Neutron-rich isotope production for $Z\geq 98$ in ${}^{238} \mathrm{U}+{ }^{248} \mathrm{Cm}$ reaction

A. S. Umar; O. Yilmaz; S. Ayik; S.E. Ocal

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Neutron-rich isotope production for $Z\geq 98$ in ${}^{238} \mathrm{U}+{ }^{248} \mathrm{Cm}$ reaction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the stochastic mean-field approach combined with GEMINI++ explains the measured multi-nucleon transfer cross-sections in $^{238}\mathrm{U}+^{248}\mathrm{Cm}$ at $E_\mathrm{c.m.}=898.7$ MeV and predicts sizable…

desk verdict A useful but overclaimed application of the authors' SMF quantal diffusion framework to 238U+248Cm; the qualitative picture and new Z=102-105 predictions are worth having, but the 'explains the data' statement and the sub-microbarn ceiling need to be hedged and rebenchmarked. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10846 v1 pith:VOS43EM4 submitted 2024-11-16 nucl-th

S.E. Ocal , O. Yilmaz , S. Ayik , A. S. Umar This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-th

keywords multi-nucleontransferreactionsstochasticmean-fieldtheoryquantaldiffusiontime-dependentHartree-FocktransuraniumisotopesGEMINI++actinidecollisionsneutron-richnuclei

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

This paper argues that the stochastic mean-field (SMF) approach, a quantal extension of time-dependent Hartree-Fock that includes neutron and proton fluctuations, can describe multi-nucleon transfer in the heaviest actinide collisions. Using $^{238}\mathrm{U}+^{248}\mathrm{Cm}$ at $E_\mathrm{c.m.}=898.7$ MeV, the authors compute primary fragment cross-sections from quantal diffusion coefficients and then pass the hot fragments through the GEMINI++ statistical decay code to obtain secondary (surviving) yields. They find that the calculation reproduces the measured cross-sections for transuranium products from Cf ($Z=98$) through Md ($Z=101$), and that the same approach predicts these elements are producible with sizable cross-sections while $Z=102$--$105$ (No, Lr, Rf, Db) remain below one microbarn. The significance, if correct, is a parameter-free microscopic route to choosing reactions that can extend the nuclear chart to new neutron-rich heavy isotopes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the quantal diffusion description of multi-nucleon transfer. Diffusion coefficients for neutrons and protons are computed directly from the occupied single-particle wave functions of the TDHF evolution, including quantal shell effects and Pauli blocking; the drift coefficients are linked through Einstein relations to a parabolic potential energy surface in the $(N,Z)$ plane, with an isoscalar curvature parameter $\beta$ and an isovector curvature parameter $\alpha$. Since the isovector curvature for the $^{238}\mathrm{U}+^{248}\mathrm{Cm}$ system cannot be obtained directly, it is estimated from the neighbouring $^{250}\mathrm{U}+^{236}\mathrm{Cm}$ reaction, and both parameters are averaged over selected time windows. These inputs feed a correlated Gaussian (Fokker-Planck) probability distribution for primary fragments, whose variances satisfy coupled differential equations, and the resulting hot fragments are decayed statistically with GEMINI++. The nonzero neutron-proton covariance in the distribution is what aligns the yield ellipses along the valley of stability, a feature that standard mean-field treatments miss.

