\begin{document}$ 104\le Z\le 120 $\end{document} and mass number range \begin{document}$ 243\le A\le 301 $\end{document} considering various projectile-target combinations. Nucleus-nucleus potentials were evaluated using the nuclear proximity 2010 model, and quasifission barriers were evaluated as the difference between minimum and maximum potentials. The quasifission lifetimes varied from 0.1 zs to 2040 zs, with lifetimes above 1600 zs for \begin{document}$ ^{249}_{145} $\end{document}Rf, \begin{document}$ ^{248}_{143} $\end{document}Db, \begin{document}$ ^{260}_{154} $\end{document}Sg, and \begin{document}$ ^{263}_{156} $\end{document}Hs. The quasifission lifetimes decreased with increasing Z, dropping to 0.1 zs at Z=120. Shorter quasifission lifetimes may contribute to a reduction in production cross-sections from nanobarns to picobarns for elements with Z=104 to Z=118. Furthermore, the impact of angular momentum on quasifission barriers exhibited a decreasing trend as the atomic number increased. The shortest lifetime of 253 zs was observed at Z= 120, while longer lifetimes, such as 659 zs for 64Ni+196Pt, suggest enhanced stability. The model was validated against data available in literature, generally producing lower values except for 34S+186W and 238U+48Ca, where significant increases were observed."> A comprehensive analysis of quasifission lifetimes in the superheavy element region 104 ≤ <i>Z</i> ≤ 120 -
  • [1]

    M. Schädel, Radiochimica Acta100, 579 (2012)

  • [2]

    M. G. Itkis, A. A. Bogachev, I. M. Itkiset al.,The processes of fusion-fission and quasi-fission of superheavy nuclei, inDynamical Aspects of Nuclear Fission(World Scientific, 2008) pp. 36–53

  • [3]

    G. Mohanto, D. J. Hinde, K. Banerjeeet al., Phys. Rev. C97, 054603 (2018)

  • [4]

    C. Simenel, P. McGlynn, A. S. Umaret al., Phys. Lett. B822, 136648 (2021)

  • [5]

    K. Godbey and A. S. Umar, Front. Phys.8, 40 (2020)

  • [6]

    L. Guo, C. Shen, C. Yuet al., Phys. Rev. C98, 064609 (2018)

  • [7]

    A. K. Nasirov, G. Giardina, G. Mandaglioet al., Phys. Rev. C79, 024606 (2009)

  • [8]

    K. Hammerton, Z. Kohley, D. J. Hindeet al., Phys. Rev. C91, 041602 (2015)

  • [9]

    P. McGlynn and C. Simenel, Phys. Rev. C107, 054614 (2023)

  • [10]

    D. J. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, and E. C. Simpson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.118, 103856 (2021)

  • [11]

    M. G. Itkis, E. Vardaci, I. M. Itkiset al., Nucl. Phys. A944, 204 (2015)

  • [12]

    M. G. Itkis, G. N. Knyazheva, I. M. Itkiset al., Eur. Phys. J. A58, 178 (2022)

  • [13]

    P. S. D. Gupta, H. C. Manjunatha, N. Sowmyaet al., Pramana96, 214 (2022)

  • [14]

    H. C. Manjunatha, L. Seenappa, P. S. Damodara Guptaet al., Phys. Rev. C103, 024311 (2021)

  • [15]

    P. S. Damodara Gupta, N. Sowmya, H. C. Manjunathaet al., Phys. Rev. C106, 064603 (2022)

  • [16]

    T. Nandi, H. C. Manjunatha, P. S. D. Guptaet al., Pramana96, 230 (2022)

  • [17]

    S. Soheyli and M. V. Khanlari, Phys. Rev. C94, 034615 (2016)

  • [18]

    H. C. Manjunatha and N. Sowmya, Nucl. Phys. A969, 68 (2018)

  • [19]

    Khanlari, M. Varasteh, and S. Soheyli, Phys. Rev. C95, 024617 (2017)

  • [20]

    P. Moller, J. Nix, W. Myerset al., Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tab.59, 185 (1995)

  • [21]

    Reference input parameter library (ripl-3) https://www-nds.iaea.org/RIPL-3.html

  • [22]

    Nrv video project http://nrv.jinr.ru/nrv/webnrv/fusion/reactions.html

  • [23]

    R. du Rietz, D. J. Hinde, M. Dasguptaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 052701 (2011)

  • [24]

    J. Toke, R. Bock, G. X. Daiet al., Nucl. Phys. A440, 327 (1985)

  • [25]

    S. Hofmann and G. Münzenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.72, 733 (2000)

Baidu
map