Paper detail

Systematic investigation of projectile fragmentation using beams of unstable B and C isotopes

Background: Models describing nuclear fragmentation and fragmentation-fission deliver important input for planning nuclear physics experiments and future radioactive ion beam facilities. These models are usually benchmarked against data from stable beam experiments. In the future, two-step fragmentation reactions with exotic nuclei as stepping stones are a promising tool to reach the most neutron-rich nuclei, creating a need for models to describe also these reactions. Purpose: We want to extend the presently available data on fragmentation reactions towards the light exotic region on the nuclear chart. Furthermore, we want to improve the understanding of projectile fragmentation especially for unstable isotopes. Method: We have measured projectile fragments from 10,12-18C and 10-15B isotopes colliding with a carbon target. These measurements were all performed within one experiment, which gives rise to a very consistent dataset. We compare our data to model calculations. Results: One-proton removal cross sections with different final neutron numbers (1pxn) for relativistic 10,12-18C and 10-15B isotopes impinging on a carbon target. Comparing model calculations to the data, we find that EPAX is not able to describe the data satisfactorily. Using ABRABLA07 on the other hand, we find that the average excitation energy per abraded nucleon needs to be decreased from 27 MeV to 8.1 MeV. With that decrease ABRABLA07 describes the data surprisingly well. Conclusions: Extending the available data towards light unstable nuclei with a consistent set of new data have allowed for a systematic investigation of the role of the excitation energy induced in projectile fragmentation. Most striking is the apparent mass dependence of the average excitation energy per abraded nucleon. Nevertheless, this parameter, which has been related to final-state interactions, requires further study.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access122 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.

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.