DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Physics Problems 2.3. “Mirror Nuclei” Are Pairs of Nuclei in Which

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Physics Problems 2.3. “Mirror Nuclei” Are Pairs of Nuclei in Which Nuclear Physics Problems 2.3. “Mirror nuclei” are pairs of nuclei in which the proton number in one equals the neutron number in the other and vice versa. The simplest examples are provided by odd-A nuclei with one odd nucleon. In one of the mirror nuclei the charge is Z = (A + 1)/2 and the neutron number is N = (A − 1)/2; whilst in the other the 13 charge is Z = (A − 1)/2 and the neutron number N = (A + 1)/2. Examples are 7 N 13 31 31 and 6 C or 16S and 15P. The nuclei in these pairs differ from each other only in that a proton in one is exchanged for the neutron in the other. There is strong reason to believe that the force between nucleons does not differentiate between neutrons and protons; consequently, the “nuclear part” of the binding energy of two mirror nuclei must be the same. Hence, the mass difference of two mirror nuclei can be due only to the difference between the proton mass and the neutron mass, and the different Coulomb energies of the two. This can be used to find the radius of the two nuclei (assumed to be the same), thus: 1. Show that the electrostatic potential energy (Coulomb energy) of a uniformly 2 2 charged sphere of radius R and charge Ze is 3Z e /(20π0R). 21 21 2 2. The nucleus 11Na is more massive than its “mirror partner” 10Ne by 4.02 MeV/c . What is the difference between their Coulomb energies? Use this to estimate a value for R. (The neutron-proton mass difference is 1.29 MeV/c2.) 2.5. Define the terms atomic mass unit, mass defect, and binding energy of a nucleus. Show that 1u (atomic mass unit) = 931.50 MeV/c2. (The mass of a 12C atom is 1.99267 × 10−26 kg.) 181 The binding energy of 73 Ta is 1454 MeV. What is the mass defect of this nucleus? (Mass defects of neutron and proton are 0.008667u and 0.007279u respectively.) 2.6. The semi-empirical mass formula (SEMF) for nuclear masses is Z2 (A − 2Z)2 M(Z, A) = Zm + (A − Z)m − a A + a A2/3 + a + a + δ p n V s c A1/3 A A P where mp and mn are the masses of the free proton and neutron, and the coefficients 2 aV , as, ac, aA have the values (in MeV/c ) 15.56, 17.23, 0.697, 23.285 respectively. 1. What expression does this formula give for the binding energy per nucleon of the nucleus (A, Z)? 2. Explain briefly the physical basis of the various terms in the SEMF. How does the last term δP depend on A and Z? 3. Use the calculation you did in question 2.3(1) to predict a value for the coefficient 1/3 ac, assuming that the nuclear radius is given by R = 1.24 × A fm. 135 4. Use the SEMF to calculate the binding energy of the nucleus 56 Ba. Given 135 that the atomic mass of 56 Ba is 134.904553u, the mass of the hydrogen atom is 1.007825u, and the mass of the neutron is 1.008667u, make a second estimate 135 of the binding energy of 56 Ba. Can you suggest reasons for any discrepancy between your two results? 1 2.7. The Fermi Gas model of the nucleus assumes that the nucleus is a spherical “box” of radius R, and that the neutrons and protons are gases of fermions which (in the nuclear ground state) are “at absolute zero”—i.e., they fiill up the lowest energy levels. Given that√ the density of levels for spin-half fermions of mass m in a volume V is V (2m)3/2 /(2π2h¯3) (this includes the spin degeneracy factor), show that in a nucleus containing Z protons and N neutrons, the Fermi energy of the proton gas is h¯2 9πZ 2/3 EF = 2 2mr0 4A 1/3 where R = r0A , and m is the nucleon mass (assumed the same here for neutrons and protons). Write down a similar expression for the Fermi energy of the neutron gas. Calculate the total energy of the proton gas and the neutron gas. Now consider the case where Z and N add to a fixed total A (take A to be even). Show that the total energy E of the nucleons has a minimum when N = Z = A/2. By expanding E about this minimum value, and retaining only the quadratic term in (Z − A/2), derive an expression for the coefficient aA in the SEMF. Evaluate aA, taking r0 to be 1.24 fm. How does it compare with the value quoted in question 6? 