https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20158600057
Fusion Hindrance and Quadrupole Collectivity in Collisions of A≃50 Nuclei: The Case of 48Ti + 58Fe
1 NFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, I-35020 Legnaro (Padova), Italy
2 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Padova, and INFN, Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy
3 IPHC, CNRS-IN2P3, Université de Strasbourg, F-67037 Strasbourg Cedex 2, France
4 CSNSM, CNRS/IN2P3 and Université Paris-Sud, F-91405 Orsay Campus, France
5 Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, PL 31-342 Cracow, Poland
6 Ruđer Bošković Institute, HR-10002 Zagreb, Croatia
a e-mail: alberto.stefanini@lnl.infn.it
Published online: 29 January 2015
The fusion excitation function of 48Ti + 58Fe has been measured in a wide energy range around the Coulomb barrier, covering 6 orders of magnitude of the cross sections. We present here the preliminary results of this experiment, and a full comparison with the near-by system 58Ni + 54Fe where evidence of fusion hindrance shows up at relatively high cross sections. The sub-barrier cross sections of 48Ti + 58Fe are much larger than those of 58Ni + 54Fe. Significant differences are also observed in the logarithmic derivatives, astro-physical S-factors and fusion barrier distributions. The influence of low-energy nuclear structure on all these trends is pointed out and commented. Coupled-channels calculations using a Woods-Saxon potential are able to reproduce the experimental results for 48Ti + 58Fe. The logarithmic derivative of the excitation function is very nicely fit, and no evidence of hindrance is observed down to around 1 μb. The fusion barrier distribution is rather wide, flat and structureless. It is only in qualitative agreement with the calculated distribution.
© Owned by the authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2014
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.