Resolve the remaining discrepancies in the evaporation-residue excitation functions

Resolve the three explicitly identified discrepancies between the calculated and measured evaporation-residue cross sections for the $^{48}$Ca+$^{244}$Pu reaction: the uncertain $\sigma_{4n}/\sigma_{3n}$ ratio at $E^{*}=39$ MeV, the underestimated high-energy tail at $E^{*}=53$ MeV, and the overestimated cross sections on the rising flank near $E^{*}=34.8$–$35.2$ MeV, including the $4n$ non-observation limit that cannot be reconciled with the description at the maximum by varying the damping temperature.

Background

The paper models evaporation-residue production in the 48^{48}Ca+244^{244}Pu reaction by combining a dinuclear-system description of capture and fusion with a coupled neutron-evaporation and fission cascade for the compound nucleus 292^{292}Fl. The coupled treatment improves the description of the correlation between neutron multiplicity and fission competition, but comparison with fourteen measured cross sections still reveals substantial channel- and energy-dependent discrepancies.

The authors identify three unresolved points: the calculated σ4n/σ3n\sigma_{4n}/\sigma_{3n} ratio at E∗=39E^{*}=39 MeV lies at the lower end of the range allowed by mutually inconsistent $3n$ measurements; the calculated high-energy tail is too small, by a factor of seven at E∗=53E^{*}=53 MeV; and the calculated cross sections are too large on the rising flank, notably exceeding the $4n$ non-observation limit at E∗=35.2E^{*}=35.2 MeV by a factor of nineteen. They further state that no damping-temperature value was found that removes the last discrepancy while preserving the agreement near the excitation-function maximum.

References

The comparison leaves three open points. The ratio $\sigma_{4n}/\sigma_{3n}$ is $1.01$ at $E{*}=39$~MeV, at the lower end of the range from $1.1$ to $4.2$ which the two mutually inconsistent $3n$ measurements at that energy allow. The high-energy tail is still underestimated, by a factor of $7$ at $E{*}=53$~MeV. And the cross sections are too large on the rising flank: the $3n$ channel is overestimated by a factor of $29$ at $E{*}=34.8$~MeV, and the $4n$ non-observation limit at $E{*}=35.2$~MeV is exceeded by a factor of $19$. The last of these is the most serious disagreement of the present calculation, and no value of the damping temperature was found which removes it while preserving the description at the maximum.