Analysis of the Scattering of 40-MeV Protons

Abstract

Elastic and inelastic scattering of unpolarized 40-MeV protons from 12 C, 54 Fe, 66 Fe, 58 Ni, 60 Ni, and 208 Pb have been analyzed using the optical-model potential and its collective-model extension in the distortedwave approximation. Fits to the inelastic scattering from 24 Mg and to the elastic scattering from 27 A1, 66 Cu, Sn, and 181 Ta also are included. The Woods-Saxon shape parameters for the potential differ from those suggested for scattering at lower energies, and either surface or volume forms of the imaginary part produce good agreement with the data. To describe the inelastic scattering best, it is found necessary to deform the imaginary (as well as the real) part of the central potential. The deformation parameters obtained are in reasonable agreement with those found by other methods.

Coupled-Channel Calculations for Nuclear Bound States

“…10. The DW calculations use average optical parameters 42,43 and employ local-energy approximations to the effects of finite range 44 and nonlocality. 45 The over-all agreement with experiment is seen to be satisfactory, the low values for Ni being a possible experimental difficulty in detecting weak |~ states.…”

Finite-NucleusGMatrix in the Microscopic Description of Inelastic Proton Scattering

“…No free parameters are involved in these calculations and the optical parameters which have been used were taken from standard compilations found in the literature. 13 Harmonicoscillator wave functions have been used throughout with the constants fixed on the basis of elastic electron scattering, i.e., foo = 10.5 and 15 MeV for Ca 40 and C 12 , respectively.…”

Contact Resistance in Schottky Contact Gated-Four-Probe a-Si Thin-Film Transistor

“…1 shows the reflection coefficients, y l , and the transmission coefficients, 1ly,l2, obtained with the above-mentioned potential. One observes that even for small partial waves the trans- But (28) may also be written as (29) For small partial waves the Riccati-Bessel functions vary rapidly for large arguments. Thus it seems reasonable to assume that the value of the second term in (29) is close to the value of (28).…”