Ca48-Ca40

Abstract

to be a major component above £x = 17 MeV (Ref. 21) and should not alter our conclusions.

High precisionY89(α,α)Kiss1, Mohr2, Fülöp3 et al. 2009Phys. Rev. C

“…Some authors investigated the use of higher-order terms of the Woods-Saxon function, too [49,50]. Modelindependent parametrizations have also been studied, either with spline functions [49,51] or a series of Fourier-Bessel functions added to the Woods-Saxon parametrizations [52,53] or with a sum of Gaussians [50]. A folding model has been introduced by Kobos et al [54].…”

Local density approximation in effective density-dependent?N-interactions

“…WoodsSaxon (WS) form) which do not provide realistic estimates of errors and which yield a considerably poorer description of experimental cross sections [11]. On this level of improved accuracy, however, the criteria were not by far fulfilled previously, neither by the most advanced double-folding models based on fundamental NN-interactions [6,10] nor by single-folding models based on phenomenologically determined aN-interactions [8] (which usually yield better results). In particular the failure of double-folding models [5,6,10], which usually are assumed to be the preferable approach for composite projectile scattering is remarkable.…”

“…This form factor is a function of the distance between the a particle and the target nucleon (i.e. independent of the target density) and it may be determined directly from a particle scattering cross sections [3,8,12]. Considering the values of the size and density of the a particle this simplification seems quite reasonable as also demonstrated by many single-folding analyses [1-3, 8, 11], in particular, because it avoids -by treating the projectile in a phenomenological way -the general problems of c~ particle double-folding models discussed before.…”

“…On the other hand, the folding models offer the possibility of extracting nuclear properties from experimental cross sections if the effective interaction is reliably known. As in the studies of the reaction mechanism [-1-2, 4-7, 9, 10] also in this reversal use of the folding model [3,8] the most important criteria for the relevance of the results are the questions how well do the folded optical potentials reproduce the phenomenological ones and how good is the description of the experimental cross sections, as characterized by the value of z2/F (X z per degree of freedom), compared with the best value attainable with phenomenological procedures. The answers to these questions, however, strongly depend on the ingredients of the effective interaction used.…”

Nuclear charge distribution of41Ca

“…Consequently, charge distribution measurements have been made by experiments on muonic isotope shifts [1], optical isotope shifts [2M], and by electron scattering [5]. Mass distributions have been investigated by strongly interacting probe particles like positive and negative pions [6,7], protons [8], ~ particles [9] and heavier ions like 160 [10]. Grossly speaking the results of these experiments can be summarized as follows: (a) The difference between the mass and charge distribution of Ca nuclei increases between A =40 and A =48 (b) the charge distribution of 4~ and 48Ca is equal, whereas all the even nuclei between them have a charge radius larger in size by about 1%.…”