Advertisement

Compound Nucleus Reactions between Oxygen Ions and 18O, 12C, and 14C Targets

  • Y. Eyal
  • I. Dostrovsky
  • Z. Fraenkel

Abstract

The basic assumption underlying the analysis of compound nucleus reactions is the Bohr independence hypothesis which supposes the decay of the compound nucleus to be independent of its mode of formation. The applicability of the independence hypothesis to heavy ion reaction has previously been validated for the kinetic energy spectrum of the particles emitted from the compound nucleus 75Br formed by the reactions 16O + 59Co and 12C + 63Cu at one excitation energy(1). We have tested the validity of the independence hypothesis for heavy ion reactions by comparing the cross sections for the residual nuclei 28Al and 29Al from the reactions 18O + 12C and 16O + 14C over the excitation energy range of the compound nucleus 30Si of 30 – 40 MeV. We have also investigated the importance of the angular momentum in compound nucleus reactions of heavy ions by comparing the experimental formation cross sections of several residual nuclei from the above reactions and from the 18O + 18O and 18O + 14C reactions with statistical model calculations which neglect angular momentum effects and with calculations which take into account in a detailed fashion the effects of the angular momentum on the decay of the compound nucleus.

Keywords

Excitation Function Compound Nucleus Residual Nucleus Formation Cross Section Total Reaction Cross Section 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.M. d’Auria, M.J. Fluss, G.F. Herzog, L. Kowalski, J.M. Miller, and R.C. Reedy, Phys. Rev 174, 1409 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Dostrovsky, Z. Fraenkel and G. Friedlander, Phys. Rev. 116, 683 (1959).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E.H. Auerbach, BNL Report 6562, 1962 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.W. Shaw, Jr., R. Vandenbosch and M.K. Mehta, Phys. Rev. Letters 25, 457 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.V. Maher, M.W. Sachs, R.H. Siemssen, A. Weidinger and D.A. Bromley, Phys. Rev. 188, 1665 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.R. Grover and J. Gilat, Phys. Rev. 157, 802 (1967); and J. Gilat and J.R. Grover, Phys, Rev. C3, 734 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    U.C. Voos, W. von Oertzen and R. Bock, Nucl. Phys. Al35, 207 (1969).ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Eyal
    • 1
  • I. Dostrovsky
    • 1
  • Z. Fraenkel
    • 1
  1. 1.The Weizmann Institute of ScienceIsrael

Personalised recommendations