1: \documentstyle[preprint,aps]{revtex}
2: %\def\btt#1{{\tt$\backslash$#1}}
3: \oddsidemargin 0.0in
4: \textwidth 6.25in
5: \textheight 9. in
6: \leftmargin -0.5in
7: \topmargin -.75in
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \baselineskip=24ptplus.5ptminus.2pt
11: \vspace*{0.5 in}
12:
13: \large
14: \begin{center}
15: {\bf Simultaneous Optical Model Analyses of Elastic Scattering, \\
16: Breakup, and Fusion Cross Section Data for the \\
17: $^{6}$He + $^{209}$Bi System at Near-Coulomb-Barrier Energies}
18: \end{center}
19: \normalsize
20: %\parskip 5ex
21: \vspace{0.5cm}
22:
23: \begin{center}
24: B. T. Kim, W. Y. So, and S. W. Hong \\
25: {\it Department of Physics and Institute of Basic Science, \\
26: Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea}\\
27: \parskip 2ex
28: T. Udagawa \\
29: {\it Department of Physics, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712}
30: \end{center}
31:
32: \vspace{0.5cm}
33: \begin{center}
34: {\bf Abstract}
35: \end{center}
36:
37: \baselineskip=24ptplus.5ptminus.2pt
38: Based on an approach recently proposed by us, simultaneous $\chi^{2}$-analyses
39: are performed for elastic scattering, direct reaction (DR) and fusion cross
40: sections data for the $^{6}$He+$^{209}$Bi system at near-Coulomb-barrier
41: energies to determine the parameters of the polarization potential
42: consisting of DR and fusion parts.
43: We show that the data are well reproduced by the resultant potential,
44: which also satisfies the proper dispersion relation.
45: A discussion is given of the nature of the threshold anomaly seen
46: in the potential.
47:
48: \vspace{1.5em}
49: 24.10.-i,~25.70.Jj
50: \pagebreak
51:
52: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps]{revtex}
53: %\begin{document}
54: %\baselineskip=24pt plus .5pt minus .2pt
55:
56: %\maketitle
57: %\begin{abstract}
58: %\end{abstract}
59:
60: %\vspace{2ex}
61:
62: %\pacs{24.10.-i,~25.70.Jj}
63:
64: \narrowtext
65:
66: A great deal of effort has recently been focused on studies of the so-called
67: threshold anomaly~\cite{maha,naga} (rapid energy variation in the strength of
68: the optical potential) in heavy ion scattering induced, particularly,
69: by very loosely bound projectiles such as $^{6}$He~\cite{agu1},
70: $^{6}$Li~\cite{tied,keel,maci}, and $^{9}$Be~\cite{mora,sig1}.
71: The experimental results accumulated so far indicate that
72: the imaginary part of the optical potential, $W(r;E)$, extracted
73: by analysis of the elastic scattering data, does not show
74: such an anomaly as is observed in the potentials for
75: normal, tightly bound projectiles.
76: For tightly bound projectiles, $W(r;E)$ at around
77: the strong absorption radius $r=R_{sa}$ is found to decrease rapidly
78: as the incident energy $E$ falls below the Coulomb-barrier energy $E_{c}$,
79: and eventually vanishes at some {\it threshold} energy $E_{0}$.
80: Contrary to this, for loosely bound projectiles $W(R_{sa};E)$
81: remains large at energies even below $E_{c}$~\cite{agu1,keel,maci,sig1}.
82:
83: The reason for $W(R_{sa};E)$ being so large at low energies has been
84: ascribed to the weak binding of the extra neutrons to the core nucleus,
85: leading to breakup.
86: In fact, the breakup cross sections have been measured
87: for these projectiles~\cite{agu2,kell,sig2},
88: confirming that they are indeed large, even larger than the fusion
89: cross sections at $E \sim E_{c}$.
90: It was argued~\cite{maha} that since the energy dependence of
91: the polarization potential due to the breakup must be weak,
92: one might not be able to observe a noticeable energy variation
93: in the resultant potential when the breakup cross section is larger than
94: the fusion cross section as for loosely bound projectiles.