3.6. Explain what the “shell model” of the nucleus is. What experimental evidence is there for it? What would the first five “magic numbers” be if nucleons were assumed to move in a three-dimensional harmonic oscillator potential? What additional component in the potential is required to explain the observed magic numbers? Show how this extra term accounts for the first five observed magic numbers. 3.7. Use the shell model to predict the spin and parity of the ground states of the 15 20 27 87 167 195 following nuclei: 7 N, 10Ne, 12Mg, 38Sr, 68 Er, and 80 Hg. Explain any assumptions you make. 1 − + 1 + 9 + 7 + 1 − The observed spin-parities are 2 , 0 , 2 , 2 , 2 , and 2 . Comment on any discrep- ancies. 38 Can the spin-parity of 19K be predicted by the shell model? 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Range of Usefulness of Bethe's Semiempirical Nuclear Mass Formula
    RANGE OF ..USEFULNESS OF BETHE' S SEMIEMPIRIC~L NUCLEAR MASS FORMULA by SEKYU OBH A THESIS submitted to OREGON STATE COLLEGE in partial fulfillment or the requirements tor the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE June 1956 TTPBOTTDI Redacted for Privacy lrrt rtllrt ?rsfirror of finrrtor Ia Ohrr;r ef lrJer Redacted for Privacy Redacted for Privacy 0hrtrurn of tohoot Om0qat OEt ttm Redacted for Privacy Dru of 0rrdnrtr Sohdbl Drta thrrlr tr prrrEtrl %.ifh , 1,,r, ," r*(,-. ttpo{ by Brtty Drvlr ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. G. L. Trigg for his assistance and encouragement, without which this study would not have been concluded. The author also wishes to thank Dr. E. A. Yunker for making facilities available for these calculations• • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 NUCLEAR BINDING ENERGIES AND 5 SEMIEMPIRICAL MASS FORMULA RESEARCH PROCEDURE 11 RESULTS 17 CONCLUSION 21 DATA 29 f BIBLIOGRAPHY 37 RANGE OF USEFULNESS OF BETHE'S SEMIEMPIRICAL NUCLEAR MASS FORMULA INTRODUCTION The complicated experimental results on atomic nuclei haYe been defying definite interpretation of the structure of atomic nuclei for a long tfme. Even though Yarious theoretical methods have been suggested, based upon the particular aspects of experimental results, it has been impossible to find a successful theory which suffices to explain the whole observed properties of atomic nuclei. In 1936, Bohr (J, P• 344) proposed the liquid drop model of atomic nuclei to explain the resonance capture process or nuclear reactions. The experimental evidences which support the liquid drop model are as follows: 1. Substantially constant density of nuclei with radius R - R Al/3 - 0 (1) where A is the mass number of the nucleus and R is the constant of proportionality 0 with the value of (1.5! 0.1) x 10-lJcm~ 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Neutron Deficient Exotic Nuclei and the Physics of the Proton Rich
    Report on the second EURISOL User Group Topical Meeting 1 Neutron deficient exotic nuclei and the Physics of the proton rich side of the nuclear chart. Colegio Mayor Rector Peset, Valencia, Spain, 21-23 February 2011. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007- 2013 under Grant Agreement n. 262010 - ENSAR. The EC is not liable for any use that can be made on the information contained herein. The workshop was partially supported by CPAN and IFIC (CSIC-Univ. of Valencia), Spain. 1Coordinated by Berta Rubio, IFIC, Valencia, Spain and Angela Bonaccorso, INFN, Sez. di Pisa, Italy. 1 EURISOL SECOND TOPICAL MEETING “Neutron-deficient nuclei and the physics of the proton-rich side of the nuclear chart” Foreword This booklet contains the highlights of the second EURISOL Topical Meeting which was held in Valencia from 21st to 23rd February 2011. It followed the EURISOL Topical Meeting in Catania on “The formation and structure of r-process nuclei, between N=50 and 82 (including 78Ni and 132Sn areas)”. It was organised by the EURISOL Users Group and supported by the European Commission (ENSAR project), CPAN (Centro Nacional de Física de Partículas, Astropartículas y Nuclear, Spain) and IFIC (Instituto de Física Corpuscular, Spain). During the two and a half days of the meeting an interesting and dense programme was accommodated. Seventy participants, including almost all members of the previous and present EURISOL User Group Executive Committee contributed either to the presentations or to the lively discussions. The programme and the presentations are available at the workshop web site http://ific.uv.es/~eug-valencia.
    [Show full text]
  • Mirror Nuclei, A<=
    Atomic Energy of Canada Limited MIRROR NUCLEI, A < 100 by J.C. HARDY Presented as an invited talk to the Canadian Association of Physicists meeting held in Montreal, June 18-21, 1973 Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario August 1973 AECL-4604 Atomic Energy of Canada Limited MIRROR NUCLEI, A <: 100 by J.C. HARDY Presented as an invited talk to the Canadian Association of Physicists meeting held in Montreal, June 18-21, 1973. Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario August 1973 AECL- Mirror Nuclei, A <, ICC by J.C Hardy ABSTRACT The effects of charge-dependent forces are described, and their dependence on the nuclear mass is discussed, it is proposed that large isospin impurities may occur in heavier nuclei (A <s 10G) with N ~ Z. several classes of p-decay experi- ment are sensitive to these effects, and a detailed description is given of recent chalk River experiments to study the super- allowed decay of 0*, T7 = -1 nuclei. This work has included the first measurement of mirror Fermi decay branches within a T = 1 multiplet. These and other data on superallowed p-decay are analyzed with particular emphasis on the charge dependent corrections to which mirror comparisons are particularly sensitive. The results are discussed in terms of the theory of weak interactions and the question of the existence of a heavy intermediate vector boson. It is suggested that some discrepancies for nuclei with A > 40 may be attributed to the proposed increase in charge dependent mixing. Some other experimental evidence suggesting the same conclusion is also given.
    [Show full text]
  • Relativistic Deformed Mean-Field Calculation of Binding Energy Differences of Mirror Nuclei
    Instituto de Física Teórica IFT Universidade Estadual Paulista IFT-P.003/96 TAUP-2310-95 Relativistic deformed mean-field calculation of binding energy differences of mirror nuclei W. Koepf School of Physics and Astronomy Tel Aviv University 69978 Ramat Aviv Israel G. Krein Instituto de Física Teórica Universidade Estadual Paulista Rua Pamplona 145 01405-900 - São Paulo, S.P. Brazil and L. A. Barreiro Instituto de Física Universidade de São Paulo Caixa Postal 66318 05389-970 - São Paulo, S.P. Brazil ? 7 US 1 Instituto de Física Teórica Universidade Estadual Paulista Rua Pamplona, 145 01405-900 - São Paulo, S.P. Brazil Telephone: 55 (11) 251.5155 Telefax: õõ (11) 288.8224 Telex: 55 (11) 31870 UJMFBR Electronic Address: [email protected] 47857::LIBRARY TAUP-2310-95, IFT-P.003/96,nucI-th/9601027 1. Introduction. Conventional nuclear theory, based on the Schrodingcr equation, 1ms difficulties in explaining the binding energy differences of mirror nuclei [1,2]. The major Relativistic deformed mean-field calculation of binding energy contribution to the energy difference comes from the Coulomb force, and a variety of isospm differences of mirror nuclei breaking effects provide small contributions. The difficulty in reproducing the experimental values is kaown in the literature as the Okamofco-Nolen-Schiffer anomaly (ONSA). Several W. Koepf nuclear structure effects such as correlations, core polarization and isospin mixing have been School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, 69978 Ramat Aviv, Israel invoked to resolve the anomaly without success [3]. Since Okamoto and Pask [4] and Negele [5] suggested that the discrepancy could he G.
    [Show full text]
  • A Broken Nuclear Mirror to Ornithine Being Mobilized in Cytoplasmic Pathways Leading to Spermidine Production
    Spermidine is a type of molecule called a adenosine-receptor expression and function forged in life; what other chains are forged in polyamine. It is mainly produced from a meta- between the species8, and therefore efforts to cell death? bolic pathway that converts the amino acid use these metabolites to treat human disease arginine to polyamines through intermediates might prove challenging. Douglas R. Green is in the Department of that include the molecule ornithine (Fig. 1). Medina and colleagues’ work opens rich Immunology, St. Jude Children’s Research Medina and colleagues traced the conversion possibilities for future investigations into Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee 38105, USA. of arginine to spermidine by this pathway, and how apoptosis triggers metabolic changes, e-mail: [email protected] found that cells induced to undergo apoptosis and how the regulated release of metabolites increased their synthesis of spermidine and its influences tissues. In contrast to apoptosis, 1. Medina, C. B. et al. Nature 580, 130–135 (2020). precursor, the molecule putrescine, before other forms of cell death, such as regulated 2. Green, D. R. Cell Death: Apoptosis and Other Means to an dying. The apoptotic cells released spermi- forms of necrosis, have profoundly different End 2nd edn (Cold Spring Harb. Lab. Press, 2018). 3. Lüthi, A. U. & Martin, S. J. Cell Death Differ. 14, 641–650 dine, but not putrescine. Spermidine release effects on surrounding cells, and whether (2007). occurred in a PANX1-dependent manner. and how changes in metabolism triggered 4. Kerr, J. F. R., Wyllie, A. H. & Currie, A. R. Br. J. Cancer 26, Although this phenomenon was monitored by those cell-death pathways influence their 239–257 (1972).
