Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Mechanism of the quasi-elastic scattering based on the dinuclear system concept

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A relaxing contact distance lets a dinuclear-system model finally reproduce quasi-elastic transfer channels in heavy-ion collisions.

desk verdict A plausible incremental fix for quasi-elastic underestimation in the DNS-sysu model, but the central validation leans on an unreported angular-momentum cutoff and a fitted relaxation time. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03778 v1 pith:JFKIZN7L submitted 2025-09-04 nucl-th

Zehong Liao , Yu Yang , Zepeng Gao , Jun Su , Long Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th MSC 81V35 PACS 25.70.Hi24.10.-i
keywords quasi-elasticscatteringmultinucleontransferdinuclearsystemmodelnucleonprobabilityheavy-ioncollisionsgrazingmasterequationimpactparameter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that dinuclear-system (DNS) models have been missing the quasi-elastic part of multinucleon transfer because they let nucleon exchange happen at a fixed contact distance deep inside the potential pocket. The authors introduce an impact-parameter-dependent contact distance that starts at the distance of closest approach for grazing trajectories and relaxes exponentially to the pocket bottom on a time scale of 2e-22 seconds. In the improved model, few-nucleon transfer at large angular momentum now receives the large transfer probability that long-range nucleon exchange needs, so the long-standing underestimation of one- and two-proton stripping disappears. The paper benchmarks the model against isotopic, mass, and charge distributions for 40Ca, 58Ni, 64Ni, 136Xe, and 208Pb beams on 208Pb and reports agreement across systems and energies. If right, the same master-equation model can describe quasi-elastic, deep-inelastic, and quasi-fission channels together.

What carries the argument

The relaxing contact distance of Eq. (3). Rcont is the internuclear separation at which nucleons are exchanged; the paper makes it a function of interaction time t obtained from the deflection function, interpolating between Rclosest (the distance of closest approach at each angular momentum) and Rbottom (the bottom of the potential pocket) with smoothing function f(t) = exp(-t/tau_C) and tau_C = 2e-22 seconds. This converts the transfer probability exp[-2k(Rcont - Rtr)] into an impact-parameter-dependent quantity, giving grazing collisions a large few-nucleon transfer probability while preserving the old behavior for deep-inelastic collisions.

What would settle it

Extract tau_C by fitting the one- and two-proton stripping cross sections in one reaction, say 58Ni + 208Pb at Ec.m. = 256 MeV, then predict the same channels for 40Ca + 208Pb at Ec.m. = 197 MeV with that value unchanged. If no single tau_C matches both light and heavy projectile systems, the relaxation mechanism is not universal and the ansatz fails. Alternatively, an angular-momentum-resolved measurement showing the exchange distance does not stay near the turning point at grazing J would rule out the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mechanism behind the quasi-elastic channel in heavy-ion transfer is the time-dependent distance at which nucleon exchange takes place. Earlier DNS models assumed contact at the bottom of the potential pocket, which works for long-lived deep-inelastic configurations but fails for grazing collisions, where the interaction lasts less than about 10^-22 seconds and the nuclei barely touch. The paper proposes Rcont(t) = Rclosest exp(-t/tau_C) + Rbottom[1 - exp(-t/tau_C)] with tau_C = 2e-22 seconds, so that for large angular momenta the exchange distance stays close to the turning point and the semiclassical transfer tail exp(-2k[Rcont - Rtr]) is active; for violent co