95:
96: The threshold anomaly of $W(r;E)$ observed for tightly bound projectiles
97: may be ascribed to the coupling of the elastic and fusion channels~\cite{uda1}.
98: This is substantiated by the fact that the threshold energy $E_{0}$ of $W(r;E)$
99: ({\it i.e.}, the energy where $W(r,E_{0})=0$) agrees very well with
100: that of the fusion cross section $\sigma_{F}$, or more precisely
101: the threshold energy of $S(E) \equiv \sqrt{E \sigma_{F}}$~\cite{stel}.
102: It is thus natural that if the breakup cross section is larger than
103: the fusion cross section, and if one is concerned only with the total $W(r;E)$,
104: the rapid change in the fusion cross section and the anomaly would not
105: show up clearly in the total $W(r;E)$.
106:
107: Insight into this problem may be obtained if one decomposes the total $W(r;E)$
108: into the direct reaction (DR) and fusion parts, $W_{D}(r;E)$ and $W_{F}(r;E)$,
109: respectively, and determines them separately~\cite{kim1}.
110: The aim of the present study is to make such a determination
111: of $W_D (r;E)$ and $W_F (r;E)$ by performing simultaneous $\chi^{2}$-analyses
112: of elastic scattering, DR (breakup), and fusion cross section data.
113: We take the $^{6}$He+$^{209}$Bi system, for which data are available
114: not only for elastic scattering~\cite{agu1}, but also for breakup~\cite{agu2}
115: and for fusion~\cite{kol1}.
116: Following Ref.~\cite{agu1}, we identify the breakup cross section with
117: the DR cross section.
118: Optical model analyses of the elastic scattering and total reaction cross
119: section data have already been presented in Refs.~\cite{agu1,mohr}.
120: The present analysis is thus an extension of the previous studies.
121:
122: The optical potential $U$ we use has the following form;
123: \begin{equation}
124: U=U_{C}(r)-[V_{0}(r)+V(r;E)+iW(r;E)],
125: \end{equation}
126: where $U_{C}(r)$ is the Coulomb potential, whose radius parameter is fixed
127: at a standard value of $r_{c}$=1.25~fm, and $V_{0}(r)$ is
128: the energy independent Hartree-Fock part of the potential,
129: while $V(r;E)$ and $W(r;E)$ are, respectively, real and imaginary parts
130: of the so-called polarization potential~\cite{sat1}
131: that originates from couplings to reaction channels.
132: $W(r;E)$ is assumed to have a volume-type fusion and
133: a surface-derivative-type DR part.
134: Explicitly, $V_{0}(r)$ and $W(r;E)$ are given, respectively, by
135: \begin{equation}
136: V_{0}(r)=V_{0}f(X_{0})
137: \end{equation}
138: and
139: \begin{equation}
140: W(r;E) = W_{F}(r;E)+W_{D}(r;E) =
141: W_{F}(E)f(X_{F})+4W_{D}(E)a_{D}\frac{df(X_{D})}{dR_{D}},
142: \vspace{2ex}
143: \end{equation}
144: where $f(X_{i})=[1+\mbox{exp}(X_{i})]^{-1}$, with $X_{i}=(r-R_{i})/a_{i}$
145: $({\it i}=0, \; D\; \mbox{and} \; F)$, is the usual Woods-Saxon function.
146: The real part of the polarization potential is also assumed to have
147: DR and fusion parts; $V(r;E) = V_{F}(r;E)+V_{D}(r;E)$.
148: Each real part may be generated from the corresponding imaginary potential
149: by using the dispersion relation~\cite{maha};
150: \begin {equation}
151: V_{i}(r;E)=V_{i}(r;E_{s}) + \frac {E-E_{s}}{\pi } \mbox{P}
152: \int_{0}^{\infty} dE'
153: \frac {W_{i}(r;E')}{(E'-E_{s})(E'-E)},
154: \vspace{2ex}
155: \end {equation}
156: where P stands for the principal value and $V_{i}(r;E_{s})$ is the value
157: of the potential at a reference energy $E=E_{s}$.
158: Later, we will use Eq.~(4) to generate the final real polarization potentials
159: $V_{F}(r;E)$ and $V_{D}(r;E)$, after $W_{F}(r;E)$ and
160: $W_{D}(r;E)$ have been fixed from $\chi^{2}$-analyses.
