Role of Polar vs Non-polar Configurations in the Decay of 268Sg* Compound Nucleus Within the Skyrme Energy Density Formalism

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15415/jnp.2021.91011

Keywords:

Polar and non-polar configuration, Super heavy nuclei, Skyrme forces, Fission cross-section

Abstract

The effect of polar and non-polar configurations is investigated in the decay of 268Sg* compound nucleus formed via spherical projectile (30Si) and prolate deformed target (238U) using the dynamical cluster decay model. The SSK and GSkI skyrme forces are used to investigate the impact of polar and nonpolar (equatorial) configurations on the preformation probability P0 and consequently on the fission cross-sections of 268Sg* nucleus. For non-polar configuration some secondary peaks corresponding to magic shells Z=28 and N=50 are observed, whose magnitude is significantly suppressed for the polar counterpart. The effect of polar and non-polar configurations is further analyzed in reference to barrier lowering parameter ΔVB. The calculated fission cross-section find adequate agreement with experimental data for chosen set of skyrme forces.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

S. Hofmann and G. M¨unzenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 733 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.72.733

K. Morita et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 73, 1738 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.73.2593

Y. Oganessian, J. Phys. G 34, R165 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/34/4/R01

Yu. Ts. Oganessian et al., Phys. Rev. C 70, 064609 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.70.064609

K. Nishio et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 29, 281 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2006-10091-y

K. Sandhu, M. K. Sharma and R. K. Gupta, Phys. Rev. C 86, 064611 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.064611

M. Kaur, R. Kumar and M. K. Sharma, Phys. Rev. C 85, 014609 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.014609

Rajni, R. Kumar and M. K. Sharma Phys. Rev. C 90, 044604 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.90.044604

G. Kaur, K. Sandhu and M. K. Sharma, Nucl. Phys. A 971, 95 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.01.017

J. Blocki, J. Randrup, W. J. Swiatecki and C. F. Tsang, Ann. Phys. (NY) 105, 427 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(77)90249-4

D. Vautherin, Phys. Rev. C 7, 296 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.7.296

Rajni, D. jain, I. Sharma and M. K. Sharma, Eur. Phys. J A 53, 208 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2017-12407-2

B. K. Agrawal, S. K. Dhiman and R. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034319 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.73.034319

R. K. Gupta et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 31, 631 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/31/7/009

G. Wentzel, Z. Phys. 38, 518 (1926). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397171

H. A. Kramers, Z. Phys. 39, 828 (1926). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01451751

Downloads

Published

2021-08-31

How to Cite

(1)
Mittal, R.; Sandhu, K.; Sharma, M. K. Role of Polar Vs Non-Polar Configurations in the Decay of 268Sg* Compound Nucleus Within the Skyrme Energy Density Formalism. J. Nucl. Phy. Mat. Sci. Rad. A. 2021, 9, 61-66.

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)