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the nucleon-exchange distance relaxes exponentially from the distance of closest approach to the pocket bottom with a universal time constant of 2e-22 seconds; this exponential law is an assumed interpolation, not derived from the dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The DNS-sysu model can now describe quasi-elastic, deep-inelastic, and quasi-fission channels in one master-equation approach rather than treating quasi-elastic scattering by a separate model.
  • One- and two-proton stripping cross sections in 58Ni + 208Pb at 256 MeV, previously underpredicted, are reproduced in absolute value and slope.
  • The same model with the relaxation term matches measured isotopic, mass, and charge distributions for 40Ca, 58Ni, 64Ni, 136Xe, and 208Pb on 208Pb targets.
  • Predictions for few-nucleon transfer, a first step toward producing neutron-rich exotic nuclei, become reliable enough to guide experimental searches.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The relaxation time tau_C is the main free parameter; a natural next test is to fit it from one dataset and see whether the same value survives across systems and bombarding energies. If it does, the model is predictive rather than interpolative.
  • One could derive tau_C from nuclear friction or viscosity in the entrance channel; doing so would turn a phenomenological interpolation into a dynamical prediction.
  • The enhancement mechanism is exponential in Rcont, so it should be sensitive to surface properties such as neutron-skin thickness; reactions with isotopes of differing neutron excess could test whether the contact-distance picture captures the tail of the single-particle density.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the DNS-sysu dinuclear-system model to quasi-elastic (QE) and grazing collisions by introducing impact-parameter-dependent nucleon transfer rates. The key formal ingredients are a relaxing contact distance Rcont (Eq. 3), with relaxation time tau_C = 2e-22 s, and a semiclassical transfer-tail factor Ptr = exp(-2k[R-Rtr]) (Eq. 7). The model is compared with isotopic, mass, and charge distributions for 40Ca, 58Ni, 64Ni, 136Xe, and 208Pb projectiles on 208Pb targets, including the previously problematic few-nucleon transfer channels. The authors report that the improved model resolves the long-standing QE underestimation and describes the data reasonably across many observables.