161: For $V_{0}(r)$, we simply use the potential determined for the
162: $\alpha$+$^{209}$Bi system at $E$=22~MeV~\cite{barn},
163: assuming that all the unusual features of the scattering may be described
164: by the polarization part of the potential, particularly by the DR part.
165: The parameters used for $V_{0}(r)$ are $V_{0}$=100.4~MeV,
166: $r_{0}$=1.106~fm, and $a_{0}$=0.54~fm.
167:
168: The unusual behavior of the elastic scattering and DR data for loosely
169: bound projectiles can most dramatically be seen in plots of the ratios of
170: the elastic differential cross section ($d\sigma_{E}/d\Omega$),
171: and the DR cross section ($d\sigma_{D}/d\Omega$), to the
172: Rutherford scattering cross section ($d\sigma_{c}/d\Omega$), {\it i.e.},
173: \begin{equation}
174: P_{i} \equiv \frac{d\sigma_{i}}{d\Omega}/\frac{d\sigma_{c}}{d\Omega}
175: =(\frac{d\sigma_{i}}{d\sigma_{c}}), \;\;\; (i = E\;\; \mbox{or}\;\; D),
176: \end{equation}
177: as a function of the distance of closest approach $D$ (or the reduced distance
178: $d$)~\cite{bass,sat2} that is related to the scattering angle $\theta$ by
179: \begin{equation}
180: D=d(A_{1}^{1/3}+A_{2}^{1/3})= \frac{1}{2} D_{0}
181: \left( 1+ \frac{1}{\mbox{sin}(\theta/2)} \right)
182: \;\;\; \mbox{with} \;\;\; D_{0}=\frac{Z_{1}Z_{2}e^{2}}{E}.
183: \end{equation}
184: Here $D_{0}$ is the distance of closest approach in a head-on collision
185: ($s$-wave). Further, $(A_{1},Z_{1})$ and $(A_{2},Z_{2})$ are the mass and
186: charge of the projectile and target ions, respectively, and
187: $E$ is the incident energy in the center-of-mass system.
188:
189: In Fig.~1, we present such plots for two incident energies of
190: $E$=18.5 and 21.9~MeV~\cite{agu2}.
191: As seen, $P_{E}$ is close to unity for large $d$, but starts to decrease
192: at an unusually large distance of $d=$2.2~fm
193: ($\equiv d_{I}$, interaction distance).
194: This value is much larger than the usual value of
195: $d_{I} \approx $1.6~fm for normal, tightly bound projectiles.
196: On the other hand, it is remarkable that the sum, $P_{E}+P_{D}$, remains
197: close to unity until $d$ becomes as small as $\approx 1.7$~fm,
198: implying that the absorption in the elastic channel up to this distance,
199: and the unusual character of the scattering data, is due to the breakup.
200:
201: Since the theoretical cross sections are not very sensitive to the real
202: polarization potential, we tentatively treat it
203: in a rather crude way in carrying out
204: $\chi^{2}$-analyses; we simply assume $V_{i}(r;E)$ has
205: the same radial shape as the imaginary part $W_i (r;E)$:
206: $V_{i}(r;E)=V_{i}(E)(W_{i}(r;E)/W_{i}(E))$, $V_{i}(E)$ being the strength
207: of the real potential.
208: We then carry out $\chi^{2}$-analyses treating $W_{F}(E)$ and $r_{D}$ as
209: adjustable parameters, keeping all other parameters fixed
210: as $V_{F}$=3.0~MeV, $r_{F}$=1.40~fm, $a_{F}$=0.55~fm, $V_{D}$=0.25~MeV,
211: $W_{D}$=0.40~MeV and $a_{D}$=1.25~fm. The necessity of varying $a_{D}$
212: or $r_{D}$ as a function of $E$ has been shown in previous
213: studies~\cite{agu1,mohr}, and in the present work we take $r_{D}$ as
214: a variable parameter to study as a function of $E$.
215: In the $\chi^2$-analyses,
216: data for elastic scattering, angle-integrated total DR, and fusion cross
217: sections at $E=$14.3, 15.8, 17.3, 18.6, and 21.4~MeV are employed.
