Paper detail

Partition of the total excitation energy between complementary fragments

Two methods of the total excitation energy (TXE) partition between complementary fission fragments (FF) are compared: one based on the "classical" hypothesis of prompt neutron emission from fully accelerated FF with both fragments having the same residual nuclear temperature distribution,the second one on the systematic behavior of the experimental multiplicity ratio νH/(νL+νH) as a function of the heavy fragment mass number AH,the complementary FF having different residual temperature distributions.These methods were applied on six fissioning systems: 233,235U(nth,f), 239Pu(nth,f), 237Np(n5.5MeV,f), 252Cf(SF), 248Cm(SF) and fragment excitation energies,level density parameters,fragment and fragment pair temperatures were compared.Limitations of the "classical" TXE partition method are shown.Residual temperature ratios RT=TL/TH versus AH,local and global parameterizations of RT(AH) for the neutron induced fissioning systems are obtained.Average values of quantities characterizing prompt neutron emission are discussed.A linear decrease of <RT> with the mass number of the fissioning nucleus and a linear decrease of the average C parameter with the fissility parameter is obtained.Point by Point (PbP) model calculations validate the RT(AH) parameterizations.The multi-parametric matrix ν(A,TKE) as well as prompt neutron and gamma-ray emission quantities as a function of fragment mass,total average prompt neutron multiplicity and spectrum and prompt neutron multiplicity distribution P(ν) were calculated.The global RT(AH) parameterization extends the use of the PbP model to predict prompt neutron emission quantities for fissioning systems without experimental data.An explanation of the less pronounced sawtooth shape of ν(A) and the increase of ν(A) with incident neutron energy only for heavy fragments is given and exemplified by quantitative results of the PbP model.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.