Significance. If the reported mechanism is robust, the paper would make a useful contribution: it extends a widely used DNS framework into the QE/grazing regime and benchmarks it against a broad set of experimental data. Strengths include the extensive data coverage, the use of absolute cross sections, the coupling to GEMINI++ for de-excitation, and the explicit presentation of the master-equation framework. However, the central QE improvement depends on several underdetermined inputs, especially the angular-momentum cutoff used to mimic detector acceptance and the ad hoc parameters in Eqs. (3) and (7). The current manuscript does not yet establish that the improvement is a consequence of the proposed physics rather than of selection/tuning.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results and discussions, Fig. 3] The text states: 'we implement an angular momentum cutoff to select computational results that fall within the experimentally observable range', but no cutoff value, selection criterion, or sensitivity is given. Since the QE/grazing cross sections are dominated by high-J partial waves, this cutoff directly controls the magnitude of the few-nucleon transfer cross sections displayed in Fig. 3. Without reporting the cutoff and showing that the conclusions are stable under reasonable variations, the agreement cannot be attributed to the proposed mechanism. Please provide the cutoff value, its experimental justification, and a sensitivity study.
  2. [Eq. (3) and following paragraph] The relaxation time tau_C = 2e-22 s is introduced with the statement that it 'can be determined from the analysis of experimental data', but no fitting procedure, uncertainty, or independent cross-check is given. This is load-bearing because intermediate angular momenta, and thus the DI/QF distributions, depend on tau_C. Moreover, in the QE limit t << tau_C one has f(t) ≈ 1 and Rcont ≈ Rclosest, so the QE improvement is effectively generated by replacing the old contact distance with Rclosest, not by the specific value of tau_C. The authors should separate these two effects and show how tau_C was determined and how sensitive the results are to it.
  3. [Eq. (7) and Fig. 2] The improved QE transfer rates hinge on Ptr = exp(-2k[R-Rtr]) with Rtr = Rpro + Rtar + 2.5 fm. The value 2.5 fm and the form of Ptr are presented without justification or sensitivity analysis. Since the central claim is that the model now reproduces one- and two-proton stripping, the results should be tested against variations in Rtr (and in the nucleon separation energies entering k), and the choice should be compared with known sub-barrier transfer systematics.
  4. [Theoretical framework, after Eq. (3)] For systems without a potential pocket, Rbottom is fixed at a surface separation of approximately 0.7 fm. This is another parameter of the model, and the manuscript does not state whether this value is system-independent or fitted. If it is system-dependent, the predictive content of the comparisons in Figs. 4-5 should be qualified. Please state how Rbottom is assigned for each system and whether the results are sensitive to this offset.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] Typo: 'entrace angular momentum' should be 'entrance angular momentum'.
  2. [After Eq. (4)] Typo: 'The quantitiy W' should be 'The quantity W'.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The notation 'C1δβ 1 2 = C2δβ 2 2' and 'δβ 1 2 + δβ 2 2 = 2 β2' is hard to parse. Please use explicit superscripts (e.g., C1δβ_1^2 = C2δβ_2^2) and define all symbols.
  4. [Fig. 5] The line styles 'black dotted' and 'black solid' are described in the caption, but the distinction between the improved DNS-sysu result and the improved DNS-sysu + GEMINI++ result should be clearly visible in the figure and stated in the text for each panel.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract says the underestimation of the QE channel is 'especially for the light reaction systems', yet several comparisons involve heavy projectiles such as 136Xe and 208Pb. Please clarify the intended scope.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QE improvement is driven by the fixed semiclassical tunneling tail Ptr at Rcont≈Rclosest, not by the fitted relaxation time tau_C; the unspecified angular-momentum cutoff is a reproducibility concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central QE claim rests on Eq. (7), where the transfer rate is suppressed/enhanced by the semiclassical factor exp(-2k[R-Rtr]) with Rtr = Rpro+Rtar+2.5 fm, taken from external references [50,51]. This factor is not fitted to the QE data. The relaxation ansatz of Eq. (3), Rcont = Rclosest f(t)+Rbottom[1-f(t)], is explicitly phenomenological, and the paper states that in the QE/grazing regime Rcont is essentially Rclosest (Fig. 1b and the surrounding discussion), so the fitted tau_C ("The relaxation time can be determined from the analysis of experimental data") is not the mechanism that produces the QE enhancement. Thus the fitted parameter is not being renamed as the prediction; the prediction still depends on the independent tunneling and master-equation dynamics. The angular momentum cutoff used to mimic experimental detection conditions is not specified numerically, which is a reproducibility/correctness concern but not evidence that the comparison is forced by construction: applying an acceptance cut is a standard analysis step, and no equation equates the predicted cross section to a fitted parameter. The self-citations ([36], [38], [22], [31]) establish lineage of the DNS-sysu framework, but the equations are stated in the manuscript and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from those citations. The model is also tested on multiple independent systems (40Ca, 64Ni, 136Xe, 208Pb + 208Pb), so the central claim has independent content. The acknowledged limitation that lambda0 is not derived from first principles (after Eq. 6) is a model-input caveat, not a circular step. Overall, no load-bearing circular reduction is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particle, force, or conserved quantity. Its new content is a phenomenological relaxation law for the contact distance, which depends on a fitted time constant tau_C and an ad hoc 0.7 fm offset, plus inherited transfer-rate parameters from prior work.

free parameters (4)
  • tau_C (relaxation time) = 2 x 10^-22 s
    Controls the interpolation in Rcont = Rclosest f(t) + Rbottom [1 - f(t)]; the paper says it can be determined from experimental data, so it is a fitted or hand-set timescale, not derived.
  • Rbottom surface-separation offset for systems without a potential pocket = 0.7 fm
    Ad hoc choice for the contact distance when no potential pocket exists; directly influences low-angular-momentum transition probabilities.
  • Rtr offset in the transfer probability = 2.5 fm
    Surface separation at which the transfer probability reaches unity; taken from earlier work rather than re-derived, and directly affects quasi-elastic transfer rates.
  • lambda0 nucleon transfer rate = 5 A_tot^2 (T/MeV) x 10^16 s^-1
    Adopted from Ref. [39]; the paper admits its first-principles derivation is not established. Not new to this paper but load-bearing for all transfer rates.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The contact distance follows the phenomenological relaxation Rcont = Rclosest f(t) + Rbottom [1 - f(t)] with f(t) = exp(-t/tau_C).
    Eq. (3); no derivation is given, and this is the new mechanism responsible for the quasi-elastic improvement.
  • domain assumption The reaction time at each angular momentum is given by the deflection function method.
    Invoked in the Theoretical framework section: 'The deflection function method [40] provides the model with a reaction time that depends on the deflection parameter.' If this timescale is inaccurate, the Rcont interpolation is wrong.
  • domain assumption For separated nuclei, nucleon transfer occurs through tails with probability Ptr = exp(-2k[R - Rtr]).
    Eq. (7), from Refs. [50, 51]; this drives the quasi-elastic enhancement at large separation.
  • domain assumption The potential energy surface with one dynamical beta2 and a master equation with single-step transitions describes the evolution.
    Eqs. (1) and (5); inherited from the DNS-sysu framework and not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Master-equation transition rates follow exp((U(S') - U(S))/(2T)) with level density parameter alpha = A_tot/12 MeV^-1.
    Eq. (6); a standard statistical ansatz, but not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mechanism of the quasi-elastic scattering based on the dinuclear system concept." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFKIZN7L

@misc{pith2026250903778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mechanism of the quasi-elastic scattering based on the dinuclear system concept},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFKIZN7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03778}
}
read the original abstract

A unified description of full reaction channels in low-energy heavy-ion collisions is a great challenge. Although the theoretical models based on the dinuclear system (DNS) concept have been successfully employed in multinucleon transfer (MNT) reactions, the underestimation of the quasi-elastic (QE) channel results in unreliable description of few nucleon transfer, especially for the light reaction systems. In this work, the DNS-sysu model is improved by introducing the impact-parameter-dependent transition probabilities for a unified description of few nucleon and many nucleon transfer in MNT reactions. Extensive experimental data -- including reactions such as 40Ca, 58Ni, 64Ni, 136Xe, and 208Pb + 208Pb -- were compared with the model predictions. The calculated isotopic distributions, mass distributions, and charge distributions show good agreement with experimental measurements. The improved DNS-sysu model enables reasonable characterization and description of the QE/grazing collisions, notably resolving long-standing underestimation in the QE channel.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03778 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Top panel: Contact points for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The nucleon transfer probability as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Experimental cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mass or charge distributions for reaction products. The measured cross sections are shown by red squares with error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adamian, N

    G. Adamian, N. Antonenko, A. Diaz-Torres, and S. Heinz, How to extend the chart of nuclides?, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal A 56, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Broda, Spectroscopic studies with the use of deep- inelastic heavy-ion reactions, Journal of Physics G: Nu- clear and Particle Physics 32, R151 (2006)

    R. Broda, Spectroscopic studies with the use of deep- inelastic heavy-ion reactions, Journal of Physics G: Nu- clear and Particle Physics 32, R151 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Hirayama and K

    Y. Hirayama and K. Collaboration, Progress of isotope separators and kiss facility for the study of exotic nuclei, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 233, 1209 (2024). 6 FIG. 5. Mass or charge distributions for reaction products. The measured cross sections are shown by red squares with error bars, which were taken from Refs [56–59]. Black dotte...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Corradi, G

    L. Corradi, G. Pollarolo, and S. Szilner, Multinucleon transfer processes in heavy-ion reactions, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 36, 113101 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    P´ erez-Vidal, F

    R. P´ erez-Vidal, F. Galtarossa, T. Mijatovi´ c, S. Szilner, I. Zanon, D. Brugnara, J. Pellumaj, M. Ciemala, J. J. Valiente-Dob´ on, L. Corradi,et al., Nuclear structure ad- vancements with multi-nucleon transfer reactions, The European Physical Journal A 59, 114 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Hinde, M

    D. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, and E. Simpson, Experimental studies of the competition between fusion and quasifis- sion in the formation of heavy and superheavy nuclei, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 118, 103856 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    E. M. Kozulin, G. N. Knyazheva, T. K. Ghosh, A. Sen, I. M. Itkis, M. G. Itkis, K. V. Novikov, I. N. Diat- lov, I. V. Pchelintsev, C. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, K. Banerjee, E. O. Saveleva, and I. V. Vorobiev, Fission and quasifission of the composite system z = 114 formed in heavy-ion reactions at energies near the coulomb bar- rier, Phys. Rev. C 99, ...

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    E. M. Kozulin, G. N. Knyazheva, K. V. Novikov, I. M. Itkis, M. G. Itkis, S. N. Dmitriev, Y. T. Oganessian, A. A. Bogachev, N. I. Kozulina, I. Harca, W. H. Trzaska, and T. K. Ghosh, Fission and quasifission of composite sys- tems with z = 108 − 120: Transition from heavy-ion reactions involving s and ca to ti and ni ions, Phys. Rev. C 94, 054613 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    C. Li, J. Tian, and F.-S. Zhang, Production mechanism of the neutron-rich nuclei in multinucleon transfer reac- tions: A reaction time scale analysis in energy dissipation process, Physics Letters B 809, 135697 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    H. Yao, C. Li, H. Zhou, and N. Wang, Distinguish- ing fission-like events from deep-inelastic collisions, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034608 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Winther, Grazing reactions in collisions between heavy nuclei, Nuclear Physics A 572, 191 (1994)

    A. Winther, Grazing reactions in collisions between heavy nuclei, Nuclear Physics A 572, 191 (1994)

    1994

  4. [12]

    Winther, Dissipation, polarization and fluctuation in grazing heavy-ion collisions and the boundary to the chaotic regime, Nuclear Physics A 594, 203 (1995)

    A. Winther, Dissipation, polarization and fluctuation in grazing heavy-ion collisions and the boundary to the chaotic regime, Nuclear Physics A 594, 203 (1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, and W. Scheid, Char- acteristics of quasifission products within the dinuclear system model, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034601 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Nasirov, A

    A. Nasirov, A. Fukushima, Y. Toyoshima, Y. Aritomo, A. Muminov, S. Kalandarov, and R. Utamuratov, The role of orientation of nucleus symmetry axis in fusion dynamics, Nuclear Physics A 759, 342 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Feng, G.-M

    Z.-Q. Feng, G.-M. Jin, and J.-Q. Li, Production of heavy isotopes in transfer reactions by collisions of 238U +238 U, Phys. Rev. C 80, 067601 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    W. Li, N. Wang, J. F. Li, H. Xu, W. Zuo, E. Zhao, J. Q. Li, and W. Scheid, Fusion probability in heavy-ion collisions by a dinuclear-system model, Europhys. Lett. 64, 750 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    X. J. Bao, Role of neutron excess in the projectile for the production of heavy neutron-rich nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054613 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    P. W. Wen, A. K. Nasirov, C. J. Lin, and H. M. Jia, Mult- inucleon transfer reaction from view point of dynamical dinuclear system method, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 47, 075106 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    A. V. Karpov and V. V. Saiko, Modeling near-barrier col- lisions of heavy ions based on a langevin-type approach, Phys. Rev. C 96, 024618 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Unified consideration of deep inelastic, quasi-fission and fusion–fission phenom- ena, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 31, 825 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    F. C. Dai, P. W. Wen, C. J. Lin, J. J. Liu, X. X. Xu, K. L. Wang, H. M. Jia, L. Yang, N. R. Ma, and F. Yang, Theoretical study of multinucleon transfer reactions by coupling the langevin dynamics iteratively with the mas- 7 ter equation, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024617 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Zhu, New model based on coupling the master and langevin equations in the study of multinucleon transfer reactions, Physics Letters B 849, 138423 (2024)

    L. Zhu, New model based on coupling the master and langevin equations in the study of multinucleon transfer reactions, Physics Letters B 849, 138423 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Yang et al., Production of actinide isotopes near θlab = 0◦ in multinucleon transfer reaction 238U + 248Cm, Phys

    Y. Yang et al., Production of actinide isotopes near θlab = 0◦ in multinucleon transfer reaction 238U + 248Cm, Phys. Lett. B 862, 139318 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    K. Zhao, Z. Liu, F. Zhang, and N. Wang, Production of neutron-rich n = 126 nuclei in multinucleon transfer reactions: Comparison between 136xe + 198pt and 238u + 198pt reactions, Physics Letters B 815, 136101 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    C. Li, P. Wen, J. Li, G. Zhang, B. Li, X. Xu, Z. Liu, S. Zhu, and F.-S. Zhang, Production mechanism of new neutron-rich heavy nuclei in the xe136+198pt reaction, Physics Letters B 776, 278 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Sekizawa and K

