Inverstigation of and reactions at low energies

Recent developments in fusion and direct reactions with weakly bound nuclei

“…Using predictions of an statistical code, the authors suggest that the larger cross section of 6 Li can be attributed to ICF and/or transfer processes, which are stronger for this projectile. Therefore, all the available experimental TF excitation functions for collisions of 6,7 Li with light systems, ranging from 12 C to 64 Ni [72,[324][325][326]330,[357][358][359][360]356,151], are in good agreement with predictions of coupled channel calculations. From 2006 to the present, many authors measured CF cross sections in reactions induced by 9 Be beams.…”

Fusion cross sections for 7Li + 12C system at near barrier energies

“…The σ Fus obtained from direct detection of evaporation residues (ER) [10][11][12][13] showed suppression compared to the reaction cross-sections, while those obtained from characteristic gamma-ray measurements [14][15][16] and detection of evaporation residues in inverse kinematics [17] agreed well with the reaction cross sections and showed no suppression. One thing to note here is that, from both the ER and γ -ray measurements, it is not possible to separate the direct and compound nuclear contributions.…”

“…Whereas, Hugi et al [33] have reported a larger contribution of fusion compared to direct reaction for 6 Li + 28 Si at above barrier energies. For weakly bound non-halo projectiles 6,7 Li, 9 Be, studies with light targets like 16 O, 11 B,9 Be [48,49] have found fusion cross-sections comparable to reaction cross-sections, implying less contribution from the direct reaction process. In the present work, we have determined the cross-sections for the α-channel at energies E ∼ 1 V B -2 V B for the system 7 Li + 12 C and found that the direct reaction contribution (discrete and continuum contributions estimated separately) is negligible when compared to fusion.…”

“…In particular, the small separation energies of weakly bound nuclei, e.g., 6 Li ( 6 Li → α + d, S α/d = 1.474 MeV), 7 Li ( 7 Li → α + t, S α/t = 2.467 MeV), 9 Be ( 9 Be → α + α + n, S 2α/n = 1.573 MeV), 6 He ( 6 He → α + 2n, S α/2n = 0.972 MeV), etc., increases the importance of the breakup channel. However, the role of breakup on fusion has been strongly debated both theoretically [2] and experimentally [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Recently, Hagino et al [2] performed an improved coupled channels calculation which predicts enhancement of σ Fus at sub-barrier energies and reduction at above barrier energies.…”

“…For light mass systems like 6,7 Li + 12,13 C [10,11,14,15,17] and 6,7 Li + 16 O [12,13,16], there exists a large discrepancy in the σ Fus measured using different techniques. The σ Fus obtained from direct detection of evaporation residues (ER) [10][11][12][13] showed suppression compared to the reaction cross-sections, while those obtained from characteristic gamma-ray measurements [14][15][16] and detection of evaporation residues in inverse kinematics [17] agreed well with the reaction cross sections and showed no suppression.…”