What would settle it

Measure the secondary cross-sections for $Z=102$--$105$ isotopes in $^{238}\mathrm{U}+^{248}\mathrm{Cm}$ at $E_\mathrm{c.m.}=898.7$ MeV; finding any of them above 1 microbarn, or finding the $Z=98$--$101$ yields more than roughly an order of magnitude away from the predicted millibarn-to-microbarn values, would show the calculation's central prediction is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a stochastic mean-field description, with no adjustable parameters beyond the Skyrme energy functional, reproduces the measured isotope cross-sections for the $^{238}\mathrm{U}+^{248}\mathrm{Cm}$ reaction and can therefore be used to predict unreachable regions. For the four initial geometries (tip-tip XX, tip-side XY, side-tip YX, side-side YY), the drift paths and quantal diffusion coefficients are generated from TDHF trajectories; a correlated Gaussian probability distribution for neutron and proton transfers is built from the resulting variances, including a nonzero neutron-proton covariance, and the de-excitation of primary fragments is followed with GEMINI++. The paper finds primary peaks at $A=251$ (Cf, 10.4 mb), $A=253$ (Es, 6.20 mb), $A=256$ (Fm, 4.40 mb), and $A=259$ (Md, 3.20 mb), with secondary peaks shifted down by neutron evaporation, and reports agreement with experimental data in magnitude and location. For $Z=102$--$105$, where no data exist, the calculation predicts cross-sections below 1 microbarn, so those elements are not expected to be produced at observable rates in this reaction.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on taking the isovector curvature parameter $\alpha$ from a neighbouring reaction and on the time windows chosen for averaging, so a mismatch in that surrogate potential would shift the computed yields.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the calculation is correct, the same SMF+GEMINI++ procedure can rank candidate projectile-target combinations for producing new neutron-rich heavy isotopes without tuning reaction parameters.
The computed cross-section ladder (millibarn for $Z=93$--$98$, microbarn for $Z=99$--$102$, nanobarn for $Z=103$--$110$) sets a quantitative expectation of where multi-nucleon transfer becomes impractical in these actinide systems.
The secondary peaks being shifted several nucleons below the primary peaks means the observable nuclei are not the primary transfer products; neutron evaporation and fission compete strongly, so survival probabilities must be included in any yield estimate.
The prediction that $Z=102$--$105$ stays below 1 microbarn at this energy implies that simply repeating the same reaction with higher statistics would not open the region; different systems or energies would be needed.

Reading between the lines

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

One could extend the same machinery to other actinide combinations, such as $^{238}\mathrm{U}+^{238}\mathrm{U}$ or $^{248}\mathrm{Cm}+^{250}\mathrm{Cf}$, to see whether the method identifies a system with higher predicted yields for $Z=102$--$105$.
The strong sensitivity to the borrowed $\alpha$ parameter suggests that a systematic uncertainty band, obtained by varying the time window and the surrogate system, would show whether the 'below microbarn' conclusion is robust.
Because the diffusion coefficients come from the TDHF mean field, the predicted yields can also serve as a probe of the isovector part of the Skyrme energy functional used in the calculation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plain take: this is a solid application of the authors' own SMF quantal diffusion machinery to a new actinide+actinide system, 238U+248Cm, with concrete cross-section maps for Z=98-101 and a first quantitative statement that Z=102-105 fall below a microbarn. That is genuinely useful for experiment planning. But the paper overclaims when it says the calculations 'explain' the data: Table IV shows order-of-magnitude agreement, with factors of 3-10 between calculated and measured secondary peaks. The central prediction for Z=102-105 is conditional, not robust, because the curvature parameters α and β that set the drift and variances are extracted by hand-picked time windows, and α is borrowed from 250U+236Cm. No sensitivity scan is given.

What is new: first SMF calculation for this system; predictions for No, Lr, Rf, and Db are new. What is done well: the four collision orientations are treated separately; TDHF drift paths and diffusion coefficients are well documented; σNZ correlations are included; GEMINI++ de-excitation is standard; the qualitative trend—cross sections fall steeply with Z and shift to higher masses—is reproduced. The comparison to the measured data is at least in the right ballpark.

Soft spots, in order: 1. The 'no adjustable parameters' claim is too strong. The reduced curvature parameters are fit to the model's own drift paths over manually chosen windows (tA, tB), and α is transferred from a neighboring system because the actual system has equal initial charge asymmetries. Table I shows these parameters vary substantially with orientation (α 0.108-0.177, β 0.004-0.010). The yields for Z=102-105 are tail values of a correlated Gaussian; even modest changes can shift them by orders of magnitude. The paper needs a sensitivity scan over α, β, and time windows before the sub-microbarn ceiling can be taken as quantitative. 2. 'Explain' is an overstatement. In Table IV, the secondary peak for Z=98 is 0.60 mb at A=250 versus measured 1.87 mb at A=251; for Z=101, 0.001 mb versus 0.0002 mb. That is order-of-magnitude reproduction, which is worth reporting, but not explanation. 3. There are numerical typos and corrupted text: Table II XX ℓ=360 A_f2=257.1 looks off, Table III XY ℓ=360 A_f2=284.7 is impossible next to neighboring ~248, Eq. (15) has a sign issue with tA-tB, and the Figure 10 caption contains stray '/uni...' code. These are addressable but need fixing.

