Pocket formula for fusion barriers of superheavy nuclei

Manjunatha, H. C.; Sridhar, K.N.; Nagaraja, N.; Sowmya, N.

doi:10.1140/epjp/i2018-12057-3

Cited by 23 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whatsoever, the available experimental results for the heavy ion reactions aiming to form actinide and transactinide elements have been compared with the present formula, WJS formula [23], W.D. Myers (WDM) model [25] and H.C. Manjumatha (HCM) formula [24] in the Table VI. The mean square errors in the present formula, WDM model, WJS formula, and HCM formula are found to be 2.26, 4.98, 4.42 and 5.72, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Search for a viable nucleus-nucleus potential for heavy-ion nuclear reactions

Nandi,

Swami,

Gupta

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have constructed an empirical formulae for the fusion and interaction barriers using experimental values available till date. The fusion barriers so obtained have been compared with different model predictions based on the proximity, Woods-Saxon and double folding potentials along with several empirical formulas, time dependent Hartree-Fock theories, and the experimental results. The comparison allows us to find the best model, which is nothing but the present empirical formula only. Most remarkably, the fusion barrier and radius show excellent consonance with the experimental findings for the reactions meant for synthesis of the superheavy elements also. Furthermore, it is seen that substitution of the predicted fusion barrier and radius in classic Wong formula [C. Wong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 766 (1973)] for the total fusion cross sections satisfies very well with the experiments. Similarly, current interaction barrier predictions have also been compared well with a few experimental results available and Bass potential model meant for the interaction barrier predictions. Importantly, the present formulae for the fusion as well as interaction barrier will have practical implications in carrying out the physics research near the Coulomb barrier energies. Furthermore, present fusion barrier and radius provide us a good nucleus-nucleus potential useful for numerous theoretical applications.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To obtain R B , we follow a method involving the reduced fusion barrier position S B (the separation between the half-density surfaces of the two nuclei) [24]…”

Section: Present Empirical Formulamentioning

confidence: 99%

Search for a viable nucleus-nucleus potential for heavy-ion nuclear reactions

Nandi,

Swami,

Gupta

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…. At energies below the Coulomb barrier, does not vary with the energy, and is written in terms of , the curvature of the potential in the Hill-Wheeler approximation [30].…”

Section: Deformation Effects On the Synthesis Of Shesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rules of thumb for synthesizing superheavy elements

Manjunatha¹,

Vidya²,

Gupta³

et al. 2022

J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthesizing any elements in the eighth period using either cold or hot fusion reactions remains a big challenge till date. Quasifission mechanism restricts complete fusion to an indeterminably low evaporation residue (ER) cross section for the superheavy nuclei. Entrance channel parameters of the heavy-ion reaction, fission barrier of compound nucleus, deformation parameters of the projectile and target nuclei, and the kinetic energy of the projectile are mostly responsible in governing the scales of the quasifission. Role of these factors has been examined explicitly by the experimental ER cross sections. Thorough comparisons lead us to infer that the entrance channel criteria contribute much lower extent than the deformation parameters do. The effect of deformation can be categorized into four rules as validated by all the reactions used except one $^{45}_{21}$Sc+$^{249}_{98}$Cf $\rightarrow ^{294}_{119}$Uue. Null result from this reaction is well explained by an improper choice of the projectile energy as shown theoretically by means of a statistical model approach, which is valid for a system having a large nucleon number so as to have intrinsically a high density of excited states. Optimal selection of the beam energy sets another rule. Therefore, these five rules can be treated as the rules of thumb for synthesizing the superheavy elements. Application of the first four rules can enable us to spot primarily a suitable reaction and finally exploitation of the fifth rule chooses the most appropriate reaction at a preferable excited energy to achieve the highest ER cross section for a superheavy element.

show abstract