Preequilibrium proton emission induced by 80 and 120 MeV protons incident on<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Zr</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mprescripts /><mml:mrow /><mml:mrow><mml:mn>90</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow /><mml:mrow /></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:mrow></mml:math>

Cowley, A.A.; Kent, A Van; Lawrie, J. J.; Förtsch, S. V.; Whittal, D. M.; Pilcher, J. V.; Smit, F. D.; Richter, W. A.; Lindsay, R.; Heerden, I.J. van; Bonetti, R.; Hodgson, P. E.

doi:10.1103/physrevc.43.678

Cited by 53 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Refs. [87,88], but is not available for T p > 200 MeV. If data were available, it should also be possible to estimate the necessary corrections using a convolution procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear transparency to intermediate-energy protons

Kelly

1996

Phys. Rev. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nuclear transparency in the (e, e ′ p) reaction for 135 ≤ T p ≤ 800 MeV is investigated using the distorted wave approximation. Calculations using densitydependent effective interactions, both empirical and theoretical, are compared with phenomenological optical potentials. We find that nuclear transparency is well correlated with proton absorption and neutron total cross sections and that calculations using density-dependent effective interactions provide the best agreement with data. Nuclear transparency calculations are compared with recent electron scattering data for Q 2 < 2 (GeV/c) 2 . For T p < ∼ 200 MeV we find that there is considerable sensitivity to the choice of optical model and that the empirical effective interaction provides the best agreement with the data, but remains 5-10% low. For T p > ∼ 300 MeV we find that there is much less difference between these models, but that the calculations significantly underpredict transparency data and that the discrepancy increases with A. The differences between Glauber and optical model calculations are related to their respective definitions of the semi-inclusive cross section. By using a more inclusive summation over final states the Glauber model emphasizes nucleonnucleon inelasticity, whereas with a more restrictive summation the optical model emphasizes nucleon-nucleus inelasticity; experimental definitions of the semi-inclusive cross section lie between these extremes.

show abstract

“…Refs. [87,88], but is not available for T p > 200 MeV. If data were available, it should also be possible to estimate the necessary corrections using a convolution procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear transparency to intermediate-energy protons

Kelly

1996

Phys. Rev. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We show in Comparisons between experimental data [8] (open circles) and one-step calculations with RPA (full curves) or particle-hole (dashed curves) wave functions.…”

Section: One-step Direct Preequilibrium Emission From Spherical Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microscopic models for direct inelastic scattering and direct preequilibrium emission: nucleon induced reactions

Dupuis

Bauge

Bonneau

et al. 2010

EPJ Web of Conferences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.We have developed microscopic models for nucleon induced inelastic scattering and one-step direct preequilibrium emission. These models are based on reliable effective in-medium two-body interactions and a microscopic description of the ground and excited states of target nuclei. No arbitrary renormalization process enters our analyzes and the predictions are directly compared to experimental data. The nuclear structure information are obtained in the Random Phase Approximation (RPA) framework with the Gogny force, which provides accurate descriptions of spherical nuclei without pairing. For medium energy (50-200 MeV) proton induced reactions, this approach gives very good predictions for direct inelastic scattering and for the first-step in direct preequilibrium emission. The one-step preequilibrium model has also been extended to fast neutron scattering (10-20 MeV) for the 90 Zr target described with RPA theory, and for axially deformed nuclei with a simpler description of the excited states (i.e. particle-hole excitations). Predictions of the reaction model reproduce well experimental data for 90 Zr. For deformed targets ( 232 Th and 238 U), our calculations underestimate the data at high emission energy. The cross section missing for both actinides may stem from the excitation of vibrational states with excitation energies lower than 5 MeV which are not described with incoherent particle-hole excitations. This defect might be cured if the target spectra are described within the Quasi-particle-RPA (QRPA) theory recently implemented with the Gogny force.

show abstract

“…Analogous to the derivation of the optical model (Feshbach, 1962;Feshbach et al 1967: Austern, 1970 one should now energy average Q 7,, and hence also the effective regenerative Hamiltonian (2.68). It is assumed that the bound states on the first quadrant of the physical sheet of the E-plane, which are localized in the interaction region, make the most significant contribution to the propagator 1/(E -Hr,).…”

Section: U' = U 'P + N 'Q E-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the following years the FKK multistep direct formalism was used by many authors (Holler et al, 1985;Trabandt et al, 1988Trabandt et al, , 1989Marcinkowski et al, 1989;Scobel et al, 1990;Cowley et al, 1991;Richter et al, 1992;Stamer et al, 1993: Koning andAkkermans, 1993a) to analyse a wide range of (p, n), (n, n') and (p, p') reactions. On the whole, good overall agreement is found between the calculation and the experimental data, with consistent values of the parameters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%