1: \documentstyle[12pt,a4]{article}
2: \input{epsf.tex}
3: \textheight 23.5cm
4: \textwidth 16cm
5: \oddsidemargin -0.5cm
6: \evensidemargin -0.5cm
7: %\topmargin -1.cm
8: \sloppy
9: \pagestyle{empty}
10: \righthyphenmin=2
11: \begin{document}
12: \begin{center}
13: {\bf
14: CALCULATION OF THE TOTAL GAMMA-SPECTRA OF THE FAST NEUTRONS CAPTURE IN THE ISOTOPES
15: $^{117,119} $Sn FOR THE DIFFERENT PARAMETERS OF CASCADE GAMMA-DECAY}
16: \end{center}
17:
18: \begin{center}
19: {\ A.M. Sukhovoj, V.A. Khitrov}\\
20: \end{center}\begin{center}
21: {\it Frank Laboratory of Neutron Physics, Joint Institute
22: for Nuclear Research, 141980, Dubna, Russia}\\
23: \end{center}
24:
25: The gamma-spectra were calculated for the set of different level densities and
26: radiative strength functions. The sufficiently precise
27: reproduction of the experiment is impossible without taking into account
28: the influence of the process of the nucleons Cooper pairs breaking on
29: any nuclei cascade gamma-decay parameters.
30:
31: \section{Introduction}
32:
33:
34:
35: The direct determination of density $\rho$ of excitation levels
36: (number of levels of nucleus in the unit interval of excitation energy)
37: for the larger part of stable and long-life radioactive target nuclei is
38: impossible.
39: This assertion relates also to the radiative strength functions
40: \begin{equation} k=\Gamma_{\lambda i}/(E_{\gamma}^3\times
41: A^{2/3}\times D_{\lambda})
42: \end{equation}
43: exciting their primary dipole electrical and magnetic
44: gamma-transitions of level of nucleus decaying the excited
45: in the nuclear reaction. Extraction of the parameters of nucleus
46: in question in this situation can be executed by only their
47: fitting to the optimum values, reproducing the experimental
48: spectra and cross section with the minimum standard deviation
49: measured in the nuclear reactions.
50:
51: This inverse problem of mathematical analysis by its nature
52: is principally ambiguous. Moreover, systems of equations,
53: connecting the number of excited levels and probability of
54: the emission of nuclear products are usually assigned
55: within the framework of some ideas about the mechanism of
56: nuclear reaction and factors determining the dynamics of
57: the studied process.
58:
59: Thus, for example, the description of the cascade gamma-decay
60: of neutron resonance, is impossible at present without the
61: introduction of some a priori ideas. In particular, within
62: the framework of the ideas about this process following
63: potential possibilities are not taken into consideration:
64: \begin{itemize}
65: \item the presence of the possible strong dependence of neutron widths
66: $\Gamma_n$ on the structure of the wave function of
67: resonances (and of the excessive error in determination
68: of their density $D_{\lambda}^{-1}$ by the neutron time-of-flight method),
69:
70: \item the analogous dependence of the partial radiative widths of
71: primary gamma-transitions $\Gamma_{\lambda i}$
72: on the structure of the level excited
73: by them, evidently overstepping the limits of
74: the expected Porter-Thomas fluctuations.
75: \end{itemize}
76:
77: Potencial possibility of existence of the enumerated effects and
78: their significant influence on the process of cascade gamma-decay
79: directly follows from the results [1] of model approximation
80: of the level density, extracted from the reaction $(n,2\gamma)$
81: and the comparison [2,3] of the average values of the sums of
82: radiative strength functions with their models [4,5] most often
83: used in practice.
84: Thus, the possible break of sequential Cooper pair [1] with the
85: excitation energy in the region of the neutron-binding energy
86: can change values of few quasi-particle components in the wave
87: function and thus - change [6] values of $\Gamma_n$.
88: This possibility directly follows from the results, presented in [1].
89: Whether this possibility is realizable in principle, to what
90: degree the process of fragmentation of nuclear states mixes up
91: components of different types in the wave functions of the levels
92: in the whole region $E_{ex} \leq B_n$ and at the noticeably higher
93: excitation energies - neither the experiment, nor the theory
94: can answer this at the present.
95:
96: In particular it is not possible to obtain the realistic estimation
97: of the part of the unobservable levels, which according to the
98: values $J^{\pi}$ could be excited them as s-resonances.