218:
219: The values of $W_{F}(E)$ and $r_{D}(E)$ fixed from
220: the $\chi^2$-analyses are presented in Fig.~2 by the open and
221: the solid circles, respectively.
222: Each set of circles can be
223: well represented by (in MeV and fm, respectively,
224: for $W_{F}(E)$ and $r_{D}(E)$)
225: \begin{equation}
226: W_{F}(E) \; = \; \left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
227: 0 &\;\; \mbox{, $E\leq$15.4} \\
228: 1.25(E-15.4) &\;\; \mbox{, 15.4$<E\leq$18.5} \\
229: 4.0 &\;\; \mbox{, 18.5$\leq E$} \\
230: \end{array}
231: \right.
232: \vspace{2ex}
233: \end{equation}
234: and
235: \begin{equation}
236: r_{D}(E) \; = \; \left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
237: 1.73 &\;\; \mbox{, $E\leq$14.0} \\
238: 1.73-0.03(E-14.0) &\;\; \mbox{, 14.0$<E\leq$21.4} \\
239: 1.508 &\;\; \mbox{, 21.4$\leq E$}. \\
240: \end{array}
241: \right.
242: \vspace{2ex}
243: \end{equation}
244: Note that the threshold energy $E_{0}$=15.4~MeV, at which
245: $W_{F}(E)=0$, is set equal to that of the linear representation
246: of quantity $S(E)=\sqrt{E\sigma_{F}} \propto (E-E_{0})$ discussed earlier.
247: Kolata {\it et al.} \cite{kol1} found the value to be 15.4~MeV, which
248: is used in Eq.~(7).
249: At this moment, we have no experimental information on $r_{D}$-values
250: below 14.0~MeV and above 21.4~MeV. Thus,
251: in Eq.~(8), we tentatively set $r_D(E)$ to be a constant as 1.73~fm
252: for $E\leq$14.0~fm and 1.508~fm for $E\geq$21.4~MeV.
253: Note that the values of $r_{D}(E)$ at $E$=18.6 and 21.4~MeV agree well
254: with those determined by Mohr~\cite{mohr}.
255:
256: Eqs. (7) and (8), together with other parameters used for $W_{F}(r;E)$ and
257: $W_{D}(r;E)$ as mentioned above, completely fix their values
258: in the energy range between $E$=14.0 and 21.4~MeV.
259: In order to display the energy dependence of the potentials,
260: we present in the lower panel of Fig.~3 the values of $W_{F}(r;E)$, $W_{D}(r;E)$,
261: and the sum $W(r;E)=W_{F}(r;E)+W_{D}(r;E)$ at a strong absorption radius
262: $r=R_{sa}=13.0$~fm. It is remarkable that $W_{F}(R_{sa};E)$
263: plotted by the dotted line exhibits a threshold anomaly (strong energy variation)
264: similar to that observed for tightly bound projectiles.
265: However, the $W_{D}(R_{sa};E)$-values are rather flat as a function of $E$
266: and have a magnitude much larger (by about a factor of 5)
267: than the values of $W_{F}(R_{sa};E)$.
268: Therefore, the threshold anomaly in $W_{F}(R_{sa};E)$ does not manifest itself
269: in the total $W(R_{sa};E)$ plotted by the solid line.
270:
271: In order to generate the real part of the polarization potential by
272: using dispersion relations, we need to know the imaginary potential
273: in the entire range of $E$. Eq.~(7) with $a_{F}$=0.55~fm and $r_{F}$=1.40~fm
274: is enough for calculating $W_{F}(r;E)$ in the entire $E$-range.
275: For the fusion potential, since the geometrical parameters are
276: energy-independent, the dispersion relation is reduced to that for the
277: strength parameters $V_{F}(E)$ and $W_{F}(E)$, and the closed form for the
278: expression has already been obtained~\cite{maha} as
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: V_{F}(E)=V_{s}(E_{s})
281: &+&\frac{1}{\pi}W_{F}(E_{b})
282: [\epsilon_{b}ln|\epsilon_{b}|-\epsilon_{a}ln|\epsilon_{a}|],
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: where
285: \begin{eqnarray}
286: \epsilon_{a}=\frac{(E-E_{a})}{(E_{b}-E_{a})} \;\; \mbox{and} \;\;
287: \epsilon_{b}=\frac{(E-E_{b})}{(E_{b}-E_{a})} \;\;
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: with $E_{a}$=15.4~MeV and $E_{b}$=18.5~MeV.