    K. Sekizawa and K. Yabana, Time-dependent hartree- fock calculations for multinucleon transfer processes in 40,48Ca+124Sn, 40Ca+208Pb, and 58Ni+208Pb reactions, Phys. Rev. C 88, 014614 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    D. D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Multinucleon transfer with time-dependent co- variant density functional theory, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024614 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    A. S. Umar, C. Simenel, and W. Ye, Transport proper- ties of isospin asymmetric nuclear matter using the time- dependent hartree-fock method, Phys. Rev. C 96, 024625 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    L. Guo, C. Shen, C. Yu, and Z. Wu, Isotopic trends of quasifission and fusion-fission in the reactions 48Ca +239,244 Pu, Phys. Rev. C 98, 064609 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    S. Ayik, M. Arik, E. Erbayri, O. Yilmaz, and A. S. Umar, Multinucleon transfer mechanism in 160Gd +186 W colli- sions in stochastic mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054605 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Z. Gao, K. Sekizawa, and L. Zhu, Time-dependent ran- dom phase approximation for particle-number fluctu- ations and correlations in deep-inelastic collisions of 144Sm +144 Sm and 154Sm +154 Sm, Phys. Rev. C 112, 014602 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    V. V. Volkov, Deep inelastic transfer reactions—the new type of reactions between complex nuclei, Physics Re- ports 44, 93 (1978)

    1978

  25. [33]

    J. Li, G. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, and F.- S. Zhang, Production of unknown neutron-rich transura- nium isotopes 245–249np, 248–251pu, 248–254am, and 252–254cm in multinucleon transfer reactions, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 49, 025106 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Zhang and F.-S

    G. Zhang and F.-S. Zhang, Production of neutron-rich nuclei near N=126 in multinucleon transfer reactions with potential pockets, Phys. Rev. C 111, 014603 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Le, F.-Z

    X.-K. Le, F.-Z. Xing, S.-Q. Guo, and N. Wang, Theoreti- cal study of the angular distribution of reaction products from the 136Xe+208 Pb and 238U+248 Cm reactions, Phys. Rev. C 111, 024618 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Z. Liao, Z. Gao, Y. Yang, L. Zhu, and J. Su, Shell effects on the drift and fluctuation in multinucleon transfer re- actions, Phys. Rev. C 109, 054612 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    P.-w. Wen, C. Li, L. Zhu, C.-j. Lin, and F.-s. Zhang, Mechanism of multinucleon transfer reaction based on the grazing model and dns model, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 44, 115101 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Zhu and J

    L. Zhu and J. Su, Unified description of fusion and mult- inucleon transfer processes within the dinuclear system model, Phys. Rev. C 104, 044606 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Saiko and A

    V. Saiko and A. Karpov, Multinucleon transfer as a method for production of new heavy neutron-enriched isotopes of transuranium elements, The European Phys- ical Journal A 58, 41 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Wolschin and W

    G. Wolschin and W. N¨ orenberg, Analysis of relaxation phenomena in heavy-ion collisions, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei 284, 209 (1978)

    1978

  33. [41]

    Zhu, P.-W

    L. Zhu, P.-W. Wen, C.-J. Lin, X.-J. Bao, J. Su, C. Li, and C.-C. Guo, Shell effects in a multinucleon transfer process, Physical Review C 97, 044614 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Shell effects in damped collisions: a new way to superheavies, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 34, 2265 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    W. D. Myers and W. J. Swiatecki, Nuclear masses and deformations, Nuclear Physics 81, 1 (1966)

    1966

  36. [44]

    C. Y. Wong, Interaction barrier in charged-particle nu- clear reactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 766 (1973)

    1973

  37. [45]

    Adamian, N

    G. Adamian, N. Antonenko, R. Jolos, S. Ivanova, and O. Melnikova, Effective nucleus-nucleus potential for cal- culation of potential energy of a dinuclear system, Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics E 5, 191 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Q. Li, W. Zuo, W. Li, N. Wang, E. Zhao, J. Li, and W. Scheid, Deformation and orientation effects in the driving potential of the dinuclear model, The European Physical Journal A-Hadrons and Nuclei 24, 223 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Haag, Modelling with the master equation (2017)