99: This problem is very essential, since the density of neutron
100: resonances in practice in any experiment to determine this
101: parameter for the excitation lower than $B_n$ is used
102: to standardize its relative values.
103: As a consequence of the above mentioned facts, the measured
104: experimentally in different procedures [2,3,7,8] level densities
105: and the radiative strength functions of primary gamma-transitions
106: can have an unknown systematic error, the value of which directly
107: depends on a systematic error in the conventional values
108: $D_{\lambda}$ of the spacing between the neutron resonances.
109: And the obtained ideas about these values and properties of
110: nucleus can be erroneous to a greater or lesser extent.
111: However, if we add the fundamental incompatibility of the data
112: about the level density between the results of applying the
113: procedures [7,8] on the one hand, and [2,3] on the other hand,
114: than the need for a maximally possible verification of $\rho$
115: and $k$ determined from indirect experiments becomes obvious.
116:
117: \section{Possibilities and the specific character of the
118: verification of the experimentally determined values
119: of $\rho$ and $k$}
120:
121: The verification of the indicated parameters of nucleus can
122: be partially executed by the calculation of total gamma-spectra
123: for different sets of $\rho$ and $k$ with their subsequent
124: comparison with the experiment. This calculation was carried
125: out by different authors repeatedly [9,10], but,
126: as a rule, without taken into account of:
127: \begin{itemize}
128:
129: \item
130: the nonconformity of the model assigned ones and real values of
131: $\rho$ or $k$ if to determine one of these values purely model
132: presentations about another value are used;
133:
134: \item
135: the specific character of the transfer of errors $\delta \rho$
136: and $\delta k$ to an error $\delta S$ of the calculated spectrum;
137:
138: \item
139: all aspects of the influence of the structure of the excited
140: levels of nucleus on the found parameters $\rho$ and $k$.
141: \end{itemize}
142:
143: All these problems become apparent to the full during the
144: calculation of the gamma-ray spectra of the radiative capture
145: of thermal neutrons, measured, for example, by Groshev [11],
146: with the use of $\rho$ and $k$, determined from the gamma-ray
147: intensities in the procedures [8] or [2,3].
148: The major part of experimental data on the total
149: gamma-ray spectra of the capture not only of thermal but also
150: fast neutrons was used to verify such data earlier [12].
151:
152: The measurement [13] of total gamma-spectra in the isotopes
153: $^{118,120} $Sn makes it possible to carry out the same analysis
154: for the spherical nuclei from the region of minimum of neutron
155: strength function for the s-neutrons. And to thus to test
156: obtained and represented into [3] the values $\rho$ and $k$.
157:
158: \section{The comparison of calculation and experiment}
159:
160: With the comparison it is necessary to consider the specific
161: character of the operation of the transfer of errors $\delta \rho$,
162: $\delta k(E1)$ and $\delta k(M1)$ to an error in the calculated
163: total gamma-spectrum:
164: it is characterized by very low coefficients.
165: (And, obviously, by very large in the opposite case.)
166:
167: Consequently, calculated spectra, close ones in the quality of
168: reproduction to the data of experiment can be obtained for the
169: substantially being differed values $\rho$ and $k$.
170: And, all the more, this is correct with the presence experimentally
171: [2] of the established strong dependence of the process of
172: cascade gamma-decay on the nuclear structure, as the minimum, for
173: the excitation energies of $E_{ex} <0.5B_n$.
174:
175: Therefore the comparison of calculation and experiment should be
176: conducted for the maximum collection of the diverse variants of
177: functional dependences $\rho$ and $k$ is without fail on the line scale.
178: It is most expedient also to perform the comparison of total
179: gamma-spectra for the spectrum corresponding to the product
180: of the gamma-quantum intensity on their energy.
181: The condition $\sum I_\gamma E_\gamma =B_n$ ensures the maximally precise
182: normalization intensities of the observed gamma-transitionson in average
183: and the presence of errors of different sign - for different values of
184: gamma-quantum energies.
185:
186: Reliable experimental data for $\rho$ and $k$ in the nucleus $^{120}$Sn
187: for the range of the excitation energies of $E_ {ex} \approx B_n$
188: are absent. Therefore is below for calculating the total gamma-spectrum
189: in this nucleus of values $\rho$ and $k$ are converted from the results
190: [3] by the appropriate scaling of these given for the nucleus $^{118}$Sn.
