6Li(n, t)4He differential cross sections between 0.1 and 1.8 MeV

6Li(n,t)α angular distribution measurements for 0.2 < En < 10MeV at LANSCE/WNR

“…5), the new LANSCE data agree very well with the prior data, with somewhat of an exception in the shape of the Overley [11] data at 1.9 MeV. For incident neutron energies of 2.7, 3.7 and 4.5 MeV, significant differences between the current data and that of Zhang can be seen in the figures.…”

“…In figures 5 and 6 we show angular distributions at eight incident neutron energies in the energy range of 1.1 to [11] (triangles) at the same energies, and G. Zhang et al [1][2][3][4] (squares) at the labeled energies, are shown for comparison. The line is the most recent R-matrix fit, which includes the new LANSCE data.…”

“…The incident neutron energy labels in each panel correspond to the midpoint of 200 keV-wide energy bins for the LANSCE data. Where available, data from J.C. Overley et al [11] (triangles) at the same energies, and recent data from G. Zhang et al [1][2][3][4] (squares) at the labeled energies, are shown for comparison. The Overley data sets are shown as representative of a number of older measurements, and the recent Zhang data are shown for comparison.…”

Theoretical calculations and analysis for n + 6Li reaction

“…The results are offset by factors of 10. The theoretical results of 6 Li(n,t) angular distributions are compared with the experimental data [42] in Fig. 10.…”

Deuteron exchange mechanism for the6Li(n, ?) reaction at low energies

“…As may be seen, there are distinct differences at all energies: a BL_value s calculated by us from raw data of [10] u Also non-zero B 3 given by [-11] The Table 4 -values), in contrast to the data of [11]. In order to obtain positive Bl-values in agreement with [11] in the region of 400-500keV the phase angle ~b5/2 has to be reduced further to about 110 ~ As a consequence, however, cross sections calculated with such a phase angle disagree strongly with the experimental ones near resonance (at 260keV BI/Bo =0.35 for 4~s/2 = 110~ furthermore, the anisotropy at low energies becomes still smaller (B~/Bo=0.22 at 24 keV), thus increasing the discrepancy with the data of [10]. Probably more weight should be put on an approximate agreement at the lower energies because the disagreement at the higher energies may be due to the neglect of contributions from higher energy resonances or to an unproper choice of the parameters of the 3.5 MeV resonance.…”