comparing twofnr and fresco calculations for 56 ni transfer cross sections
Post on 16-Feb-2016
51 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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]
56Ni(p,d)
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
56Ni(p,d) cross sections – Zero-range and Finite-rangeChapel Hill 89 optical potential for pJohnson-Soper Adiabatic potential for d 7 Nov
Solid = TWOFNRDashed = FRESCO
15 Nov
56Ni(p,d) cross sections – increasing beam energyChapel Hill 89 optical potential for pJohnson-Soper Adiabatic potential + CH89 for d
Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u)Solid = TWOFNRDashed = FRESCO
Little difference at peak with adiabatic pot.
Differences at: • larger angles • higher energy
15 Nov
56Ni(p,d) cross sections – different deuteron potentialChapel Hill 89 optical potential for pDaehnick Global optical potential for d
Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u)Solid = TWOFNRDashed = FRESCO
Excellent agreement throughout the energy range using Daehnick deuteron potential
Shape of cross section is much different than when using adiabatic potential
56Ni(d,3He)
15 Nov
56Ni(d,3He) cross sections – increasing energy for (d,3He)Daehnick Global optical potential for dBechetti-Greenlees optical potential for 3He
Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u)Solid = TWOFNRDashed = FRESCO
Little difference at low E (red, black, green)
Enormous differences above ~60 MeV/u
Related to Daehnick discontinuity ? [see later slides]
23 Nov
56Ni(d,3He) cross sections – different deuteron potential Perey-Perey optical potential for dBechetti-Greenlees optical potential for 3He
Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u)Solid = TWOFNRDashed = FRESCO
Excellent agreement throughout the energy range with Perey-Perey deuteron potential
56Ni(d,3He)Daehnick discontinuity
56Ni(d,3He) cross sections – Daehnick discontinuity Daehnick Global optical potential for dBechetti-Greenlees optical 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/uThin lines are 1 MeV/u steps
56Ni(d,3He) cross sections – no Daehnick discontinuity Daehnick Global optical potential for dBechetti-Greenlees optical potential for 3He 17 Nov
FRESCOSmooth change in cross
section with energy over entire range
Thick black lines are 60, 70, 80 MeV/uThin lines are 1 MeV/u steps
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?
top related