Paper detail

Optimum orientation versus orientation averaging description of cluster radioactivity

Background: The deformation of the nuclei involved in the cluster decay of heavy nuclei affect seriously their half-lives against the decay. Purpose: We investigate the description of the different decay stages in both the optimum orientation and the orientation-averaged pictures of the cluster decay process. Method: We consider the decays of 232,233,234U and 236,238Pu isotopes. The quantum mechanical knocking frequency and penetration probability based on the Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin approximation are used to find the decay width. Results: We found that the orientation-averaged decay width is one or two orders of magnitude less than its value along the non-compact optimum orientation. The difference between the two values increases with decreasing the mass number of the emitted cluster. Correspondingly, the extracted preformation probability based on the averaged decay width increases with the same orders of magnitude compared to its value obtained considering the optimum orientation. The cluster preformation probabilities (Sc) obtained in the two considered schemes give more or less comparable agreement with the Blendowske-Walliser (BW) formula based on the preformation probability of Sa(ave.) obtained from the orientation-averaging scheme. All the obtained results, including those obtained in the optimum-orientation scheme, deviate substantially from the BW law based on Sa(opt.) obtained using the optimum-orientation scheme. Conclusion: In order to account for deformations of the participating nuclei, it is more relevant to calculate the decay width by averaging over the different possible orientations of the participating deformed nucleus, rather than considering the corresponding non-compact optimum orientation.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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.

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.