290: The value $V_{s}(E_{s})$ chosen is 3.0 MeV at $E_{s}$=18.5 MeV.
291:
292: For $W_{D}(r;E)$, some care must be taken with the magnitude.
293: To do the initial $\chi^2$-analyses, use was made of $W_{D}$=0.4~MeV
294: with $a_{D}$=1.25~fm in fixing the $r_{D}(E)$-values given by Eq.~(8).
295: The constant value of $W_{D}(E)$=0.4~MeV, however, cannot
296: be used at very low energies, since the DR cross sections are
297: expected to be extremely small in that energy region.
298: The systematics of the data suggest that $\sigma_{D}$ may become essentially
299: zero for $E\leq$10~MeV.
300: We thus assume that $W_{D}(E)$ increases linearly from zero at 10 MeV to
301: the value of 0.4~MeV at $E$=14.0~MeV.
302: The strength $W_{D}(E)$ and the radius $r_{D}(E)$ parameters
303: in the entire energy range $E$ can then be rewritten as
304: \begin{equation}
305: W_{D}(E) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
306: 0.0 \\
307: 0.1(E-10.0) \\
308: 0.40 \\
309: 0.40 \end{array} ,
310: \right. \;\;
311: r_{D}(E) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
312: 1.730 \hspace{3.5 cm} \mbox{,} \;\; E \leq 10.0, \\
313: 1.730 \hspace{3.5 cm} \mbox{,} \;\; 10.0 \leq E \leq 14.0,\\
314: 1.730-0.03(E-14.0)\;\;\; \mbox{,} \;\; 14.0 \leq E \leq 21.4, \\
315: 1.508 \hspace{3.5 cm} \mbox{,} \;\; 21.4 \leq E. \\
316: \end{array}
317: \right.
318: \vspace{2ex}
319: \end{equation}
320: Together with $a_{D}$=1.25~fm, Eq.~(11) now defines $W_{D}(r;E)$ in the
321: whole range of $E$.
322:
323: In generating the real part of the DR potential, $V_{D}(r;E)$, by using
324: the dispersion relation, we introduce an additional simplification
325: of approximating the energy dependence of $W_{D}(r;E)$ between
326: $E$=14.0 and 21.4~MeV, where $r_{D}(E)$ changes with $E$.
327: We assume a quadratic
328: function of $E$ for $W_D (r;E)$ at each radial point $r$;
329: $W_{D}(r;E)=a+b(E-E_{b})+c(E-E_{b})^{2}$, where $a$, $b$, and $c$
330: depend on $r$.
331: We have confirmed that the approximation is accurate.
332: Once this is done, the integration over $E$ involved in Eq.~(4)
333: can be carried out analytically and one can get a closed form
334: of $V_{D}(r;E)$,
335: \begin{eqnarray}
336: V_{D}(r;E)=V_{s}(r;E_{s})
337: &+&\frac{1}{\pi}W_{D}(r;E_{b})
338: [\epsilon_{b}ln|\epsilon_{b}|-\epsilon_{a}ln|\epsilon_{a}|] \nonumber \\
339: &+& \frac{1}{\pi}(W_{D}(r;E_{c})-W_{D}(r;E_{b}))
340: [\epsilon_{c}'ln|\epsilon_{c}'|-\epsilon_{b}'ln|\epsilon_{b}'|]
341: \nonumber \\
342: \frac{2}{\pi}(W_{D}(r;E_{c}) &+& W_{D}(r;E_{b})-2W_{D}(r;E_{m}))
343: [\epsilon_{c}'\epsilon_{b}'(ln|\epsilon_{c}'|- ln|\epsilon_{b}'|)+\epsilon_{b}'],
344: \end{eqnarray}
345: where $\epsilon_{a}$ and $\epsilon_{b}$ are the same as defined in Eq.~(10)
346: and
347: \begin{eqnarray}
348: \epsilon_{b}'=\frac{(E-E_{b})}{(E_{c}-E_{b})}, \;\; \mbox{and} \;\;
349: \epsilon_{c}'=\frac{(E-E_{c})}{(E_{c}-E_{b})},
350: \end{eqnarray}
351: with $E_{a}$=10.0~MeV, $E_{b}$=14.0~MeV , $E_{c}$=21.4~MeV, and
352: $E_{m}=(E_{b}+E_{c})/2$.
