conditions of the cold symmetric nuclear matter. Hence, in the present case the nuclear potentials are not renormalised but the same density dependent effective interaction DDM3Y is used whose density dependence was obtained from nuclear matter calculations based on Hartree or mean field assumption [11] and was used quite successfully for proton scattering [6,7], proton radioactivity [8] and α radioactivity [9,10,18]. Present calculations yield constants c 1 = -0.38 × 10 −3 , c 2 = 2.56 from a very poor quality of fit and c 3 = 0.028, c 4 = 2.10 from somewhat better fit, which are quite different from reference [19].…”