    G. Haag, Modelling with the master equation (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Moretto and J

    L. Moretto and J. Sventek, A theoretical approach to the problem of partial equilibration in heavy ion reactions, Physics Letters B 58, 26 (1975)

    1975

  41. [49]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Cross sections for the pro- duction of superheavy nuclei, Nuclear Physics A944, 257 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Zagrebaev, Sub-barrier fusion enhancement due to neutron transfer, Physical Review C 67, 061601 (2003)

    V. Zagrebaev, Sub-barrier fusion enhancement due to neutron transfer, Physical Review C 67, 061601 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    Von Oertzen, H

    W. Von Oertzen, H. Bohlen, B. Gebauer, R. K¨ unkel, F. P¨ uhlhofer, and D. Sc¨ uhll, Quasi-elastic neutron trans- fer and pairing effects in the interaction of heavy nuclei, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei326, 463 (1987)

    1987

  44. [52]

    Corradi, A

    L. Corradi, A. M. Vinodkumar, A. M. Stefanini, E. Fioretto, G. Prete, S. Beghini, G. Montagnoli, F. Scar- lassara, G. Pollarolo, F. Cerutti, and A. Winther, Light and heavy transfer products in 58Ni+208Pb at the coulomb barrier, Phys. Rev. C 66, 024606 (2002)

    2002

  45. [53]

    R. J. Charity, Systematic description of evaporation spec- tra for light and heavy compound nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014610 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Mijatovi´ c, S

    T. Mijatovi´ c, S. Szilner, L. Corradi, D. Montanari, G. Pollarolo, E. Fioretto, A. Gadea, A. Goasduff, D. J. a. c. Malenica, N. M˘ arginean, M. Milin, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, N. Soi´ c, A. M. Stefanini, C. A. Ur, and J. J. Valiente-Dob´ on, Multinucleon transfer reacti...

    2016

  47. [55]

    Szilner, L

    S. Szilner, L. Corradi, G. Pollarolo, S. Beghini, B. R. Be- hera, E. Fioretto, A. Gadea, F. Haas, A. Latina, G. Mon- tagnoli, F. Scarlassara, A. M. Stefanini, M. Trotta, A. M. Vinodkumar, and Y. Wu, Multinucleon transfer processes in 40Ca +208 Pb, Phys. Rev. C 71, 044610 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    Kr´ olas, R

    W. Kr´ olas, R. Broda, B. Fornal, T. Paw lat, J. Wrzesi´ nski, D. Bazzacco, G. de Angelis, S. Lunardi, R. Menegazzo, D. Napoli, and C. Rossi Alvarez, Dynamical deforma- tion of nuclei in deep-inelastic collisions: A gamma co- incidence study of 130Te+275 MeV 64Ni and 208Pb+345...

    2010

  49. [57]

    Kr´ olas, R

    W. Kr´ olas, R. Broda, B. Fornal, T. Paw lat, H. Grawe, K. Maier, M. Schramm, and R. Schubart, Gamma coinci- dence study of 208Pb + 350 MeV 64Ni collisions, Nuclear Physics A 724, 289 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    E. M. Kozulin, E. Vardaci, G. N. Knyazheva, A. A. Bo- gachev, S. N. Dmitriev, I. M. Itkis, M. G. Itkis, A. G. Knyazev, T. A. Loktev, K. V. Novikov, E. A. Razinkov, O. V. Rudakov, S. V. Smirnov, W. Trzaska, and V. I. Za- grebaev, Mass distributions of the system136Xe+208pb at l...

    2012

  51. [59]

    Tanabe, R

    T. Tanabe, R. Bock, M. Dakowski, A. Gobbi, H. Sann, H. Stelzer, U. Lynen, A. Olmi, and D. Pelte, The pb + pb collision, Nuclear Physics A 342, 194 (1980)

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.