353:
354: Using the polarization potentials thus generated we perform
355: the final calculations for elastic scattering, total DR and
356: fusion cross sections and present the results in Figs.~4 and 5,
357: in comparison with the data.
358: The data are fairly well reproduced by the calculations.
359: The final calculated cross sections are essentially the same
360: as those obtained in the initial $\chi^{2}$-analysis, showing that
361: the calculated cross sections do not sensitively depend on the real
362: polarization potential, as we assumed in carrying out the $\chi^{2}$ analysis.
363: We note that the fits to the elastic scattering and reaction cross sections
364: (sum of the DR and fusion cross sections) are essentially the same as
365: those obtained in Ref.~\cite{agu1}.
366: The fit to the elastic scattering data at the lowest energy $E$=14.3~MeV is
367: the worst among those shown in Fig.~4, but can be improved
368: if we carry out a $\chi^{2}$-analysis including only the
369: elastic scattering data as the data to be reproduced.
370: We made such an analysis, finding that the data were very well reproduced
371: with $r_{D}$=1.93~fm,
372: much larger than $r_{D}$=1.72~fm obtained earlier.
373: The DR cross section calculated with this $r_{D}$=1.93~fm, however,
374: turned out to be $\sigma_{D}$=540~mb, about 3 times larger than
375: the experimental value.
376: This implies that one cannot improve the simultaneous fit to both
377: the elastic and DR data any further.
378:
379: In summary, we have carried out simultaneous $\chi^{2}$-analyses
380: of elastic scattering, DR (breakup), and fusion cross sections for the
381: $^{6}$He+$^{209}$Bi system at near-Coulomb-barrier energies within the
382: framework of an optical model that introduces two types of imaginary
383: potentials, for DR and fusion,
384: and determined the parameters of these potentials.
385: The results indicate that the fusion potential exhibits a threshold
386: anomaly very similar to that observed for tightly bound projectiles,
387: but the magnitude at around the strong absorption radius is much smaller
388: than the imaginary DR potential that does not show such an anomaly.
389: Therefore, the resulting total imaginary potential does not show
390: the anomaly.
391:
392: The authors sincerely thank Prof. J. J. Kolata for his kindly sending
393: numerical tables of the data his group took.
394: The authors also wish to express their sincere thanks to Prof. W. R. Coker
395: for his kindly reading the manuscript and comments.
396: One of the authors (BTK) acknowledges the support by Korea Research
397: Foundation (KRF-2000-DP0085).
398:
399: \newpage
400:
401: \begin{references}
402:
403: \baselineskip=22pt
404:
405: \bibitem{maha} C. C. Mahaux, H. Ngo, and G. R. Satchler, Nucl. Phys.
406: {\bf A449}, 354 (1986); Nucl. Phys. {\bf A456},
407: 134 (1986).
408: \bibitem{naga} M. A. Nagarajan, C. C. Mahaux, and G. R. Satchler,
409: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 54}, 1136 (1985).
410: \bibitem{agu1} E. F. Aguilera {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63},
411: 061603(R) (2001).
412: \bibitem{tied} M. A. Tiede, D. E. Trcka, and K. W. Kemper, Phys. Rev. C
413: {\bf 44}, 1698 (1991).
414: \bibitem{keel} N. Keeley, S. J. Bennett, N. M. Clarke, B. R. Fulton,
415: G. Tungate, P. V. Drumm, M. A. Nagarajan, and J. S. Lilly,
416: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A571}, 326 (1994).
417: \bibitem{maci} A. M. M. Maciel {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 59}, 2103
418: (1999).
419: \bibitem{mora} S. B. Moraes {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 064608 (2000).
420: \bibitem{sig1} C. Signorini {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 061603 (2000).