Who it is for: MNT experimentalists planning transuranium production, and theorists benchmarking SMF. It deserves a serious referee, but should come back with a rebenchmarked abstract, a clear fitted-versus-predicted statement, and sensitivity tests on the tail predictions.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the stochastic mean-field (SMF) quantal diffusion approach, combined with TDHF mean-field evolution and GEMINI++ statistical de-excitation, to the 238U + 248Cm reaction at Ec.m. = 898.7 MeV. It computes primary and secondary isotope production cross-sections for Z >= 98 (Cf through Db), compares the secondary yields for Z = 98-101 with the measured data of Kratz et al., and predicts that neutron-rich isotopes up to Z = 101 are produced with sizable cross-sections while Z = 102-105 remain below the microbarn level. The central claim is that the SMF approach 'explains' the available experimental results and is a predictive, essentially parameter-free microscopic tool for multi-nucleon transfer.

Significance. If the central claim held, this would be a valuable validation of the SMF quantal diffusion method for actinide multi-nucleon transfer, with concrete predictions for unexplored transuranium isotopes. The calculation is not fitted to the benchmark data, so the comparison is a genuine out-of-sample test; the inclusion of neutron-proton correlations and the detailed four-orientation TDHF tables are strengths. However, the agreement with the measured cross-sections is only order-of-magnitude (factor 3-10, with shifted peak mass numbers), and the predicted sub-microbarn ceiling for Z = 102-105 rests on curvature parameters extracted from manually chosen time windows, with no sensitivity analysis. These issues do not invalidate the method but do undermine the overstrong 'explains' claim and the robustness of the prediction.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III, Table IV] The comparison in Table IV shows only order-of-magnitude agreement, not the 'explain' stated in the Abstract and Sec. IV: for Z=98 the secondary peak is at A=250 with 0.60 mb vs measured A=251 with 1.87 mb; for Z=100 the secondary peak is 0.02 mb vs 0.002 mb, a factor of 10. Please rephrase the claim to 'reproduced within a factor of roughly 3-10' and discuss possible sources of the peak shift (e.g., GEMINI++ decay treatment, equal-weight orientation averaging).
[Sec. II.C, Eqs. (14)-(15), Table I] The reduced curvature parameters alpha and beta, which control the drift and hence the correlated Gaussian variances in Eqs. (4)-(6), are extracted from manually selected time windows tA and tB, and alpha is borrowed from the surrogate system 250U + 236Cm. The Z=102-105 predictions are tail values of this correlated Gaussian and are highly sensitive to these parameters, yet no sensitivity analysis is provided with respect to the window choice, the surrogate alpha, or the effective temperature T*. Without such an analysis, the sub-microbarn ceiling conclusion is not robust.
[Sec. II.A, Eqs. (12)-(13)] As printed, Eq. (12) includes an explicit (2*ell+1) factor in the definition of Psec_ell, and Eq. (13) multiplies Psec_ell by (2*ell+1) again, double-counting the angular momentum weight. This makes the normalization of the secondary cross-section inconsistent; please clarify the intended definitions, since the absolute cross-section values in Table IV depend on this factor.
[Sec. IV and Abstract] The claim that the SMF theory 'does not contain any adjustable parameters' is not supported: the extraction of alpha and beta involves manual selection of the time intervals tA and tB (Table I), and the Einstein relations in Eqs. (11) introduce an effective temperature T* whose value is not given. At minimum, the time-window choices should be identified as tunable inputs, or a sensitivity study should demonstrate that the results are insensitive to them.

minor comments (5)