191:
192:
193: The level densities of both parities and spins 0, 1 and 2 for these
194: compound nuclei are given in Fig. 1; the radiative strength functions
195: of primary E1- and M1-transitions with the maximal coefficients [2]
196: of an increase in the radiative
197: strength functions of secondary transitions are given in Fig. 2
198: respectively. The calculated total gamma-spectra of the capture of
199: fast neutrons in the $^{117,119}$Sn are compared with the experiment
200: in Fig. 3 and 4 for few sets of the values of the
201: level density and radiative strength functions.
202: Corresponding calculation data for $^{118,120} $Sn are given in Fig. 3,4.
203:
204: These data are acquired as follows: the level density and radiative
205: strength functions are extrapolated to the excitation energy
206: $E_{ex}=B_n+100$ keV. And then - they were used for calculating the
207: total gamma-spectra for the spins of the decomposed initial levels
208: of $J^{\pi}=0^{+}, ~1^{+}$ and for $J^{\pi} =0^{-}, ~1^{-},~2{-}$.
209: The portion of their contribution to the resulting spectrum was
210: determined by the fitting of the function of $S^{exp}=k_j S^{cal}(J^{\pi})$.
211: I.e., with the calculation of total gamma-spectra was considered capture
212: only by s- and p -neutrons, and the portion of the captures of $k_j$
213: for each of the possible spins of compound- states was the free parameter.
214: Obtained values are given in the table for the minimum $\chi^2$.
215: Here one should note, that the minimum $\chi^2$ with the use of
216: standard model [4,5,14] can be achieved only for negative contribution
217: of one of the spin states (in the table it substituted to the zero value).
218: Taking into account great significance $\chi^2$ can be concluded,
219: that procedure [2] determination $\rho$ and $k$ reproduces experimental
220: data on the total gamma-spectra is more accurately, than model
221: presentations of the type [4,5,14]. The existing deviations totally
222: can be connected only with the inevitable errors of experimental data
223: for $\rho$ and $k$, the obtained from the two-step cascades of
224: capture thermal neutrons into $^ {117} $Sn.
225: First of all - because of the absence of data according to the
226: radiative strength functions of primary E1-transitions to the
227: levels of these nuclei with the excitation energy less than 2-3 MeV.
228: Or - because of the presence of the strong dependence of the
229: radiative strength functions of primary transitions from the
230: structure of the decayed compound-states not only with the small
231: ($E_{ex} < 0.5B_n$) excitation energies, but also for
232: $0.5B_n <E_{ex}\leq B_n$.\\\\
233:
234:
235: Table.
236: The most probable portion $k_J$ of experimental spectrum, corresponding to the
237: decay of compound-state with the spin of $J^{\pi}$ with the use of
238: experimental data [2] and model presentations [4] and [14] for the strength
239: functions and the level density.\\
240:
241: \begin{tabular}{|c|r|l|r|l|}
242: \hline
243: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$^{118}$Sn} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$^{120}$Sn}\\\hline
244: $J^{\pi}$& [4,14] & [2]
245: %BCS
246: & [4,14] & [2]
247: %Em
248: \\\hline
249: $0^{+}$ & 0.16(16) & 0.00(30)& 0.21(86)& 0.18(21)\\
250: $1^{+}$ & 0.18(34) & 0.39(33)& 0.00(21)& 0.29(16)\\
251: $0^{-}$ & 0.21(54) & 0.00(30)& 0.12(98)& 0.28(16)\\
252: $1^{-}$ & 0.21(75) & 0.01(30)& 0.30(18)& 0.07(6)\\
253: $2^{-}$ & 0.16(91) & 0.53(83)& 0.15(17)& 0.04(6)\\\hline
254: sum & 0.92 & 0.93 & 0.78 & 0.86 \\\hline
255: \end{tabular}\\
256:
257: The results of the comparison of the spectra, calculated for different
258: functional dependencies of level density and of the strength functions
259: of dipole gamma-transitions with the experiment, quite
260: unambiguously lead to the conclusion, fully coinciding with those obtained
261: earlier:
262:
263: \begin{itemize}
264: \item
265: ``smooth" function $\rho=f(E_{ex})$ reproduces the total gamma-spectrum
266: of the thermal neutron capture noticeably worse, than the stepped
267: functional dependencies obtained in [2,3];
268: \item
269: Is hence automatic (because of the strong correlation $\rho$ and $k$)
270: follows the impossibility of the precise description of the experimental
271: values of $k$ by model presentations of the type [4,5].
272: \end{itemize}
273:
274: In particular, taking into account the influence of the structure of the
275: excited levels on a change in the form of the energy dependence
276: of radiative strength functions
277: most likely should be carried out up to the neutron binding energy.
278: One must not exclude the possibility that the radiative
279: and neutron strength functions also depend on the structure of neutron
280: resonances at the excitation energies larger, than $B_n$.
281:
282: \section{Conclusion}
283:
284: The comparison of the total gamma-spectra for different functional dependencies
285: of $\rho$ and $k(E1)+k(M1)$ both on the excitation energy of nucleus and on
286: the energies corresponding to the primary and secondary gamma-transitions
287: for the thermal neutrons capture in $^{117,119}$Sn with the experimental data
288: was carried out.
289: The comparison showed that model predictions of the non-interacting Fermi gas
290: level density in these nuclei give worse
291: correspondence, than the level density from the procedures [2,3].
292: This conclusion corresponded to the one obtained earlier [12].
293:
294: Large transfer coefficients of the errors $\delta S$ of total
295: gamma-spectra to the errors
296: $\delta \rho$ and $\delta(k(E1)+k(M1))$ directly follow from the comparison
297: of the data in Figs. 1,2 and 3,4. This circumstance confirms the conclusion [1],
298: that the measurement of such spectra, for example in the procedure [8],
299: requires accuracy on $\sim 2$ orders larger, than in the procedure [2,3].
300: And it limits the possibilities of the independent checking of different
301: sets of $\rho$ and $k$, both of
302: model determined ones and of experimentally obtained ones.
303: The use of total gamma-spectra for their testing necessary requires
304: the comparison of different variants of such data.
305:
306: And even total reproduction of the experimental total gamma-spectrum by
307: calculation with a certain set of $\rho$ and $k$ is not the proof of the
308: correspondence of these values to the real parameters of nucleus.
309: However, explicit nonconformity is a quite single-valued proof of the presence
310: of larger or smaller systematic deviation for them with the experimental one.
311: \newpage
312:
313: \begin{flushleft}
314: {\large\bf References}\end{flushleft}\begin{flushleft}
315: \begin{tabular}{r@{ }p{5.65in}}
316: $[1]$ & A.M. Sukhovoj, V.A. Khitrov,
317: Physics of Paricl. and Nuclei 37(6) (2006) 899.\\
318: & A.M. Sukhovoj, V.A. Khitrov, JINR preprint E3-2005-196, Dubna,
319: 2005.\\
320: & http://www1.jinr.ru/Preprints/Preprints-index.html\\
321: $[2]$ & A.M. Sukhovoj, V.A. Khitrov, Physics of Paricl. and Nuclei,
322: 36(4) (2005) pp. 359-377.\\
323: & http://www1.jinr.ru/Pepan/Pepan-index.html (in Russian)\\
324: $[3]$ & E.V. Vasilieva, A.M. Sukhovoj, V.A. Khitrov, Phys. At. Nucl.
