Statistics vs. dynamics: hints from systems of intermediate fissility
Systems of intermediate fissility are characterized by an evaporation residues cross section comparable or larger than the fission cross section, and by a relatively higher probability for charged particle emission in the pre-scission channel. In a theoretical framework in which time scale estimates...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of physics. Conference series 2011-02, Vol.282 (1), p.012012-8 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Systems of intermediate fissility are characterized by an evaporation residues cross section comparable or larger than the fission cross section, and by a relatively higher probability for charged particle emission in the pre-scission channel. In a theoretical framework in which time scale estimates of the fission process rely on statistical model calculations, the analysis of particle emission in the evaporation residues channel is the source of additional constraints on statistical and dynamical models. This contribution will focus on our statistical and dynamical analysis of a more complete set of data from the system 32S + 100Mo at ELab 200 MeV. Statistical model fails in reproducing the whole set of data and no convincing estimate is possible of the fission time scale. In particular, while pre-scission multiplicities can be reproduced without delay, the model strongly overestimates proton and alpha particle multiplicities in the evaporation residues channel irrespective of the statistical model input parameters and prescriptions used for the level density and the transmission coefficients. The analysis of the same set of data with a dynamical model produces a very good agreement with the full set of data and indicates that one-body dissipation plays a dominant role in the fission process, implying a fission delay of 23–25×10−21s. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1742-6596 1742-6588 1742-6596 |
DOI: | 10.1088/1742-6596/282/1/012012 |