[Eqs. (2)-(3)] The notation alternates between 'C_l' and 'C_ell'; please use a single symbol, and ensure the subscript is typeset consistently.
[Table II] The ell=360 rows for XX and XY list A2f values (257.1 and 284.7) that are inconsistent with mass conservation; these are likely typos.
[Fig. 10 caption] The caption contains a garbled string '/uni00000014/...' that appears to be a font or encoding artifact; please replace it with the proper caption text.
[Sec. I] The phrase 'closed to the neutron and proton drip lines' should read 'close to the neutron and proton drip lines'.
[Sec. III] The statement that 'The SMF results are consistent with the experimental values in terms of magnitude and peak points' is contradicted by Table IV, where the secondary peak mass numbers differ from the measured ones for Z=98-101.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross-section predictions are computed forward from TDHF/SMF transport coefficients and compared with independent experimental data; the curvature-parameter extraction is an approximation, not a fit to the predicted benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. TDHF supplies the mean drift paths, diffusion coefficients, and final fragment means; the SMF variance equations (4)-(6) are integrated using drift-derivative terms obtained from a parabolic potential energy surface whose reduced curvatures α and β are estimated from the TDHF drift paths via Eqs. (14)-(15) and Table I. The resulting correlated Gaussian (Eqs. 2-3) yields primary cross sections, and GEMINI++ converts these to secondary cross sections. No parameter is fitted to the experimental data of Kratz et al.; the comparison with those data is an external benchmark. The paper explicitly acknowledges that merging the 250U+236Cm drift data with the 238U+248Cm drift data gives only 'a rough description' of the potential energy surface, and the manual selection of the time intervals tA and tB is a modeling choice. These are legitimate robustness and sensitivity concerns, but they do not make any claimed prediction equivalent to an input by construction. The self-citations to earlier SMF work provide the previously published framework and are not used to forbid alternatives or to substitute for the present calculation. Therefore no circular step can be identified and exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a set of transport assumptions (Gaussian distributions, parabolic potential, linearized Langevin equations) inherited from prior SMF papers, plus two reaction-specific curvature parameters that are extracted from the model's own drift paths. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Isovector curvature parameter α (reduced) = 0.177 (XX), 0.108 (XY), 0.177 (YX), 0.120 (YY)
Extracted from the 250U+236Cm drift path by averaging over manually chosen time intervals tA and tB (Table I); controls the isovector restoring force in the parabolic potential of Eq. (10).
Isoscalar curvature parameter β (reduced) = 0.004 (XX), 0.004 (XY), 0.010 (YX), 0.004 (YY)
Extracted from the 238U+248Cm drift path similarly (Table I); controls isoscalar drift along the beta-stability valley.
Time windows tA and tB = e.g., XX: 330-600 fm/c for β; 140-300 fm/c for α (Table I)
Chosen by visual inspection of the drift path plots (Figs. 3-6); the resulting α and β depend on these intervals.
Effective temperature T* = not stated
Entered via the Einstein relations (Eq. 11); absorbed into the reduced curvatures α and β, but its value is not specified, making the potential scale ambiguous.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The fragment probability distribution is a correlated Gaussian (Eq. 2) with mean values from TDHF and variances from the Fokker-Planck equations.
Standard macroscopic transport approximation; assumed without derivation in Sec. II.A.
domain assumption Drift coefficients are linked to a two-parabola potential energy surface via Einstein relations (Eqs. 10-11) with constant curvatures.
The potential is not computed microscopically; the parabolic form and constant α, β are assumed in Sec. II.C.
ad hoc to paper The isovector curvature of 238U+248Cm is represented by the neighboring 250U+236Cm system.
Used in Sec. II.C because the actual system does not drift sufficiently perpendicular to the isoscalar path; the transferability of curvature is assumed.
domain assumption Diffusion coefficients are computed in the diabatic closure limit using occupied TDHF single-particle states only (Eq. 9 and Ref. [34]).
Borrowed from prior work; the closure approximation eliminates particle states, which is an uncontrolled approximation.
domain assumption Small-amplitude fluctuations and linearized Langevin equations (Eq. 7) describe the transfer dynamics.
Assumed in Sec. II.B; neglects large fluctuations and memory beyond the autocorrelation integration.
ad hoc to paper The four collision geometries (XX, XY, YX, YY) are averaged with equal weight 1/4.
Stated in Sec. III around Fig. 9; no justification for equal probabilities of tip-tip, tip-side, side-tip, side-side orientations.
domain assumption The SLy4d Skyrme energy density functional is the correct underlying interaction.
Standard choice for TDHF; its accuracy for superheavy actinides is not established within the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron-rich isotope production for $Z\geq 98$ in ${}^{238} \mathrm{U}+{ }^{248} \mathrm{Cm}$ reaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOS43EM4

@misc{pith2026241110846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron-rich isotope production for $Z\geq 98$ in $^238 \mathrmU+ ^248 \mathrmCm$ reaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOS43EM4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10846}
}

abstract

Background: Multi-nucleon transfer (MNT) reactions in actinide systems are a promising method to synthesize transuranium neutron-rich elements. Appropriate theoretical approaches are needed to understand the mechanism behind MNT. Purpose: This work aims to produce neutron-rich isotopes in the super-heavy region through the ${}^{238} \mathrm{U}+{ }^{248} \mathrm{Cm}$ system. We employ a microscopic approach to elucidate reaction mechanisms, and predict new isotope production that expands the known nuclear chart. Methods: The stochastic mean-field (SMF) approach, including fluctuations and correlations, is used to explain the primary cross-sections in MNT reactions based on the quasi-fission and inverse quasi-fission processes, and a statistical de-excitation model with GEMINI++ code to calculate the secondary fragment cross-sections Results: The calculated cross-sections using SMF and GEMINI++ explain available experimental results for the ${}^{238} \mathrm{U}+{ }^{248} \mathrm{Cm}$ system at $E_\mathrm{c.m.}=898.7$~MeV energy. This shows the effectiveness and applicability of the quantal diffusion approach based on the SMF theory in heavy-ion collisions. Conclusions: Production of transuranium neutron-rich elements with a proton number up to $Z=$101 are obtained with sizable cross-sections. Theoretical results calculated for the Z=102-105 region, for which there are no experimental data, show that the cross-section values would be lower than the microbarn level. SMF theory does not contain any adjustable parameters other than the standard parameters of the energy density functional used in the TDHF theory and is an important approach for the microscopic understanding of reaction mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10846 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Snapshots of density profiles in the collisions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Mean drift path in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Mean values of neutron and proton numbers of U -like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mean drift path in N-Z plane for the projectile-like frag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Neutron, proton, and mixed variances as a function of time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Primary production cross sections in the N-Z plane for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Production cross sections of transuranium isotopes in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Calculated total production cross sections of secondary iso [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. SMF+GEMINI++ calculations of total production cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

[1]

G. G. Adamian, N. V . Antonenko, A. Diaz-Torres, and S. Heinz, How to extend the chart of nuclides?, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 47 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

Münzenberg, M

G. Münzenberg, M. Gupta, H. M. Devaraja, Y . K. Gambhir, S. Heinz, and S. Hofmann, Heavy and superheavy elements: next generation experiments, ideas and considerations, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 21 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

Niwase, Y

T. Niwase, Y . X. Watanabe, Y . Hirayama, M. Mukai, P. Schury, A. N. Andreyev, T. Hashimoto, S. Iimura, H. Ishiyama, Y . Ito, S. C. Jeong, D. Kaji, S. Kimura, H. Miyatake, K. Morimoto, J.-Y . Moon, M. Oyaizu, M. Rosenbusch, A. Taniguchi, and M. Wada, Discovery of New Isotope241U and Systematic High- Precision Atomic Mass Measurements of Neutron-Rich Pa-Pu...

work page 2023
[4]

Valery Zagrebaev and Walter Greiner, New way for the produc- tion of heavy neutron-rich nuclei, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35, 125103 (2008)

work page 2008
[5]

Valery Zagrebaev and Walter Greiner, Production of New Heavy Isotopes in Low–Energy Multinucleon Transfer Reac- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 122701 (2008)

work page 2008
[6]

V . I. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Production of heavy and super- heavy neutron-rich nuclei in transfer reactions, Phys. Rev. C83, 044618 (2011). 10

work page 2011
[7]

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

work page 2017
[8]

V . V . Saiko and A. V . Karpov, Analysis of multinucleon transfer reactions with spherical and statically deformed nuclei using a Langevin-type approach, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014613 (2019)

work page 2019

Show all 64 references

[9]

Saiko and A

V . Saiko and A. Karpov, Multinucleon transfer as a method for production of new heavy neutron-enriched isotopes of transura- nium elements, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 41 (2022)

2022
[10]

Feng, G.-M

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

2009
[11]

Feng, Production of neutron–rich isotopes around N = 126 in multinucleon transfer reactions, Phys

Z.-Q. Feng, Production of neutron–rich isotopes around N = 126 in multinucleon transfer reactions, Phys. Rev. C95, 024615 (2017)

2017
[12]

K. Zhao, X. Wu, and Z. Li, Quantum molecular dynamics study of the mass distribution of products in 7 .0A MeV 238U + 238U collisions, Phys. Rev. C 80, 054607 (2009)

2009
[13]

K. Zhao, Z. Li, Y . Zhang, N. Wang, Q. Li, C. Shen, Y . Wang, and X. Wu, Production of unknown neutron–rich isotopes in 238U + 238U collisions at near–barrier energy, Phys. Rev. C 94, 024601 (2016)

2016
[14]

Wang and L

N. Wang and L. Guo, New neutron-rich isotope production in 154Sm + 160Gd, Phys. Lett. B 760, 236 (2016)

2016
[15]

Simenel, Nuclear quantum many-body dynamics, Eur

C. Simenel, Nuclear quantum many-body dynamics, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 152 (2012)

2012
[16]

Simenel and A

C. Simenel and A. S. Umar, Heavy-ion collisions and fission dynamics with the time–dependent Hartree-Fock theory and its extensions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 103, 19 (2018)

2018
[17]

Nakatsukasa, K

T. Nakatsukasa, K. Matsuyanagi, M. Matsuo, and K. Yabana, Time-dependent density-functional description of nuclear dy- namics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 045004 (2016)

2016
[18]

V . E. Oberacker, A. S. Umar, and C. Simenel, Dissipative dy- namics in quasifission, Phys. Rev. C 90, 054605 (2014)

2014
[19]

A. S. Umar, V . E. Oberacker, and C. Simenel, Shape evolution and collective dynamics of quasifission in the time-dependent Hartree-Fock approach, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024621 (2015)

2015
[20]

A. S. Umar and V . E. Oberacker, Time-dependent HF approach to SHE dynamics, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 238 (2015)

2015
[21]

A. S. Umar, C. Simenel, and W. Ye, Transport properties of isospin asymmetric nuclear matter using the time-dependent Hartree–Fock method, Phys. Rev. C 96, 024625 (2017)

2017
[22]

Simenel, Particle Transfer Reactions with the Time- Dependent Hartree-Fock Theory Using a Particle Number Pro- jection Technique, Phys

C. Simenel, Particle Transfer Reactions with the Time- Dependent Hartree-Fock Theory Using a Particle Number Pro- jection Technique, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 192701 (2010)

2010
[23]

Sekizawa and K

K. Sekizawa and K. Yabana, Time-dependent Hartree-Fock cal- culations for multinucleon transfer and quasifission processes in the 64Ni + 238U reaction, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054616 (2016)

2016
[24]

Godbey, A

K. Godbey, A. S. Umar, and C. Simenel, Deformed shell ef- fects in 48Ca + 249Bk quasifission fragments, Phys. Rev. C100, 024610 (2019)

2019
[25]

Simenel, K

C. Simenel, K. Godbey, and A. S. Umar, Timescales of Quan- tum Equilibration, Dissipation and Fluctuation in Nuclear Col- lisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 212504 (2020)

2020
[26]

Balian and M

R. Balian and M. Vénéroni, Time-dependent variational prin- ciple for the expectation value of an observable: Mean-field applications, Ann. Phys. (NY) 164, 334 (1985)

1985
[27]

Balian and M

R. Balian and M. Vénéroni, Correlations and fluctuations in static and dynamic mean-field approaches, Ann. Phys.216, 351 (1992)

1992
[28]

Simenel, Particle-Number Fluctuations and Correlations in Transfer Reactions Obtained Using the Balian-Vénéroni Varia- tional Principle, Phys

C. Simenel, Particle-Number Fluctuations and Correlations in Transfer Reactions Obtained Using the Balian-Vénéroni Varia- tional Principle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 112502 (2011)

2011
[29]

Williams, K

E. Williams, K. Sekizawa, D. J. Hinde, C. Simenel, M. Das- gupta, I. P. Carter, K. J. Cook, D. Y . Jeung, S. D. Mc- Neil, C. S. Palshetkar, D. C. Rafferty, K. Ramachandran, and A. Wakhle, Exploring Zeptosecond Quantum Equilibration Dy- namics: From Deep-Inelastic to Fusion-Fis...

2018
[30]

Godbey and A

K. Godbey and A. S. Umar, Quasifission Dynamics in Micro- scopic Theories, Front. Phys. 8, 40 (2020)

2020
[31]

Godbey, C

K. Godbey, C. Simenel, and A. S. Umar, Microscopic predic- tions for the production of neutron-rich nuclei in the reaction 176Yb + 176Yb, Phys. Rev. C 101, 034602 (2020)

2020
[32]

Ayik, A stochastic mean-field approach for nuclear dynam- ics, Phys

S. Ayik, A stochastic mean-field approach for nuclear dynam- ics, Phys. Lett. B 658, 174 (2008)

2008
[33]

Lacroix and S

D. Lacroix and S. Ayik, Stochastic quantum dynamics beyond mean field, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 95 (2014)

2014
[34]

S. Ayik, B. Yilmaz, O. Yilmaz, and A. S. Umar, Quantal dif- fusion description of multinucleon transfers in heavy–ion colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C 97, 054618 (2018)

2018
[35]

S. Ayik, B. Yilmaz, O. Yilmaz, and A. S. Umar, Quantal diffu- sion approach for multinucleon transfers in Xe + Pb collisions, Phys. Rev. C 100, 014609 (2019)

2019
[36]

Sekizawa and S

K. Sekizawa and S. Ayik, Quantal diffusion approach for multi- nucleon transfer processes in the 58,64Ni +208 Pb reactions: To- ward the production of unknown neutron-rich nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 102, 014620 (2020)

2020
[37]

Yilmaz, G

O. Yilmaz, G. Turan, and B. Yilmaz, Quasi-fission and fusion- fission reactions in 48Ca + 208Pb collisions at Ec.m. = 190 MeV, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 37 (2020)

2020
[38]

S. Ayik, B. Yilmaz, O. Yilmaz, and A. S. Umar, Merging of transport theory with the time-dependent Hartree-Fock ap- proach: Multinucleon transfer in U+U collisions, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024619 (2020)

2020
[39]

S. Ayik, M. Arik, E. C. Karanfil, O. Yilmaz, B. Yilmaz, and A. S. Umar, Quantal diffusion description of isotope produc- tion via the multinucleon transfer mechanism in 48Ca +238 U collisions, Phys. Rev. C 104, 054614 (2021)

2021
[40]

S. Ayik, M. Arik, O. Yilmaz, B. Yilmaz, and A. S. Umar, Mult- inucleon transfer mechanism in 250Cf +232 Th collisions using the quantal transport description based on the stochastic mean- field approach, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014609 (2023)

2023
[41]

S. Ayik, M. Arik, E. Erbayri, O. Yilmaz, and A. S. Umar, Multinucleon transfer mechanism in160Gd+186 W collisions in stochastic mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. C108, 054605 (2023)

2023
[42]

E., Yaprakli, B., Arik, M., Ayik, S., Yil- maz, O., and Umar, A

Kayaalp, A., Ocal, S. E., Yaprakli, B., Arik, M., Ayik, S., Yil- maz, O., and Umar, A. S., A theoretical study on quasifission and fusion–fission processes in heavy-ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 79 (2024)

2024
[43]

J. V . Kratz, M. Schädel, and H. W. Gäggeler, Reexamining the heavy-ion reactions 238U+238U and 238U+248Cm and actinide production close to the barrier, Phys. Rev. C88, 054615 (2013)

2013
[44]

Schädel, W

M. Schädel, W. Brüchle, H. Gäggeler, J. V . Kratz, K. Sümmerer, G. Wirth, G. Herrmann, R. Stakemann, G. Tittel, N. Trautmann, J. M. Nitschke, E. K. Hulet, R. W. Lougheed, R. L. Hahn, and R. L. Ferguson, Actinide Production in Collisions of 238U with 248Cm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48,...

1982
[45]

J. V . Kratz, W. Loveland, and K. J. Moody, Syntheses of transuranium isotopes with atomic numbers Z ≤ 103 in multi- nucleon transfer reactions, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 117 (2015)

2015
[46]

Peng and Z.-Q

C. Peng and Z.-Q. Feng, Production of neutron-rich heavy nu- clei around N = 162 in multinucleon transfer reactions, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 162 (2022)

2022
[47]

T. L. Zhao, X. J. Bao, and H. F. Zhang, Exploring the optimal way to produce Z=100-106 neutron-rich nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024602 (2023). 11

2023
[48]

Hannes Risken and Till Frank, The Fokker–Planck Equation (Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1996)

1996
[49]

W. U. Schröder, J. R. Huizenga, and J. Randrup, Correlated mass and charge transport induced by statistical nucleon ex- change in damped nuclear reactions, Phys. Lett. B 98, 355 (1981)

1981
[50]

A. C. Merchant and W. Nörenberg, Neutron and proton diffu- sion in heavy–ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 104, 15 (1981)

1981
[51]

C. W. Gardiner, Quantum Noise (Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1991)

1991
[52]

Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems, 2nd ed

U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems, 2nd ed. (World Scien- tific, Singapore, 1999)

1999
[53]

Nörenberg, Memory effects in the energy dissipation for slow collective nuclear motion, Phys

W. Nörenberg, Memory effects in the energy dissipation for slow collective nuclear motion, Phys. Lett. B 104, 107 (1981)

1981
[54]

Randrup, Theory of transfer-induced transport in nuclear col- lisions, Nucl

J. Randrup, Theory of transfer-induced transport in nuclear col- lisions, Nucl. Phys. A 327, 490 (1979)

1979
[55]

A. C. Merchant and W. Nörenberg, Microscopic transport the- ory of heavy-ion collisions, Z. Phys. A 308, 315 (1982)

1982
[56]

Charity, GEMINI: A code to simulate the decay of a com- pound nucleus by a series of binary decays , Tech

R. Charity, GEMINI: A code to simulate the decay of a com- pound nucleus by a series of binary decays , Tech. Rep. (Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2008) INDC(NDS)– 0530

2008
[57]

Hauser and H

W. Hauser and H. Feshbach, The Inelastic Scattering of Neu- trons, Phys. Rev. 87, 366 (1952)

1952
[58]

L. G. Moretto, Statistical emission of large fragments: A gen- eral theoretical approach, Nucl. Phys. A 247, 211 (1975)

1975
[59]

L. G. Moretto and G. J. Wozniak, The role of the compound nucleus in complex fragment emission at low and intermediate energies, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 21, 401 (1988)

1988
[60]

J. M. Blatt and V . F. Weisskopf, Theoretical Nuclear Physics (Springer New York, NY , 1979)

1979
[61]

Kedziora and Cédric Simenel, New inverse quasifis- sion mechanism to produce neutron-rich transfermium nuclei, Phys

David J. Kedziora and Cédric Simenel, New inverse quasifis- sion mechanism to produce neutron-rich transfermium nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 81, 044613 (2010)

2010
[62]

A. S. Umar, M. R. Strayer, J. S. Wu, D. J. Dean, and M. C. Güçlü, Nuclear Hartree-Fock calculations with splines, Phys. Rev. C 44, 2512 (1991)

1991
[63]

A. S. Umar and V . E. Oberacker, Three-dimensional unre- stricted time-dependent Hartree-Fock fusion calculations using the full Skyrme interaction, Phys. Rev. C 73, 054607 (2006)

2006
[64]

Ka–Hae Kim, Takaharu Otsuka, and Paul Bonche, Three- dimensional TDHF calculations for reactions of unstable nu- clei, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 23, 1267 (1997)

1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

G. G. Adamian, N. V . Antonenko, A. Diaz-Torres, and S. Heinz, How to extend the chart of nuclides?, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 47 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Münzenberg, M

G. Münzenberg, M. Gupta, H. M. Devaraja, Y . K. Gambhir, S. Heinz, and S. Hofmann, Heavy and superheavy elements: next generation experiments, ideas and considerations, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 21 (2023)

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Niwase, Y

T. Niwase, Y . X. Watanabe, Y . Hirayama, M. Mukai, P. Schury, A. N. Andreyev, T. Hashimoto, S. Iimura, H. Ishiyama, Y . Ito, S. C. Jeong, D. Kaji, S. Kimura, H. Miyatake, K. Morimoto, J.-Y . Moon, M. Oyaizu, M. Rosenbusch, A. Taniguchi, and M. Wada, Discovery of New Isotope241U and Systematic High- Precision Atomic Mass Measurements of Neutron-Rich Pa-Pu...

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Valery Zagrebaev and Walter Greiner, New way for the produc- tion of heavy neutron-rich nuclei, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35, 125103 (2008)

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Valery Zagrebaev and Walter Greiner, Production of New Heavy Isotopes in Low–Energy Multinucleon Transfer Reac- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 122701 (2008)

work page 2008

[6] [6]

V . I. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Production of heavy and super- heavy neutron-rich nuclei in transfer reactions, Phys. Rev. C83, 044618 (2011). 10

work page 2011

[7] [7]

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

work page 2017

[8] [8]

V . V . Saiko and A. V . Karpov, Analysis of multinucleon transfer reactions with spherical and statically deformed nuclei using a Langevin-type approach, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014613 (2019)

work page 2019