325: 64(2) (2001) 153, nucl-ex/0110017\\
326: $[4]$ & S.G. Kadmenskij, V.P. Markushev, V.I. Furman, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 37 (1983) 165.\\
327: $[5]$ & P. Axel, Phys. Rev. 1962. 126. $N^o$ 2. P. 671.\\
328: $[6]$ & V.G. Soloviev, Phys. of Elementary Particles and Atomic Nuclei, 3(4) (1972) 770.\\
329: $[7]$ & B.V. Zhuravlev, Bull. Rus. Acad. Sci. Phys. 63 (1999) 123.\\
330: $[8]$ & G.A. Bartholomew et al., Advances in nuclear physics 7 (1973) 229.\\
331: & A. Schiller et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A447 (2000) 498.\\
332: $[9]$ & I.A. Lomachenkov, W.I. Furman, JINR, P4-85-466, Dubna, 1985\\
333: $[10]$ & O.T. Grudzevich, Phys. At. Nucl. 62 (1999) 192.\\
334: $[11]$ & L.V. Groshev et al., Atlac thermal neutron capture gamma-rays spectra,
335: Moscow, 1958.\\
336: $[12]$ & A.M. Sukhovoj, V.A. Khitrov and E.P. Grigor'ev,
337: INDC(CCP)-432, Vienna 115 (2002).\\
338: & V.A. Khitrov, A.M. Sukhovoj, Pham Dinh Khang, Vuong Huu Tan, Nguyen Xuan Hai,
339: XIII International Seminar on Interaction of Neutrons with Nuclei, Dubna, 22-25 May 2005,
340: E3-2006-7, Dubna, 2006, p. 64, nucl-ex/0508008\\
341: $[13]$ & J.Nishyama, M.Igashira, T. Ohsaki, G.N.Kim, W.C.Chung, T.I.Ro,
342: Twelfth International Symposium on Capture Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy
343: and Related Topics, Notre Dame, September 4-9, 2005, World Scientific,
344: Ed. A. Woehr, A. Aprahamian, p. 579.\\
345: & J. Nishyama, T.I. Ro, M. Igashira, W.C. Chung, G. Kim, T. Ohsaki,
346: S. Lee, T. Katabuchi, International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and
347: Technology 2007, Nice, April 2007, to be published.\\
348: $[14]$ &W. Dilg, W. Schantl, H. Vonach, M. Uhl, Nucl. Phys. A217 (1973) 269.\\
349: \end{tabular}
350: \end{flushleft}
351:
352:
353: %\end{document}
354:
355: \begin{figure}
356: \vspace{-3cm}
357: %[htbp]
358: \begin{center}
359: \leavevmode
360: \epsfxsize=15.5cm
361: \epsfbox{snf1.eps}
362: \end{center}
363: \hspace{-0.8cm}
364: \vspace{-14cm}
365:
366: {\bf Fig.~1.}
367: The level densities of both parities and spins
368: 0, 1 and 2 for
369: compound nuclei $^{118,120}$Sn. Line 1 presented the used in calculations
370: values of the level density with spins J=(0-2)$^{+}$, line 2 - the
371: same for negative parity only.
372: The dash line represents predictions of the model [14].
373: \end{figure}
374:
375: \begin{figure}
376: %[htbp]
377: \vspace{-4cm}
378: \begin{center}
379: \leavevmode
380: \epsfxsize=15.5cm
381: \epsfbox{snf2.eps}
382: \end{center}
383: \hspace{-0.8cm}
384:
385: \vspace{-14cm}
386:
387:
388:
389: {\bf Fig.~2.} Solid lines presented the radiative strength functions of primary
390: E1- and M1-transitions (multipleted on $10^{9}$).
391: Line 1- maximum increasing of the radiative strength functions of secondary
392: transitions to the levels with the energy of $E_{ex}=B_n-E_1$.
393:
394: Line 2 and 3 represent predictions of the model [5] and [4] in the sum with
395: $k(M1)$=const. For both models is used the ratio $k(M1)/k(E1)=0.2$
396: for of $E_1 =6.5$ MeV.
397: \end{figure}
398: \newpage
399: \begin{figure}
400: %[htbp]
401: \vspace{-3cm}
402: \begin{center}
403: \leavevmode
404: \epsfxsize=15.5cm
405: \epsfbox{snf3.eps}
406: \end{center}
407: \hspace{-0.8cm}\vspace{-14cm}
408:
409: {\bf Fig.~3.} The experimental (points+line) total spectra of
410: $\gamma$-radiation following fast neutron capture for the
411: $^{117,119}$Sn targets.
412: Lines 1 represent results of calculation
413: using data of Ref. [2], line 2 - from [4,14], corresponding.
414: \end{figure}
415: \begin{figure}
416: %[htbp]
417:
418: \vspace{-5cm}
419: \begin{center}
420: \leavevmode
421: %\hspace{-3.8cm}
422: \epsfxsize=17.cm
423: \epsfbox{snf4.eps}
424: \end{center}
425:
426: \vspace{-14cm}
427:
428: {\bf Fig.~4.} The same, as on Fig. 3.
429: Lines 1 represent results of calculation
430: using data of Ref. [3], lines 2 - from [5,14], corresponding.
431: \end{figure}
432:
433: \end{document}
434:
435: