Alpha particle preformation probabilities (Pα ) of

odd-even SHN

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Submitted By:
Princepal Singh
27711980870

Submitted To:
Dr. Harjeet Kaur
Department of Physics
Guru Nanak Dev University
Amritsar, Punjab

June, 2024

GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

AMRITSAR, PUNJAB
 CONTENTS

0.1 Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
0.2 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Alpha decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.2 Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Preformation probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.2 Theoretical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Spin parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Alpha Q values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.2 Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2 Theoretical framework 13
2.0.1 Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.0.2 Coulomb Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.0.3 Nuclear Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.0.4 α-decay half-life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3 Observations 18
3.1 Table for super Heavy Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2 Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 22

2
0.1 Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my mentor, Dr. Harjeet Kaur, for their
guidance and support throughout this project. She was always available to answer my
questions and provide me with feedback. I am grateful for her patience and encourage-
ment.
I am grateful to Mr. Shubham Bharmoria for their valuable suggestions and sup-
port at different stages of my project work.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their love and support. They
encouraged me to pursue my goals and to never give up. I could not have completed
this project without them.
Princepal Singh
27711980870

3
0.2 Abstract
This study focuses on accurately calculating the preformation probability ’P’ of odd-
even super heavy nuclei through the examination of alpha decay. Skyrme force model
has been used to calculate these preformation probabilities. Pα ’s has been calculated in
the view of shell closure, such that the assault frequency να of alpha particle directly
depends on the neighboring proton and neutron magic numbers in the form of global
quantum number (G). We used Q(MeV) values, spin parity jπ , and T1/2 (sec) to evaluate
the preformation probabilities of odd-even super heavy nuclei. 287 Mc has the highest
value of Pα which is 0.30015. And 261 Bh has the lowest Pα = 0.00381

4
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Alpha decay

Alpha decay is a type of radioactive decay in which an atomic nucleus emits an alpha
particle (helium nucleus) and thereby transforms or "decays" into a different atomic
nucleus, with a mass number that is reduced by four and an atomic number that is
reduced by two. An alpha particle is identical to the nucleus of a helium-4 atom, which
consists of two protons and two neutrons. It has a charge of +2 e and a mass of 4 Da.
While alpha particles have a charge +2 e, this is not usually shown because a nuclear
equation describes a nuclear reaction without considering the electrons – a convention
that does not imply that the nuclei necessarily occur in neutral atoms. As an illustration,
polonium-210, with a mass number of 210 and atomic number of 84, undergoes alpha
decay, transforming into lead-206 with an atomic number of 82 as in Fig. 1.4.
The velocity and consequently the energy of the alpha particle emitted from a spe-
cific nucleus are intrinsic to the parent nucleus, defining the characteristic range or dis-
tance the alpha particle traverses. Despite being ejected at speeds approximately one-
tenth that of light, alpha particles lack significant penetrating power. Their air ranges
are limited to a few centimeters, corresponding to an energy range of approximately 4
million to 10 million electron volts.
Alpha emitters primarily manifest among elements surpassing bismuth having atomic
number
83 and within the rare-earth elements spanning from neodymium having atomic number
60 to lutetium having atomic number 71.
The half-lives associated with alpha decay span a considerable range, extending
from approximately a microsecond 10−6 seconds to well over 3 billion years, reaching
around 1017 seconds.

1.1.1 History
Alpha particles were first described in the investigations of radioactivity by Ernest
Rutherford in 1899, and by 1907 they were identified as He2+ ions. By 1928, George
Gamow had solved the theory of alpha decay via tunneling. The alpha particle is trapped

5
 Figure 1.1: Alpha - deacy of Po210

inside the nucleus by an attractive nuclear potential well and a repulsive electromagnetic
potential barrier. Classically, it is forbidden to escape, but according to the (then) newly
discovered principles of quantum mechanics, it has a tiny (but non-zero) probability of
"tunneling" through the barrier and appearing on the other side to escape the nucleus.
Gamow solved a model potential for the nucleus and derived, from first principles, a
relationship between the half-life of the decay, and the energy of the emission, which
had been previously discovered empirically and was known as the Geiger–Nuttall law.

1.1.2 Mechanism
The nuclear force holding an atomic nucleus together is very strong, in general much
stronger than the repulsive electromagnetic forces between the protons. However, the
nuclear force is also short-range, dropping quickly in strength beyond about 3 femtome-
ters, while the electromagnetic force has an unlimited range. The strength of the attrac-
tive nuclear force keeping a nucleus together is thus proportional to the number of the
nucleons, but the total disruptive electromagnetic force of proton-proton repulsion try-
ing to break the nucleus apart is roughly proportional to the square of its atomic number.
A nucleus with 210 or more nucleons is so large that the strong nuclear force holding it
together can just barely counterbalance the electromagnetic repulsion between the pro-
tons it contains. Alpha decay occurs in such nuclei as a means of increasing stability by
reducing size..
In instances where a nucleus houses 210 or more nucleons, its size becomes so
considerable that the robust nuclear force barely manages to counteract the electro-
magnetic repulsion among the contained protons. To enhance stability and reduce size,
such nuclei undergo alpha decay. This process serves as a mechanism to achieve a more
balanced and stable nuclear configuration.
The inquiry arises as to why alpha particles, specifically helium nuclei, exhibit a
preferential emission compared to alternative particles such as a lone proton, neutron,
or various atomic nuclei. A significant contributing factor lies in the elevated binding

6
energy of the alpha particle. This characteristic implies that its mass is lesser than the
cumulative mass of two independent protons and two independent neutrons. Conse-
quently, this augmentation in binding energy amplifies the disintegration energy. The
computation of the total disintegration energy is derived from the following equation:

ED = (mI − mF − mP )c2 (1.1)

where mI is the initial mass of the nucleus, mF is the mass of the nucleus after
particle emission, and mP is the mass of the emitted alpha-particle
For example Uranium − 232 undergoes a process called alpha particle emission, it
releases 5.4 million electron volts (MeV) of energy. If it were to emit a single proton in-
stead, it would need 6.1 MeV. Most of the energy released during this process becomes
the movement energy of the alpha particle. However, to obey the law of conservation of
momentum, a small part of the energy goes into the recoil of the nucleus itself (a phe-
nomenon known as atomic recoil).Although the mass numbers of many alpha-emitting
radioisotopes are greater than 210 (much larger than the alpha particle’s mass, which
is 4), only a tiny fraction, less than 2 percent of the energy is used for the recoil of the
nucleus. Even though this recoil energy is on the scale of kilo-electron volts (keV),
which is much larger than the strength of chemical bonds (measured in electron volts,
eV), it’s still relatively small.
This recoil energy is significant enough to cause the daughter nuclide (the resulting
particle) to break away from the chemical environment of the parent nuclide. Scientists
can study the energies and ratios of the alpha particles released during this process to
identify the radioactive parent using a technique called alpha spectrometry.

1.2 Preformation probability

1.2.1 Introduction
Since Gamow and Condon et al successfully explained the α decay of unstable nuclei
as a kind of quantum-tunneling effect in 1928, a number of models have subsequently
been developed to calculate the absolute half-lives, and achieved satisfactory results
to varying degrees . Within Gamow’s model the α particle is assumed to preform in
the parent nucleus before the tunneling occurs, thus an α preformation factor has to
be introduced intoα decay theories. And the determination of the exact value of the
preformation factor is an indispensable problem for improving the accuracy of theo-

7
retical calculations . On the other hand, this preformation factor, which represents the
probability of the existence of α clusters in the parent nucleus before the emission, is
considered to carry most of the valuable information about nuclear structure, especially
about the dynamic states of nucleons around the nuclear surface . It was revealed in
some recent studies that the behavior of the preformation factor is associated with the
nuclear deformation and level sequences, and can be used to predict the nuclear spin .

1.2.2 Theoretical models

For the past few years, most theoretical model have been devoted to the calculation
ofα decay half-lives, but few of them have been focused on a systematic evaluation of
the preformation probability. In the cluster model, α preformation probability (Pα)
is usually treated as a constant, which varies with different types of parent nuclei
(even–even/odd–A/odd–odd). This simple treatment is based on the fact that Pα varies
smoothly in the open shell region. Therefore the Pα of different nuclei are not eval-
uated individually, so that this rough assumption inevitably leads to less satisfactory
predictions of half-lives around the shell closure where shell effects are strongly promi-
nent . In principle, the preformation factor can be calculated from the overlap between
the actual wavefunction of the parent nucleus and the wavefunction of the decaying
state describing the α-core system. However, a purely microscopic calculation of Pα
is extremely difficult because of the complexity of the nuclear many-body problem and
the uncertainty of nuclear potential. One should include very large bases and mas-
sive configuration mixing to access the actual wavefunction, which becomes even more
sophisticated when more nucleons relevant to the preformation are considered. Thus
most works focused on a typical nucleus 212Po which has two protons and two neu-
trons outside the double magic shell closure, making the model easier to construct .In
the milestone work by Varga and his co-workers, the preformation probability of 212Po
was successfully calculated in a microscopic way together with good reproduction of
experimental half-life
Their model, namely the cluster-configuration shell model or hybrid model, which
is based on the R-matrix theory, is characterized by combining shell-model and cluster-
model components in the wavefunction of the parent nucleus. The Pα given by their
work is 0.23, which is considered to be reliable because it can consistently reproduce
the experimental half-life. From another point of view, the α preformation probability
can also be described by a fragmentation-like or fission-like process. The preformed-
cluster model (PCM), usually used to study cluster radioactivity, can also be applied to
calculating the α preformation probability . In PCM the preformation factor is defined

8
as the probability of finding a fragmentation with mass number A = 4 and a fixed
charge Z = 2 at position R, and the wavefunction is obtained by solving the Schrödinger
equation of dynamic flow of mass and charge. In addition, Greiner et al pointed out that
the cluster preformation probability can also be calculated as the penetrability of the
inner part of the barrier in the analytical superasymmetry fission model (ASAFM). In
these models the preformation factor is defined somewhat differently as compared to
the microscopic one, since what we care about most is the amount of α clustering in
the actual wavefunction of the parent nucleus, regardless of whether the decay occurs.
In fact, there are other promising models aiming to provide a precise microscopic
description of the α decay as well as the preformation mechanism . Perhaps, as the
theoretical models and techniques improve, an ideal way to evaluate Pα may be that
the Pα can be microscopically calculated within the α-decay model, which at the same
time can reproduce correct half-lives.

1.3 Spin parity

1.3.1 Introduction
The ground state spin and parity of a daughter formed in a radioactive α emitter are
expected to influence the preformation probability of the α and daughter clusters inside
it. To investigate the α and daughter preformation probability inside odd-A and doubly
odd radioactive nuclei when the daughter and parent are of different spin and/or parity
consider only the ground state to ground state unfavored decays. This is to extract
precise information about the effect of the difference in the spin-parity of the ground
states of the involved nuclei far away from any influence from the excitation energy, if
the decays are coming from isomeric states.
However, there are many confirmed factors which affect the α-cluster preformation
probability. One of these factors is the deformation of the daughter that is formed in
addition to the α cluster in the decaying nucleus, just before the decay process. The ef-
fect of the daughter deformation is found to decrease the preformation probability. The
second affecting factor is the isospin asymmetry of the parent nucleus . It is clarified
that the preformation probability increases with increasing isospin asymmetry of.the
α emitters, if they have valence protons and neutrons but not holes. In the case of
neutron or proton holes coexisting with the valence holes, the preformation probabil-
ity decreases upon increasing the isospin asymmetry. The preformation probability is
shown to exhibit individual linear behaviors as a function of the isospin asymmetry pa-
rameter multiplied by the valence proton and neutron numbers. The linear behaviors

9
obtained are correlated with the shell closures in the parent nuclei . Also, the existence
of unpaired nucleons in the open shells of a parent nucleus influences the preformation
process.
Concerning the unfavored decay process, one of the major consequences of the dif-
ference between the ground state spin-parity of parent and daughter is the angular mo-
mentum carried away by the emitted α particle. Indeed, the general trend of increasing
the half-life time for such unfavored α decays due to the angular momentum transferred
by the emitted α particle is considered in several studies.
The momentum of the emitted α particle increases the assault frequency where it
decreases the width of the internal pocket of the interaction potential, shifting its lowest
point up. Conversely but more effectively, it reduces the penetration probability because
it produces a higher Coulomb barrier with a larger barrier width. The net effect appears
as hindrance in the decay width. Consequently, the half-life increases substantially for
the unfavored decays. Most importantly, we found that for a parent with a given ground
state spin-parity, the probability of forming an α cluster and a daughter nucleus with
different ground state spin and/or parity is less than if the daughter nucleus has the
same spin and parity of parent. The formula relating the α preformation probability
to the numbers of protons and neutrons outside the closed shells in the parent nuclei
is modified to take account of the hindrance in the preformation probability associated
with the unfavored.

1.4 Alpha Q values

1.4.1 Introduction
Alpha decay process is always indispensable for studying the nuclear structure because
it is the most distinguishable than other radioactive processes due to the simplicity of
alpha-particles observation, and it is a spontaneous process among those used to deeply
probe the nuclear structure. The Q-value and the decay constant are the most impor-
tant quantities in this process. The Q-value is simply obtained from the mass defect,
the decay constant is experimentally measured, and both are theoretically calculated to
predict or reproduce the experimental for an evaluation of a proposed model.

1.4.2 Kinematics
The “Q-value” of the decay, Qα is the difference of the mass of the parent and the
combined mass of the daughter and the α -particle, multiplied by c2 .

10
 Qα = (mP − mD − mα )c2 (1.2)

The mass difference between the parent and daughter nucleus can usually be esti-
mated quite well from the Liquid Drop Model. It is also equal to the difference between
the sum of the binding energies of the daughter and the α-particles and that of the parent
nucleus.
The α-particle emerges with a kinetic energy Tα, which is slightly below the value
of Qα. This is because if the parent nucleus is at rest before decay there must be some
recoil of the daughter nucleus in order to conserve momentum. The daughter nucleus
therefore has kinetic energy TD such that

Qα = Tα + TD (1.3)

The momenta of the α-particle and daughter nucleus are respectively

p
pα = 2mα Tα (1.4)

p
pD = − 2mD TD (1.5)

where mD is the mass of the daughter nucleus (we have taken the momentum of the
α-particle to be positive). Conserving momentum implies pα + pD = 0 which leads to

mα
TD = Tα (1.6)
mD

and neglecting the binding energies, we have

mα 4
= (1.7)
mD A

where A is the atomic mass number of the daughter nucleus. We therefore have for
the kinetic energy of the α-particle

11
 A
Tα = Qα (1.8)
(A + 4)

Example: The binding energy of Po214 210

84 is 1.66601 GeV, the binding energy of Pb82
is 1.64555 GeV and the binding energy of He42 is 28.296 MeV . The Q-value for the
decay

Po214 210
84 →Pb82 + α (1.9)

is therefore

Qα = 1645.55 + 28.296 − 1666.02 = 7.83MeV (1.10)

The kinetic energy of the α-particle is then given by

210
Tα = ∗ 7.83 = 7.68MeV (1.11)
214

Sometimes the α-particles emerge with kinetic energies which are somewhat lower
than this prediction. Such α-decays are accompanied by the emission of γ-rays. What
is happening is that the daughter nucleus is being produced in one of its excited states,
so that there is less energy available for the α-particle (or the recoil of the daughter
nucleus).

12
 Chapter 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.0.1 Derivation

Considering the following reaction:

Ap
XZ p →4 He2 +Ad YZd (2.1)

where a parent nucleus A p XZ p is decaying into α-particle and a daughter nucleus Ad YZd
and the total two-body interaction potential V (r, θ ) is assumed to be comprising of the
attractive nuclear potential VN (r, θ ) and the repulsive Coulomb potential VC (r, θ ) i.e.

V (r, θ ) = VC (r, θ ) +VN (r, θ ). (2.2)

Here, “r” denotes the distance between the center of mass of the α-particle and the
daughter nucleus while “θ ” denotes the orientation angle of the emitted α- particle to
the symmetric axis of the deformed daughter nucleus. Of course, there is contribution
of potential corresponding to the centrifugal forces as well in equation (2.2). Such
contributions are ignored as only favoured and ground state to ground state transitions
are considered.

2.0.2 Coulomb Potential

We assume that an α-particle interacts with an axially symmetric deformed daughter

nucleus and the Coulomb potential VC (r, θ ) in the terms of the quadrupole and hexade-
capole deformation parameters is expressed as ?:

Zd Zα e2 3R20 d 3R40 d
 
VC (r, θ ) = 1 + 2 β2 Y20 (θ ) + 4 β4 Y40 (θ )
r 5r 9r

13
for r > Rd (θ ) and

Zd Zα e2 r2 6R20

VC (r, θ ) ≈ 3− + β d Y20 (θ )×
2Rd (θ ) Rd (θ )2 5Rd (θ )2 2
r3 3R40
 
2− + β d Y40 (θ )
Rd (θ )3 9Rd (θ )4 4
5r2
 
7− (2.3)
Rd (θ )2

for r ≤ Rd (θ ). Here, Rd (θ ) is the radius of daughter nucleus which can be obtained

from the following general equation ?:
 
j j
R j (θ ) = R0 1 + β2 Y20 (θ ) + β4 Y40 (θ ) fm (2.4)

1/3
with R0 = 1.18 A j for j = d, p.

2.0.3 Nuclear Potential

To incorporate VN (r) in equation (2.2), we have utilized the energy density functional
(EDF) of the Skyrme force to take into account the interaction of the point-like α-
particle with the nucleons of the core of decaying nucleus. The determination of the ma-
trix elements of such an interaction leads to the following form of the neutron- (ρn (r, θ ))
and proton-density (ρ p (r, θ )) dependent attractive nuclear potential VN (r, θ ) ?:

5/3 5/3
VN (r, θ ) = αρN (r, θ ) + β (ρn (r, θ ) + ρ p (r, θ ))
+γρN ε(r, θ )(ρN2 (r, θ ) + 2ρn (r, θ )ρ p (r, θ ))
ρN ′ (r, θ )
+δ + ηρN ′′ (r, θ ) (2.5)
r

with α = −1.6740×103 MeV fm3 , β = 1.9208×103 MeV fm5 , γ = 1.7182×103 MeV

fm6+3ε , δ = 9.4166 MeV fm5 and η = −26.7616 MeV fm5 . For our calculations,
the parameter ε is set as 16 ?. Also,

ρN (r, θ ) = ρn (r, θ ) + ρ p (r, θ )

is the total density functional of nucleons in the daughter nucleus while ρN ′ (r, θ ) and
ρN ′′ (r, θ ) are the first-order and second-order derivatives of total nuclear density, respec-
tively. The density profiles of protons and neutrons in the core nucleus are characterized

14
using the Fermi distribution as ?:

ρ0
ρi (r, θ ) = , i = p, n. (2.6)
1 + exp[(r − Ri (θ ))/ai ]

Here, ai is the diffuseness parameter while the distributions’ radii Rn,p (θ ) in terms of
deformation parameters are expressed as:
 
Rn,p (θ ) = R0n,0p 1 + β2d Y20 (θ ) + β4d Y40 (θ ) . (2.7)

The self-consistent Skyrme (SLy4) HF + BCS calculations ? express R0n,op and an,p in
(fm) as:

Zd Nd
a p = 0.071 + 0.449, and an = 0.072 + 0.446,
Nd Zd
1/3
R0p = 1.322Zd + 0.007Nd + 0.022,
1/3
R0n = 0.953Nd + 0.015Zd + 0.774. (2.8)

For our calculations we have approximated ρ0 as 0.17.

2.0.4 α-decay half-life

In the framework of Gamow’s theory, α-decay can be explained as the penetration of

the already formed α- particle through the above mentioned interaction potential barrier
V (r, θ ) and the decay width Γ can be written as ?:

P0 Pα h̄2
Γ= K. (2.9)
4µ

Except K, other terms in equation (2.9) are included to improve the Gamow’s formalism
for α- decay. Here, µ is the reduced mass of the α-particle and the daughter nucleus
while Pα is the α-particle preformation probability. The calculation of Pα for even-
even heavy and superheavy nuclei (SHN) is the primary objective of this work. P0 is
introduced to provide the average α- particle preformation probability in certain kind
of radioactive nuclei, e.g. P0 = 0.43 for even even nuclei, P0 = 0.35 for odd-A nuclei,
P0 = 0.18 for doubly odd nuclei ?.
The term K collectively describes the penetration probability and the assault fre-
quency in the determienation of decay width Γ. For each α-particle emitted at an ori-
entation angle θ , we have calculated the penetrability of α- particle through the barrier

15
following the phenomenon of quantum tunneling as,
Z ′
2 b (θ ) p
 
q(θ ) = exp − 2µ(V (r, θ ) − Qα ) dr (2.10)
h̄ a′ (θ )

where, Qα as the α-disintegration energy. The turning points a′ (θ ) and b′ (θ ) are fixed
such that
V (b′ (θ )) = V (a′ (θ )) = Qα .

As we know, the assault frequency is defined as the inverse of the time taken by
the α-particle to move back and forth between the potential walls. Using the Bohr-
Sommerfeld quantization and Wildermuth rule, the assault frequency ν(θ ) possessed
by α- particle emitted at an angle θ w.r.t. symmetry axis of daughter nucleus is approx-
imated as ??:
(G + 32 )h̄
ν(θ ) ∼ (2.11)
1.2π µR p (θ )2
where, R p (θ ) is the radius of parent nucleus which can be determined using eq. (2.4).
The global quantum number G takes values for various shell closures as given below ?:

20 for N > 126,





G = 18 for 82 < N ≤ 126,



for N ≤ 82.

16

Through the inclusion of G values in our theoretical framework, the role of shell effects
in the α-radioactivity is taken into account. In heavy and superheavy region, existence
of shell mixture may lead to an uncertainity of 2 ? in the value of G but it won’t affect
our calculations too much.
Now, K in the equation (2.9) is the average value of penetration probabilities and
assault frequencies possessed by α-particle over all orientations θ ’s i.e.

1
Z π
K= q(θ ) ν(θ ) sin θ dθ . (2.12)
2 0

Exploiting eqn. (2.9), we can calculate α-decay half-lives of a parent nuclei decaying
via α-particle emission as ?:
α ln 2
T1/2 (sec) = . (2.13)
Γ
For known heavy and superheavy α-radioactive nuclei, we will use equation (2.13)
to calculate the preformation probability of α-particle and fit into a convenient linear
mathematical formula. Subsequently, the fitted α-particle preformation probabilities

16
can be utilized in predicting the radioactive properties of unknown SHN. For this pur-
pose, we have used WS4 α- disintegration energies. The stability of such nuclei against
α-decay with spontaneous fission is also discussed via the calculations of branching
ratios.

17
 Chapter 3

OBSERVATIONS

3.1 Table for super Heavy Element

Nucleus β2p β4p β2d β4d Qα (MeV) α (s

T1/2 l Pα

253 Lr 0.251 0.051 0.250 0.039 8.918 0.570 0 0.03928

255 Lr 0.252 0.003 0.250 0.027 8.556 31.10 4 0.04512

257 Lr 0.252 -0.010 0.251 0.015 9.008 4.000 1 0.00370

259 Lr 0.241 -0.013 0.252 0.002 8.584 6.200 1 0.04873

255 Db 0.252 0.002 0.250 0.027 9.580 1.600 4 0.00396

257 Db 0.252 -0.010 0.251 0.015 9.206 2.300 1 0.00863

259 Db 0.253 -0.022 0.252 0.003 9.619 0.510 5 0.02075

261 Db 0.242 -0.025 0.252 -0.010 9.220 1.800 4 0.03859

18
Nucleus β2p β4p β2d β4d Qα (MeV) α (s)
T1/2 l Pα

263 Db 0.231 -0.040 0.241 -0.013 8.830 27.00 4 0.04059

261 Bh 0.254 -0.035 0.252 -0.010 10.50 12.00 2 0.00381

267 Bh 0.232 -0.065 0.231 -0.040 9.230 14.00 2 0.00886

271 Bh 0.221 -0.080 0.232 -0.065 9.420 1.500 0 0.01237

275 Mt 0.209 -0.083 0.209 -0.070 10.48 20.00 5 0.04941

279 Rg 0.164 -0.063 0.209 -0.083 10.53 0.090 1 0.00422

283 Nh 0.075 0.002 0.164 -0.063 10.41 0.070 2 0.07013

285 Nh 0.075 -0.010 0.130 -0.042 10.01 0.930 4 0.21777

287 Mc 0.064 0.002 0.075 0.002 10.76 37.00 4 0.30015

289 Mc 0.064 -0.010 0.075 -0.010 10.49 296.0 4 0.17550

19
293 Ts -0.073 0.002 0.064 0.010 11.32 21.00 0.02620

20
3.2 Graphs

(a) graph for negative X

21
(b) graph for positve X
 Chapter 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

22