Paper detail

Cross sections of $α$-induced reactions for targets with masses $A \approx 20-50$ at low energies

A simple reduction scheme using so-called reduced energies $E_{\rm{red}}$ and reduced cross sections $σ_{\rm{red}}$ allows the comparison of heavy-ion induced reaction cross sections for a broad range of masses of projectile and target and over a wide energy range. A global behavior has been found for strongly bound projectiles whereas much larger reduced cross sections have been observed for weakly bound and halo projectiles. It has been shown that this simple reduction scheme works also well for $α$-particle induced reactions on heavy target nuclei, but very recently significant deviations have been seen for $α$+$^{33}$S and $α$+$^{23}$Na. Motivated by these unexpected discrepancies, the present study analyses $α$-induced reaction cross sections for targets with masses $A \approx 20-50$. The study shows that the experimental data for $α$-induced reactions on nuclei with $A \approx 20-50$ deviate slightly from the global behavior of reduced cross sections. However, in general the deviations evolve smoothly towards lower masses. The only significant outliers are the recent data for $^{33}$S and $^{23}$Na which are far above the general systematics, and some very old data may indicate that $^{36}$Ar and $^{40}$Ar are below the general trend. As expected, also the doubly-magic $^{40}$Ca nucleus lies slightly below the results for its neighboring nuclei. Overall, the experimental data are nicely reproduced by a statistical model calculation utilizing the simple $α$-nucleus potential by McFadden and Satchler. Simultaneously with the deviation of reduced cross sections $σ_{\rm{red}}$ from the general behavior, the outliers $^{23}$Na, $^{33}$S, $^{36}$Ar, and $^{40}$Ar also show significant disagreement between experiment and statistical model calculation.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Authors

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.