421: \bibitem{agu2} E. F. Aguilera {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 5058
422: (2000).
423: \bibitem{kell} G. R. Kelly {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63}, 024601 (2001).
424: \bibitem{sig2} C. Signorini {\it et al.}, in {\it Proceedings of the International
425: Conference BO2000, Bologna, Italy, 2000.}, edited by D. Vretenar
426: {\it et al.}, (World Scientific, Singapore, {\it in press})
427: \bibitem{uda1} T. Udagawa, M. Naito, and B. T. Kim, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 45},
428: 876 (1992).
429: \bibitem{stel} P. H. Stelson, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 205}, 190 (1988);
430: P. H. Stelson, H. J. Kim, M. Beckerman, D. Shapira, and
431: R. L. Robinson, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 41}, 1584 (1990)
432: \bibitem{kim1} B. T. Kim, M. Naito, and T. Udagawa, Phys. Lett. B
433: {\bf 237}, 19 (1990).
434: \bibitem{kol1} Kolata {\it et al}., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 4580 (1998).
435: \bibitem{mohr} P. Mohr, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62}, 061601(R) (2000).
436: \bibitem{sat1} G. R. Satchler and W. G. Love, Phys. Rep. {\bf 55}, 183 (1979).
437: \bibitem{barn} A. R. Barnett and J. S. Lilly, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 9}, 2010
438: (1974).
439: \bibitem{bass} R. Bass, {\it Nuclear Reactions with Heavy Ions},
440: (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980).
441: \bibitem{sat2} G. R. Satchler, {\it Introduction to Nuclear Reactions},
442: (John Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1980) p.41.
443:
444: \end{references}
445:
446: \newpage
447:
448:
449: \setlength{\leftmargin}{6em}
450: \begin {center}
451: FIGURE CAPTIONS
452: \end {center}
453:
454: \vspace {1ex}\hfill\break
455: \par
456: Fig.~1.~The experimental elastic and DR probabilities, $P_{E}$ and $P_{D}$,
457: respectively, as a function of the reduced distance $d$
458: %for the \raisebox{1ex}{6}He+\raisebox{1ex}{209}Bi system
459: for the $^{6}$He$+ ^{209}$Bi system
460: at $E_{cm}=$~18.5 and 21.9 MeV.
461: The data are taken from Ref.~9. The thin lines connecting
462: $P_i$ ($i = E$ and $D$) values are only to guide the eye.
463:
464: \vspace {1ex}\hfill\break
465: \par
466: Fig.~2.~The values of $W_{F}(E)$ (upper panel) and $r_{D}(E)$ (lower panel)
467: extracted from the $\chi^{2}$-analyses are plotted by the open and the solid
468: circles, respectively.
469: The solid lines represent Eqs.~(7) and (8).
470:
471: \vspace {1ex}\hfill\break
472: \par
473: Fig.~3.~The real (upper panel) and the imaginary (lower panel) parts
474: of fusion (dotted line) and DR (dashed line) potentials as functions of $E$
475: at the strong absorption radius $r = R_{sa} = $13.0 fm.
476: The sum of fusion and DR potentials is plotted by the solid lines.
477: The real parts of the potentials are calculated from
478: Eq.~(9) for $V_{F}(E)$, and Eq.~(12) for $V_{D}(E)$.
479:
480:
481: \vspace {1ex}\hfill\break
482: \par
483: Fig.~4.~The ratios of the elastic scattering cross sections
484: to Rutherford cross sections, calculated with our final optical
485: %potential for the \raisebox{1ex}{6}He+\raisebox{1ex}{209}Bi system
486: potential for the $^{6}$He$+ ^{209}$Bi system
487: in comparison with the experimental data.
488: The data are taken from Ref.~3.
489:
490: \vspace {1ex}\hfill\break
491: \par
492: Fig.~5.~The calculated direct reaction and fusion cross sections
493: with our final optical potential for the
494: $^{6}$He$+ ^{209}$Bi system
495: %\raisebox{1ex}{6}He+\raisebox{1ex}{209}Bi system
496: in comparison with the experimental data.
497: The data are taken from Refs.~3 and 15.
498:
499: \end{document}
500:
501: