The 12c(d, n0)13n reaction from 3.6 MeV to 12.0 MeV

How unique is the asymptotic normalization coefficient method?

“…Not surprisingly the derived spectroscopic factors from the two data sets differ by 30 %. We found C 2 1 12 = 2.56 ± 0.37 for [15] and C 2 1 12 = 3.31 ± 0.45 for [14]. Again, these errors are associated only with the optical potential uncertainty.…”

“…As this reaction has two different vertices for the two composite nuclei, 10 B → 9 Be + p and 13 N → 12 C + p, the experimental spectroscopic factor S exp will be proportional to the ANCs product, C At 9 MeV we used transfer data available from two different sources, Davis et al [14] and Schelin et al [15]. We take 3 sets of potential parameters from fitting the entrance channel elastic data of [27] shown in fig.…”

“…The Hauser-Feshbach model is then clearly inadequate in this case. Arbitrary reduction factors can be found in [14,15] producing a large uncertainty on the derived spectroscopic factors and ANCs. In order to extract a meaningful ANC factor from a transfer reaction, the reaction mechanism should be properly understood.…”

“…At 9 MeV we used transfer data available from two different sources, Davis et al [14] and Schelin et al [15]. We take 3 sets of potential parameters from fitting the entrance channel elastic data of [27] (6c) the shape of the calculated DWBA differential cross section adjusts much better to Davis's data than to Schelin's in the low angle region, θ ≤ 35 • .…”

Modelling and analysis of nucleon emission from deuteron-induced reactions at incident energies up to 100 MeV

“…The experimental data are taken from Refs. [16][17][18][19][20]. The values of spectroscopic factor (SF) are extracted by fitting the calculated DWBA cross section to the corresponding experimental one at forward angles where proton stripping process is dominant.…”