1 / 12

Comparing TWOFNR and FRESCO calculations for 56 Ni transfer cross sections

Comparing TWOFNR and FRESCO calculations for 56 Ni transfer cross sections . ( p,d ) Zero-range and finite-range options Consistency with increasing beam energy Consistency with different potentials (d, 3 He)

apria
Download Presentation

Comparing TWOFNR and FRESCO calculations for 56 Ni transfer cross sections

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing TWOFNR and FRESCO calculations for 56Ni transfer cross sections (p,d) Zero-range and finite-range options Consistency with increasing beam energy Consistency with different potentials (d,3He) Discontinuity with increasing energy in TWOFNR calculations with Daehnick deuteron potential [for (d,3He) reaction only]

  2. 56Ni(p,d)

  3. 56Ni(p,d) cross sections – Zero-range and Finite-rangeChapel Hill 89 optical potential for pJohnson-Soper Adiabatic potential for d 7 Nov • Same set of options • 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 between the calculations Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO

  4. 56Ni(p,d) cross sections – increasing beam energyChapel Hill 89 optical potential for pJohnson-Soper Adiabatic potential + CH89 for d 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

  5. 56Ni(p,d) cross sections – different deuteron potentialChapel Hill 89 optical potential for pDaehnick Global optical potential for d 15 Nov Excellent agreement throughout the energy range using Daehnickdeuteron potential Shape of cross section is much different than when using adiabatic potential Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO

  6. 56Ni(d,3He)

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 56Ni(d,3He) Daehnick discontinuity

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Future investigations with these codes (p,d) Compare FRESCO calculations with exact finite range option (rather than LEA) – this is something TWOFNR doesn’t include Run calcs with JLM potential for proton (d,3He) Try to determine if Daehnick discontinuity in TWOFNR related to integration range, or possibly some other numerical effect Implement GDP08 potential in TWOFNR?

More Related