    [Show full text]
  • Nucleus Nucleus the Massive, Positively Charged Central Part of an Atom, Made up of Protons and Neutrons
    Madan Mohan Malaviya Univ. of Technology, Gorakhpur MPM: 203 NUCLEAR AND PARTICLE PHYSICS UNIT –I: Nuclei And Its Properties Lecture-4 By Prof. B. K. Pandey, Dept. of Physics and Material Science 24-10-2020 Side 1 Madan Mohan Malaviya Univ. of Technology, Gorakhpur Size of the Nucleus Nucleus the massive, positively charged central part of an atom, made up of protons and neutrons • In his experiment Rutheford observed that the light nuclei the distance of closest approach is of the order of 3x10−15 m. • The distance of closest approach, at which scattering begins to take place was identified as the measure of nuclear size. • Nuclear size is defined by nuclear radius, also called rms charge radius. It can be measured by the scattering of electrons by the nucleus. • The problem of defining a radius for the atomic nucleus is similar to the problem of atomic radius, in that neither atoms nor their nuclei have definite boundaries. 24-10-2020 Side 2 Madan Mohan Malaviya Univ. of Technology, Gorakhpur Nuclear Size • However, the nucleus can be modelled as a sphere of positive charge for the interpretation of electron scattering experiments: because there is no definite boundary to the nucleus, the electrons “see” a range of cross-sections, for which a mean can be taken. • The qualification of “rms” (for “root mean square”) arises because it is the nuclear cross-section, proportional to the square of the radius, which is determining for electron scattering. • The first estimate of a nuclear charge radius was made by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden in 1909, under the direction of Ernest Rutherford.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 12 Charge Independence and Isospin
    Chapter 12 Charge Independence and Isospin If we look at mirror nuclei (two nuclides related by interchanging the number of protons and the number of neutrons) we find that their binding energies are almost the same. In fact, the only term in the Semi-Empirical Mass formula that is not invariant under Z (A-Z) is the Coulomb term (as expected). ↔ Z2 (Z N)2 ( 1) Z + ( 1) N a B(A, Z ) = a A a A2/3 a a − + − − P V − S − C A1/3 − A A 2 A1/2 Inside a nucleus these electromagnetic forces are much smaller than the strong inter-nucleon forces (strong interactions) and so the masses are very nearly equal despite the extra Coulomb energy for nuclei with more protons. Not only are the binding energies similar - and therefore the ground state energies are similar but the excited states are also similar. 7 7 As an example let us look at the mirror nuclei (Fig. 12.2) 3Li and 4Be, where we see that 7 for all the states the energies are very close, with the 4Be states being slightly higher because 7 it has one more proton than 3Li. All this suggests that whereas the electromagnetic interactions clearly distinguish between protons and neutrons the strong interactions, responsible for nuclear binding, are ‘charge independent’. Let us now look at a pair of mirror nuclei whose proton number and neutron number 6 6 differ by two, and also the nuclide between them. The example we take is 2He and 4Be, which are mirror nuclei. Each of these has a closed shell of two protons and a closed shell of 6 6 two neutrons.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics SPA5302, 2019 Chris Clarkson, School of Physics & Astronomy [email protected]
    Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics SPA5302, 2019 Chris Clarkson, School of Physics & Astronomy [email protected] These notes are evolving, so please let me know of any typos, factual errors etc. They will be updated weekly on QM+ (and may include updates to early parts we have already covered). Note that material in purple ‘Digression’ boxes is not examinable. Updated 16:29, on 05/12/2019. Contents 1 Basic Nuclear Properties4 1.1 Length Scales, Units and Dimensions............................7 2 Nuclear Properties and Models8 2.1 Nuclear Radius and Distribution of Nucleons.......................8 2.1.1 Scattering Cross Section............................... 12 2.1.2 Matter Distribution................................. 18 2.2 Nuclear Binding Energy................................... 