1: \documentclass{elsart}

2: %\documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}

3: 

4: 

5: \input{epsf}

6: 

7: \newcommand{\Gam}{\mbox{$\textstyle\Gamma$}}

8: \newcommand{\kpi}{\mbox{$D^0\rightarrow K^-\pi^+$}}

9: \newcommand{\kk}{\mbox{$D^0\rightarrow K^+K^-$}}

10: \newcommand{\pipi}{\mbox{$D^0\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$}}

11: \newcommand{\kkovkpi}{\mbox{${\Gam{\textstyle (}\kk{\textstyle )}}\over

12:                      {\Gam{\textstyle (}\kpi{\textstyle )}}$}}

13: \newcommand{\pipiovkpi}{\mbox{${\Gam{\textstyle (}\pipi{\textstyle )}}\over

14:                        {\Gam{\textstyle (}\kpi{\textstyle )}}$}}

15: \newcommand{\kkovpipi}{\mbox{${\Gam{\textstyle (}\kk{\textstyle )}}\over

16:                       {\Gam{\textstyle (}\pipi{\textstyle )}}$}}

17: 

18: \begin{document}

19: 

20: \begin{frontmatter}

21:  

22: \title{

23:        Evidence of microscopic effects in fragment mass distribution in 

24:        heavy ion induced fusion-fission reactions 

25:       }

26: 

27: 

28: \author[saha]{T.~K.~Ghosh},

29: \ead{tilak.ghosh@saha.ac.in, Tel : 91 33 23370379, Fax : 91 33 23374637}

30: \author[saha]{S.~Pal},

31: \author[nsc]{K.~S.~Golda} and

32: \author[saha]{P.~Bhattacharya}

33: 

34: \address[saha]{Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics,  1/AF  Bidhan  Nagar,

35:   Kolkata  700 064, India}

36: \address[nsc]{Nuclear Science Centre, New Delhi-110067, India}

37: 

38: 

39: \begin{abstract}

40: 

41: Our measurements of variances ($\sigma_{m}^2$) in mass distributions of 

42: fission fragments from fusion-fission reactions of light projectiles 

43: (C, O and F) on deformed thorium targets exhibit a sharp anomalous increase 

44: with energy near the Coulomb barrier, in contrast to the smooth variation 

45: of  $\sigma_{m}^2$ for the spherical bismuth target. This departure from 

46: expectation based on a statistical description is explained in terms of 

47: microscopic effects arising from the orientational dependence in the case 

48: of deformed thorium targets. 

49: 

50: \smallskip

51: \noindent{\it PACS:\  } 25.70 Jj

52: 

53: \begin{keyword}

54: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword

55: Fusion-fission reactions,\ mass distributions

56: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code

57: 

58: \end{keyword}

59: 

60: 

61: \end{abstract}

62: 

63: \end{frontmatter}

64: 

65: \newpage

66: 

67: The formation of a super heavy element through primary fusion of two nuclei is 

68: restricted by the subsequent evolution of the compound system dependent on its 

69: survival (with at most particle emission) as opposed to its fission. The 

70: nuclei must have enough kinetic energy to overcome the repulsive electrostatic 

71: energy in order to come within the range of the attractive nuclear forces in 

72: a touching configuration. The path the system takes in a complicated 

73: multidimensional potential energy landscape \cite{NatureMollerNV03} governs 

74: the fusion of the two nuclei from a touching configuration to a composite 

75: system, equilibrated in all macroscopic degrees of freedom. As an example, 

76: depending upon the initial conditions of excitation, the entrant 

77: system of target and projectile can reach a fusion meadow in the energy 

78: landscape, equilibrate to a compound nucleus and cool down after the 

79: evaporation of a few particle and photon emission to a evaporation residue 

80: (ER), or the super-heavy compound nucleus could choose another path to undergo 

81: shape oscillations over an unconditional saddle to reach a fission valley.

