Evaluation and recommendations on U. C. Lawrence Livermore Labortory Quality Assurance Program

Global optical model potential describing 12C-nucleus elastic scattering *

“…6. This comparison indicates that a reasonable fit with the experimental data [24,[27][28][29] is obtained using the global OMP except for 56 Fe at the incident energy of 60.0 MeV, for which the calculations are slightly larger than the measurements [28]. In Fig.…”

“…At energies of 21.87 and 22.87 MeV, the experimental elastic scattering cross sections exhibit smooth oscillations, and the calculations are slightly larger than the data above . Moreover, below 120°, the global OMP also gives a good description of the data [23] In general, a similarity among the experimental measurements is that weak and strong oscillations and occasional irregular structures are clearly exhibited for the light targets 24 Mg, 27 Al, 28 Si, and 32 S at different incident energies. The global OMP cannot reasonably describe oscillating behaviors in backward-angles since these light nuclei are considered to exhibit significant clustering.…”

“…Same as Fig. 1, but for 39 K, 50 Cr, and 56 Fe [24,[27][28][29]. tained at the incident energies of 26.0, 27.0, 27.5, 28.0, 28.5, and 124.5 MeV, while the calculation at 60.0 MeV is smaller than the data in Ref.…”

“…The global OMP cannot reasonably describe oscillating behaviors in backward-angles since these light nuclei are considered to exhibit significant clustering. In particular, for the 12 C + 24 Mg system, oscillating behavior in the backward-angle is evident even at energies under the Coulomb barrier, while for the 12 C + 28 Si system at the same energy, the data are smooth and non-oscillating. The reason may be related to the fact that 24 Mg and 28 Si have quite different cluster properties [19].…”

“…1. For the 12 C + 28 Si system, the OMP calculations of the elastic-scattering angular distribution are also compared with different experimental data [15-20], as shown in Fig. 58.9,60.9,62.9,64.9,69.9,74.9,84.9 [37] 118.0 [38] 180.0 [26] 209 Bi 58.9,59.9,60.9,61.9,62.9,63.9,65.9,69.9,74.9,87.4 [39] 118.0 [38] Table 2.…”