20 2.3 The Nuclear Force....................................... 24 2.4 The Liquid Drop Model and the Semi-Empirical Mass Formula............ 26 2.5 The Shell Model........................................ 33 2.5.1 Nuclei Configurations................................ 44 3 Radioactive Decay and Nuclear Instability 48 3.1 Radioactive Decay...................................... 49 CONTENTS CONTENTS 3.2 a Decay............................................. 56 3.2.1 Decay Mechanism and a calculation of t1/2(Q) .................. 58 3.3 b-Decay............................................. 62 3.3.1 The Valley of Stability................................ 64 3.3.2 Neutrinos, Leptons and Weak Force........................ 68 3.4 g-Decay...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proton and Neutron Skins and Symmetry Energy of Mirror Nuclei
    Proton and neutron skins and symmetry energy of mirror nuclei M.K. Gaidarova,∗, I. Moumeneb, A.N. Antonova, D.N. Kadreva, P. Sarrigurenc, E. Moya de Guerrad aInstitute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia 1784, Bulgaria bHigh Energy Physics and Astrophysics Laboratory, Faculty of Science Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, P.O.B. 2390, Marrakesh,Morocco cInstituto de Estructura de la Materia, IEM-CSIC, Serrano 123, E-28006 Madrid, Spain dDepartamento de Estructura de la Materia, F´ısicaT´ermicay Electr´onica,and IPARCOS, Facultad de Ciencias F´ısicas,Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid E-28040, Spain Abstract The neutron skin of nuclei is an important fundamental property, but its accurate measurement faces many challenges. Inspired by charge symmetry of nuclear forces, the neutron skin of a neutron-rich nucleus is related to the difference between the charge radii of the corresponding mirror nuclei. We investigate this relation within the framework of the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method with Skyrme interactions. Predictions for proton skins are also made for several mirror pairs in the middle mass range. For the first time the correlation between the thickness of the neutron skin and the characteristics related with the density dependence of the nuclear symme- try energy is investigated simultaneously for nuclei and their corresponding mirror partners. As an example, the Ni isotopic chain with mass number A = 48 − 60 is considered. These quan- tities are calculated within the coherent density fluctuation model using Brueckner and Skyrme energy-density functionals for isospin asymmetric nuclear matter with two Skyrme-type effective interactions, SkM* and SLy4.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics Motivation and Concepts for the Isospin Laboratory*
    Particle Accelerators, 1994, Vol. 47, pp. 111-118 @1994 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, S.A. Reprints available directly from the publisher Printed in Malaysia Photocopying permitted by license only PHYSICS MOTIVATION AND CONCEPTS FOR THE ISOSPIN LABORATORY* J. MICHAEL NITSCHKE ISL Studies Group, Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University ofCalifornia Berkeley, California 94720, USA (Received 29 October 1993) A briefsynopsis ofthe emerging science ofradioactive nuclear beams is given. Its impact on a wide range ofstudies in nuclear structure, nuclear reaction dynamics, astrophysics, high-spin physics, nuclei far from stability, material­ and surface science, bio-medicine, and atomic- and hyperfine-interaction physics is discussed. It is pointed out that the expected low beam intensities will put stringent requirements on the performance of the accelerators and the experimental detection equipment. KEY WORDS: Radioactive nuclear beams, on-line isotope separation 1 INTRODUCTION Nuclear physics and the development ofparticle accelerators have gone hand-in-hand since the early part ofthis century. The first nuclear reaction was carried out in 1930 by Cockcroft and Walton using protons accelerated to 300keV in the reaction 7Li(p,2a). Subsequent developments progressed in two directions, heavier masses and higher energies. While heavier projectiles opened new vistas in the synthesis of new elements, the study of high spin phenomena, and the exploration ofthe nucleon drip lines, to mention only a few, higher energies allowed the study ofnuclei at higher temperatures, the equation of state ofnuclear matter, and ultimately collective phenomena resulting from the melting of the hadronic phase that may give rise to a plasma consisting of quarks and gluons.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclei at the Limits of Particle Stability
    0» Nuclei at the limits of particle stability Alex C. Mueller Bradley M. Sherrill IPNO-DRE 9,3-10 t MSU CL 883 \ Vr - J Michigan State University National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory Nuclei at the limits of particle stability Alex C. Mueller Bradley M. SherriJl IPNO-DRE 93-10 MSU CL 883 Michigan State University National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory NUCLEI AT THE LIMITS OF PARTICLE STABILITY Alex C. Mueller CNRS-IN2P3, Institut de Physique Nucléaire, F-91406 Orsay, France and Bradley M. Sherritt National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratoiy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI48824, USA KEY WORDS: nuclear ^-stability, production of unstable nuclei, on-line isotope separators and recoil spectrometers, reactions induced by unstable nuclei, properties of nuclei at the drip-lines, neutron-halo, nuclei far off stability in astrophysics Shortened Title: Exotic Nuclei (to appear in Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, Volume 43) CONTENTS !.INTRODUCTION 3 2. THE LIMITS OF STABILITY 4 3. TECHNIQUES OF PRODUCTION 7 3.1 Overview 7 3.2 ISOL techniques 7 3.3 Recoil separators 9 4. PROTON-RICH NUCLEI 13 4.1 Searches for the location of the proton drip-line 13 4.2 Properties of proton rich nuclei 16 4.3 Beyond the proton drip-line 20 4.4 Astrophysics: breakout from the CNO-cvcle and the rp-process 22 4.5 Properties and synthesis of the heaviest elements 24 5. NEUTRON-RICH NUCLEI 26 5.1 Mapping of the neutron drip-line 26 5.2 Nuclear masses along the neutron drip-line 28 5.3 Decay studies 30 5.4 Nuclear moments 32 5.5 Nuclear radii, matter and charge distributions 33 5.6 Reaction studies of the halo nuclei: cross-sections, momentum distributions and neutron correlations 35 5.7 Some comments on the neutron halo.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mirror Nuclei Ga and Zn
    The Mirror Nuclei 61 Ga and 61 Zn Lise−Lotte Andersson Licentiate Thesis 2006 Department of Physics Division of Nuclear Physics Lund University LUNFD6/(NFFR−3100)/1−69/(2006) Contents Introduction 3 1 Experimental Details 5 1.1 FusionEvaporationReactions . 6 1.2 γ Detection ................................ 6 1.2.1 CLARION............................. 6 1.2.2 GAMMASPHERE ........................ 7 1.3 NeutronDetection ............................ 8 1.4 ChargedParticleDetection. 8 1.4.1 LuWUSiA............................. 8 1.4.2 Microball ............................. 9 1.5 RecoilSeparators ............................. 10 1.5.1 RecoilMassSeparator . 10 1.5.2 FragmentMassAnalyser . 11 1.6 IonisationChamber. .. .. 11 2 Data Handling 13 2.1 DataFormat ............................... 13 2.2 Handling of the γ rays .......................... 15 2.3 NeutronHandling............................. 15 2.3.1 Neutron-γ Separation....................... 16 2.3.2 Two-Neutron Event Suppression . 16 2.3.3 Neutron Identification Efficiency . 18 2.4 ChargedParticleHandling . 19 2.4.1 Proton - α Separation ...................... 19 2.5 A/Q Separation.............................. 20 2.6 IonChamberCalibrations . 20 3 Data Analysis 25 3.1 Recoil - γ Analysis ............................ 25 3.2 Recoil - γγ Analysis ........................... 26 3.3 The 61GaNucleus............................. 26 3.4 The 61ZnNucleus............................. 26 3.4.1 SpecificTransitions . 30 3.4.2 SuperdeformedBand . 37 3.5 AngularDistributionCorrections . .. 38 1 2 CONTENTS 4 Theoretical Background 41 4.1 TheShellModel.............................. 41 4.1.1 ElectromagneticTransitions . 44 4.1.2 Two-stateMixing. .. .. .. 46 4.2 Shell-Model Calculations Using the Code ANTOINE................................. 46 4.2.1 TheGXPF1andGXPF1AInteractions . 47 4.2.2 The “f5/2pg9/2”Interaction. .. .. 47 4.2.3 TheKB3GInteraction . 47 4.3 MirrorNuclei ............................... 48 5 Interpretation 51 5.1 The Shell Model Calculations . 51 5.1.1 The 61ZnNucleus........................
    [Show full text]