82: 

83: The topography of the potential energy surface in the parameter space 

84: (involving the deformations of the two touching nuclei, their mass asymmetry, 

85: the separation between the two and the nature of the neck joining them) is far 

86: too complicated to enable us to determine theoretically the path taken by the 

87: system in its evolution. This is even more so, because of possible microscopic 

88: effects. Accordingly, it is of paramount importance to use experimental probes

89:  together with a phenomenological understanding to elucidate the route actually traversed by the system. Thus the observed angular anisotropy in the fission 

90: fragments (ratio of yields parallel and perpendicular to the beam direction), 

91: following statistical laws,  on one hand and the measured cross sections for 

92: production of evaporation residues on the other, are generally taken to 

93: indicate that the system equilibrates to compound nucleus in the fusion meadow. However, recent interpretations \cite{NishioPRL04,HindePRL95} based on 

94: measurement by these two probes have led to contradictory conclusion regarding  the path taken by the system vis a vis the fusion meadow or the fission valley 

95: or for that matter through an entirely different route over an asymmetric 

96: saddle. The present authors \cite{myRAPID2} have proposed that accurate 

97: measurements of mass distribution can be used as reliable tool to help pin 

98: down the route followed by the system to reach the fission valley. The 

99: present letter reports accurate measurements of fission fragment mass 

100: distributions as a function of the excitation energy close to the Coulomb 

101: barrier in several systems with different projectiles on a 

102: deformed as well as a spherical target and the phenomenological explanations of the observed variations of the width of mass distributions for different 

103: topographical routes the systems follow through the energy landscape. Our 

104: measurements for the first time clearly picks up the microscopic 

105: effects in determining the path the systems follow in reaching the fusion 

106: meadow or the fission valley.

107: 

108: The experiments were performed with judiciously chosen projectiles of  

109: $^{12}$C, $^{16}$O and $^{19}$F on deformed  $^{232}$Th and spherical $^{209}$Bi targets. Large deviations in the fragment anisotropy from the predictions of 

110: statistical theory \cite{HalpernStrutinsky} were reported for thorium target 

111: \cite{NMPRL96,RamPRL90,ZhangPRC94}, while those for spherical bismuth 

112: target followed the statistical 

113: predictions \cite{SamantEPJ00,KailasPhysRep}. For the spherical bismuth target, 

114: the entrant system is compact for any orientation and the expected mass 

115: flows are from target to projectile in all target-projectile 

116: systems \cite{Abe}. However, the compactness in shape for the entrance channel 

117: changes quite appreciably as the impact point of the projectile changes from 

118: the equatorial to the polar regions of the prolate thorium nuclei, and the 

119: macroscopic effects of mass flow for carbon ( projectile to target) is opposite to that of oxygen and fluorine nuclei (target to projectile) reacting with 

120: thorium target. In all the cases, the macroscopic effects only predict a 

121: smooth variation of the width of the fragment mass distributions with the 

122: excitation energies or the temperature of the equilibrated fused system 

123: \cite{PRC87Shen}. So any departure of the smooth variation of the width of 

124: the mass distributions would be a likely signature of microscopic effects 

125: driving the systems through different pathways in the energy landscape.

126: 

127: Pulsed heavy ion beams from the 15UD Pelletron at Nuclear Science Centre (NSC), New Delhi, India, had been used in the experiments. The pulse width was about 

128: 0.8-1.5 ns with a pulse separation of 250 ns. The energy of the beams were 

129: varied typically in steps of 1-2 MeV, from a few MeV above the Coulomb barrier 

130: to a few MeV below it. The targets were either self-supporting $^{232}$Th of 

131: thickness 1.8 mg/cm$^2$ or a 500 $\mu$g/cm$^2$ thick self-supported 

132: $^{209}$Bi. Complementary fission fragments were detected with two large 

133: area (24 cm $\times$ 10 cm) X-Y position sensitive multi-wire proportional 

134: counters (MWPCs) \cite{myNIM04}. The fission fragments were separated from 

135: elastic and quasi-elastic channels using time of flight of particles and the 

136: energy loss signal in the detectors. Folding angle technique was 

137: used to differentiate between fusion-fission (FF) and transfer fission (TF) 

138: channels, from a distribution of the events in $\theta-\phi$ correlations 

139: or an equivalent procedure  of the correlation of the 

140: fissioning system velocities parallel and perpendicular ($V_{par}- V_{perp}$) 

141: to the reaction plane \cite{PB95}. In Fig.~\ref{fg:compare1}, typical 

142: separation of fragments from exclusively FF reactions are shown for both 

143: procedures. The resulting fragment mass widths differ at most few 

144: percent and clearly do not have any impact on the final experimental 

145: results or conclusions drawn from it. The masses of the fission 

146: fragments were determined event by event 

147: from precise measurements of flight paths and flight time differences of 

148: complementary fission fragments. The estimated mass resolution for 

149: fission fragment was about 3 a.m.u. The details of experimental arrangement 

150: and data analysis and elimination of systematic errors were reported in 

151: reference \cite{myNIM04,myRAPID1}.

