150 likes | 276 Vues
Calculations for 56 Ni transfer cross sections . ( p,d ) Zero-range and finite-range options give similar results Codes mostly consistent with increasing beam energy Inconsistency with different potentials (d, 3 He)
E N D
Calculations for 56Ni transfer cross sections (p,d) Zero-range and finite-range options give similar results Codes mostly consistent with increasing beam energy Inconsistency with different potentials (d,3He) Discontinuity with increasing energy in TWOFNR calculations with Daehnick deuteron potential [for (d,3He) reaction only]
Calculation details • Same set of options for FRESCO and TWOFNR calcs • “brush” front end produces input file for both calculations • did NOT include non-locality • not an option for FRESCO • tried both ZR and FR (LEA) options • Near peak, very little difference – remaining calcs use FR (LEA) 56Ni(p,d)55Ni Chapel Hill 89 optical potential for pJS Adiabatic + CH89 potential for d 37 MeV/A Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO
56Ni(p,d) cross sections – comparing d potentials Chapel Hill 89 optical potential for pComparing deutron potentials (JS+CH89 and Daehnick) 15 Nov • Shape and magnitude of cross sections are different • With Daehnick (DWBA): • peak mag~2x larger • flattened shape • shifted peaks athigh E Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = JS+CH89 (adiabatic) Dashed = Daehnick
56Ni(p,d) cross sections – increasing beam energyChapel Hill 89 optical potential for pJohnson-Soper Adiabatic potential + CH89 for d (ADWA) 15 Nov • Little difference at peak with adiabatic pot. • Differences at: • larger angles • higher energy Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO
56Ni(p,d) cross sections – different deuteron potentialChapel Hill 89 optical potential for pDaehnick Global optical potential for d (DWBA) 15 Nov Excellent agreement throughout the energy range using Daehnick deuteron potential Shape and magnitude of cross section is much different than when using adiabatic potential Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO
56Ni(d,3He) cross sections – increasing energy for (d,3He)Daehnick Global optical potential for dBechetti-Greenleesoptical potential for 3He 15 Nov Little difference at low E (red, black, green) Enormous differences above ~60 MeV/u Related to Daehnick discontinuity ? [see later slides] Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO
56Ni(d,3He) cross sections – different deuteron potential Perey-Pereyoptical potential for dBechetti-Greenleesoptical potential for 3He 23 Nov Excellent agreement throughout the energy range with Perey-Perey deuteron potential Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO
56Ni(d,3He)55Co Daehnick discontinuity
56Ni(d,3He) cross sections – Daehnick discontinuity Daehnick Global optical potential for dBechetti-Greenleesoptical potential for 3He 17 Nov TWOFNR Smooth change in cross section with energy E<75 and E>76, Discontinuity at E~75.85 MeV Thick black lines are 60, 70, 80 MeV/u Thin lines are 1 MeV/u steps
56Ni(d,3He) cross sections – no Daehnick discontinuity Daehnick Global optical potential for dBechetti-Greenleesoptical potential for 3He 17 Nov FRESCO Smooth change in cross section with energy over entire range Thick black lines are 60, 70, 80 MeV/u Thin lines are 1 MeV/u steps
56Ni(d,3He) – local, zero-range, BG for 3He 23 Jan brush+twofnr10 brush12+twofnr11 Daehnick for deuteron Perey-Perey for deuteron
56Ni(d,3He) – local, zero-range, BG for 3He 23 Jan brush12+twofnr11 Daehnick for deuteron – still has discontinuity in twofnr (dotted)