152: 

153: \begin{figure}[htb]

154: \centerline {\epsfxsize=3.0in,\epsffile{compare1.ps} }

155: \vspace{0.15in}

156: \caption{Distributions of complementary fission fragments in 

157: $\theta$-$\phi$ (upper panel) and $V_{par}$-$V_{perp}$ (lower panel). The 

158: contour represents the gate used to select the fusion fission events. }

159: \label{fg:compare1}

160: \end{figure}

161: 

162: %\newpage

163: 

164: \begin{figure}[htb]

165: \centerline {\epsfxsize=2.0in,\epsffile{massdis.ps} }

166: \vspace{0.15in}

167: \caption{Mass distributions at two excitation energies for the system 

168: $^{19}$F + $^{232}$Th. The Gaussian fit are shown by the solid lines.}

169: \label{fg:massdis}

170: \end{figure}

171: 

172: The measured mass distributions in earlier reported cases of $^{19}$F, 

173: $^{16}$O + $^{232}$Th and $^{16}$O +$^{209}$Bi \cite{myRAPID2,myRAPID1} and 

174: the presently measured case of $^{12}$C + $^{232}$Th and $^{19}$F + $^{209}$Bi 

175: at all energies are well fitted with single Gaussian distributions around the 

176: symmetric mass split for the target plus projectile systems. 

177: Typical mass distributions for the system $^{19}$F + $^{232}$Th, at excitation 

178: energies of 49.4 MeV and 39.1 MeV, fitted with a Gaussian  are shown in 

179: Fig.~\ref{fg:massdis}. The variation of  the variance of the fission fragment 

180: mass distribution ($\sigma_{m}^2$) are shown by solid squares in 

181: Fig.~\ref{fg:spherical} for $^{19}$F and $^{16}$O projectiles on the spherical 

182: $^{209}$Bi nuclei. It has been observed that the mass variance ($\sigma_{m}^2$) 

183: shows a smooth variation (trend is shown by solid lines) with the excitation 

184: energy of the fused system across the Coulomb barrier. This is in qualitative 

185: agreement with the predictions of statistical theories. It is also noted 

186: that no significant departures are reported in the fragment angular anisotropy

187:  measurements as shown by the open symbols in the lower halves of the 

188: figures (predicted anisotropies from SSPM theory \cite{HalpernStrutinsky} 

189: shown by dashed lines) for the spherical target and projectile systems 

190: \cite{SamantEPJ00,myRAPID2,KailasPhysRep}.Thus for 

191: these target-projectile combinations, we conclude that the systems fused to  

192: an equilibrated compound nucleus in the fusion meadow for all excitation 

193: energies, and subsequently underwent shape changes to reach an unconditional 

194: mass symmetric saddle and fission. Predominantly macroscopic forces are assumed 

195: to govern the paths taken by the above systems.

196: 

197: \begin{figure}[htb]

198: %\vspace{9pt}

199: %\framebox[55mm]{\rule[-21mm]{0mm}{43mm}}

200: \centerline {\epsfxsize=4.5in \epsffile{spherical.ps} }

201: \vspace{0.15in}

202: \caption{Mass variance ($\sigma_{m}^2$) as a function of 

203: excitation energy (E$^\star$) for spherical bismuth target. The arrow points 

204: to excitation energy corresponding to Coulomb barrier. The solid lines 

205:  show smooth variation of $\sigma_{m}^2$ with E$^\star$. Reported fragment 

206: anisotropy A (open symbols) and SSPM predictions (dashed lines) are shown in 

207: lower halves.}

208: \label{fg:spherical}

209: \end{figure}

210: 

211: The variances of mass distribution ($\sigma_{m}^2$) for reactions of different 

212: projectiles for the present as well as our earlier reports 

213: \cite{myRAPID1,myRAPID2} on the deformed thorium target are shown in 

214: upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fg:deformed} a-c, for $^{19}$F ,$^{16}$O, $^{12}$C 

215: projectiles, respectively. In all three cases, as the excitation energy is 

216: decreased, the $\sigma_{m}^2$ values, shown by solid squares, decreased 

217: monotonically, but shows a sudden upward trend approximately at the Coulomb 

218: barrier energies. This is once again followed by a smooth decrease as energy 

219: is further lowered. The sudden increase in $\sigma_{m}^2$ values is most 

220: prominent ($\sim 50\%$) in case of $^{19}$F + $^{232}$Th and decreases to 

221: $\sim ~ 15\%$ in $^{16}$O + $^{232}$ Th and to $\sim ~10\%$  in the 

222: $^{12}$C + $^{232}$ Th system. It has been simulated and experimentally 

223: verified that sudden rise in $\sigma_{m}^2$ values could not be explained  by 

224: any systematic error, e.g., loss of energy of fragments in target or mismatch 

225: of timing in two T.O.F. arms. The anomalous increase in angular anisotropy 

226: in all these systems  

227: \cite{NMPRL96,RamPRL90,ZhangPRC94,LestonePRC97,NMPRC95,BackJH} has been 

228: shown by open symbols in the lower panel of  Fig.~\ref{fg:deformed} d-f. 

229: It is interesting to note that anomalous increase in width of the 

230: mass distribution were observed at almost the same beam energies at 

231: which anomalous enhancement in fragment angular anisotropy were 

232: reported.

233: 

234: %\newpage

235: \begin{figure}[htb]

236: \centerline {\epsfxsize=5.0in \epsffile{deformed.ps} }

237: \vspace{0.15in}

238: \caption{Variation of $\sigma_{m}^2$ (solid squares) with 

239: excitation energy  for three systems. The dotted and dot-dashed curves are 

240:  variation for normal and postulated quasi-fission modes, respectively. 

241: Calculated $\sigma_{m}^2$ (thin and thick solid lines) are shown for two 

242: critical angles ($\theta_c$).Reported anisotropy A (open symbols) and 

243: SSPM predictions (dashed lines) are shown in lower panels .The arrow points 

244: to excitation energy corresponding to Coulomb barrier.}

245: \label{fg:deformed}

246: \end{figure}

247: 

248: Observation of a sudden rise in $\sigma_{m}^2$ values as the excitation 

249: energy is lowered may signify a mixture of two fission modes, one following 

250: the normal statistical prediction of fusion-fission path along zero left-right mass asymmetry ($\alpha$), and another following a different path in the 

251: energy landscape with zero or small mass asymmetry. The mixture of the two 

252: modes could give rise to wider mass distributions. Similar to the postulation 

253: of the orientation dependent quasi-fission \cite{HindePRL95}, we postulate 

254: that for fusion-fission paths corresponding to the projectile orientations up 

255: to a critical angle ($\theta_c$) of impact on the polar region of prolate 

256: thorium, the width and energy slope of the symmetric mass distributions are 

257: different, as shown by dot-dashed curves in Fig.~\ref{fg:deformed} a-c, compared to those for the normal statistical fusion-fission paths (dotted curves). 

258: The mass widths weighted by the fission cross sections (which are assumed 

259: to be very close to fusion cross section as the composite systems are of 

260: high fissility) from earlier measurements \cite{NMPRL96} are mixed for the 

261: two fusion-fission modes and shown  by thick and thin continuous curves in 

262: Fig.~\ref{fg:deformed} a-c for different critical polar angles separating the 

263: two fission modes, for all three systems. As can be seen from the reasonable 

264: agreement of the mixed $\sigma_{m}^2$ values  with 

265: the observed fission fragment mass widths, we can phenomenologically explain 

266: the observed increase in the widths of the mass distributions when 

267: energy is decreased. It is interesting to note that the fusion-fission process 

268: is clearly dominated by the normal process at above Coulomb barriers and the 

269: "anomalous" fission process is  dominant at lower energies. However, 

270: experimental evidence suggests that the variations of mass distributions 

271: with excitation energies are similar  for the both processes, probably 

272: dominated by macroscopic forces, but differing quantitatively due to 

273: microscopic effects.

274: 

275: Extensive calculations of the multidimensional potential energy surface have 

276: successfully explained spontaneous and low energy fission phenomena 

277: \cite{NatureMoller01,PRLMoller04}. Calculated paths through the minimum 

278: energy valleys and over ridges in the potential surface showed that apart 

279: from the deformations and necking of the two nascent fragments, the 

280: left-right mass asymmetry also plays a crucial role. All the heavier than 

281: actinide nuclei show mass symmetric ($\alpha =0$) and mass asymmetric 

282: ($\alpha \not= 0$) saddle shapes with a ridge separating the two down the 

283: scission path. The relative heights of the two saddles and the separating 

284: ridge governed the symmetric, asymmetric or a mixture of the two fission 

285: paths in specific cases. Recent extensions \cite{NPAIwamoto04,NPAAritomo04} of 

286: the five dimensional energy landscapes for fusion of $^{48}$Ca with  

287: $^{244}$Pu  have been carried out. In addition to the calculated  

288: minimum energy path  to reach the fusion meadow and the subsequent descent 

289: to the fission valley over a mass symmetric unconditional saddle corresponding 

290: to the fusion-fission (FF) path, at higher excitations, most of the paths may 

291: deviate through a mass symmetric saddle shape before fusion to re-separate in 

292: a quasi-fission (QF) reaction mode. In a very similar situation, in case of fusion of spherical 

293: projectiles with deformed $^{232}$Th nuclei, above the Coulomb barrier, the 

294: system follows a fusion-fission path over the mass symmetric unconditional 

295: saddle. But as the energy is decreased, these paths are progressively blocked 

296: and then the microscopic effects come into play. For the polar region of the 

297: deformed target, the system starts from an initial condition with varying 

298: deformation, separation and damping of radial motion. This results in the 

299: system finding a minimum energy path skirting the fusion meadow and over an 

300: almost mass symmetric saddle. In analogy to  skiers coming down a mountain 

301: slope from different heights (initial energy), go over a peak( fusion barrier) 

302: to a meadow (fusion) and continuing to slide over a small hillock (unconditional fission barrier) to reach the valley below (scission) in the established 

303: route (FF), those who start just below or at the peak, the normal route is 

304: blocked. However, if mountainsides are different (microscopic effect due to 

305: deformation) and a ridge exists near the peak, some of the skiers can 

306: reach the ridge and follow it  over a hilltop (conditional mass symmetric 

307: saddle) and reach almost the same spot at the valley in different route (QF).

308:  However, for a spherical target, the mountain sides are all similar and no 

309: ridges exist. The current experimental results strongly indicates the 

310: likely scenario described above and calls for detailed calculations of the

311:  energy diagrams for the motion of the nucleons through the dissipative system 

312: with different initial conditions.

313: 

314: We have clearly established with the present string of precise measurements  

315: that widths of the mass distributions  is a sensible tool to observe 

316: departure from the normal fusion-fission path in the fusion of heavy nuclei. 

317: The exact mechanisms for the departure  from normal fusion-fission paths are 

318: not known accurately, although it has been stressed that effect of any admixture of transfer fission can be ruled out. However, macroscopic effects such as the 

319: direction of mass flow or the mass relaxation time being too prolonged may 

320: not be the cause. It has been 

321: established earlier from the experimental barrier distributions, the reaction

322:  cross sections in $^{19}$F, $^{16}$O, $^{12}$C + $^{232}$Th in near and below 

323: Coulomb barrier energies are mostly for impact of the projectiles on the polar 

324: regions of the thorium nuclei. Following the quantum mechanical effects 

325: favouring  similar shapes in entrance and exit channels 

326: \cite{NatureMollerNV03}, we modify the simple postulation of the microscopic 

327: effects of the relative  orientation of the projectile to the nuclear symmetry 

328: axes of the deformed target \cite{HindePRL95}. We assume that for the 

329: non-compact entrance channel shape, the impact of the projectile in the polar

330:  region of $^{232}$Th target drives the system to an almost mass symmetric 

331: saddle shape, rather than a compact equilibrated fused system. The observed 

332: fragment mass widths can be quantitatively explained under such assumptions. 

333: At sub-coulomb barrier energies, the cross sections for quasi fission 

334: channel increases with increased initial separation of the two nuclei in 

335: touchy condition, i.e., the effect increased with the mass of the composite 

336: system. So quasi-fission is more prominent in $^{19}$F+ $^{232}$Th 

337: than $^{12}$C + $^{232}$Th. However in each system, as beam energy is 

338: increased, the reaction rapidly spread over all the nuclear surface and 

339: quasi-fission channels are overshadowed by normal fusion-fission. 

340: The above postulation is supported by the observation that for the 

341: spherical target $^{209}$Bi, where entrance channel compactness of shape is 

342: same for all relative target-projectile orientations, only normal 

343: fusion-fission paths, as characterized by the smooth variation of fragment 

344: mass widths with excitation energy, are observed. It is also worthwhile to 

345: note that effect of the anomalous mass widths increases with left-right mass 

346: symmetry in the entrance channel in case of $^{19}$F, $^{16}$O, $^{12}$C + 

347: $^{232}$Th system in consonance with our description. Our measurements indicate that higher entrance channel mass asymmetry and energies close to the Coulomb 

348: barrier are preferable to increase the probability of reaching the 

349: fusion meadow in synthesis of super-heavy elements in heavy ion reactions. 

350: 

351: Authors would like to thank the staff at NSC Pelletron for providing excellent 

352: beam and other logistical support and help during the experiment. Help of 

353: Drs. A. Saxena, D. C. Biswas, S.Chattopadhyay, Mr. P. K. Sahu during the 

354: experiments and  discussions with Drs R.K.Bhowmick and S.K.Datta 

355: are gratefully acknowledged. We are sincerely thankful to Prof. Binayak Dutta 

356: Roy for critical reading of the manuscript. 

357: 

358: 

359: %\newpage

360: 

361: 

362: %\newpage

363: 

364: 

365: %\newpage

366: 

367: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}

368: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

369: \bibitem{NatureMollerNV03} P. Moller and A.J. Sierk, Nature {\bf 422} (2003)

370:         485 .

371: \bibitem{NishioPRL04} K. Nishio {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}(2004)

372:         162701.

373: \bibitem{HindePRL95} D.J. Hinde {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}(1995)

374:         1295.

375: \bibitem{myRAPID2} T.K. Ghosh {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 69} (2004) 

376:         011604(R).

377: \bibitem{HalpernStrutinsky} I. Halpern and V. M. Strutinsky, in {\sl Proc. 

378:          of 2nd International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, 

379:         (United Nations Publication, Geneva, 1958), Vol. 15, p 408}.

380: \bibitem{NMPRL96} N. Majumdar {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77} (1996)

381:         5027.

382: \bibitem{RamPRL90} V.S. Ramamurthy {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65}, 

383:         (1990) 25 .

384: \bibitem{ZhangPRC94} H. Zhang {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 49} (1994) 926.

385: \bibitem{SamantEPJ00} A.M. Samant {\em et al.}, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A.{\bf 7} 

386:         (2000) 59 .

387: \bibitem{KailasPhysRep} S. Kailas , Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 284} (1997) 381 .

388: \bibitem{Abe} M. Abe, KEK Report No. 86-26, KEK TH-28, 1986.

389: \bibitem{PRC87Shen} W.Q. Shen {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 36} (1987) 115 .

390: \bibitem{myNIM04} T.K. Ghosh {\em et al.}, Nucl.\ Instr.\ and Meth.\ {\bf A 540}         (2005) 285.

391: \bibitem{PB95} P. Bhattacharya {\em et al.}, Nuovo\ Cimento\ Soc.\ Ital.\ Fis.,\         A {\bf 108}, (1995) 819, D.J. Hinde {\sl et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C 

392:         {\bf 53} (1996) 1290

393: \bibitem{myRAPID1} T.K. Ghosh {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 69} (2004)

394:          031603(R).

395: \bibitem{LestonePRC97} J.P. Lestone {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 55} (1997)         R16 .

396: \bibitem{NMPRC95} N. Majumdar {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 51} (1995) 

397:          3109 .

398: \bibitem{BackJH} B.B. Back {\em et al.}, Fission at Sub-barrier energies, 

399:          presented at 6th Winter Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics,(Jackson Hole, 

400:          Wyoming,USA, 1990) 

401: \bibitem{NatureMoller01} P. Moller, D.G. Madland, A.J. Sierk and A. Iwamoto, 

402:         Nature {\bf 409} (2001) 785 .

403: \bibitem{PRLMoller04} Peter Moller, Arnold J. Sierk and Akira Iwamoto, 

404:         Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004) 072501 .

405: 

406: \bibitem{NPAIwamoto04} A. Iwamoto {\em et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 738} 

407:         (2004) 499.  

408: \bibitem{NPAAritomo04} Y. Aritomo {\em et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 744} 

409:         (2004) 3. 

410: \bibitem{NMPrivate} N.Majumdar (private communication)

411: \bibitem{Vul} E. Vulgaris {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 33}(1986) 2017 .

412: 

413: \end{thebibliography}

414: 

415: \end{document}

416: