Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 51 references

Isotopic fission yields of ${}^{240}$Pu as a function of the excitation energy

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Fission yields of 240Pu show damping of shell effects with rising excitation energy and reduced neutron content only in the heavy fragment.

desk verdict New isotopic fission yields for 240Pu versus excitation energy from 8.2-11.9 MeV, but the reported trends depend on event-by-event recoil tagging whose validation is not shown in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.27234 v1 pith:FVR4KLNT submitted 2026-05-26 nucl-ex

D. Ramos , M. Caamaño , F. Farget , C. Rodríguez-Tajes , A. Lemasson , M. Rejmund , C. Schmitt , E. Clement
show 11 more authors
L. Audouin J. Benlliure E. Casarejos D. Cortina D. Doré B. Fernández-Domínguez G. de France A. Heinz B. Jacquot C. Paradela T. Roger
This is my paper
classification nucl-ex
keywords fissionyields240Puexcitationenergyisotopicdistributionsshelleffectsneutroncontentinversekinematicstwo-protontransfer
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 establishes the evolution of complete isotopic fission yield distributions for 240Pu over excitation energies from 8.2 to 11.9 MeV. Higher energy damps the shell effects that enhance yields near symmetry and reduces the neutron number of the fragments, but the reduction occurs only in the heavy fragment while the light fragment stays unchanged. A sympathetic reader cares because these energy-dependent patterns directly constrain how nuclear structure influences the fission process. The data come from inverse-kinematics measurements that identify fragments isotopically and determine excitation energy event by event.

What carries the argument

Event-by-event excitation-energy measurement via detection of the 10Be recoil in a segmented silicon telescope, paired with isotopic identification of fission fragments by the VAMOS++ spectrometer.

What would settle it

An observation that the average neutron number of the light fragment decreases with excitation energy at the same rate as the heavy fragment, or that yields in the symmetric valley remain undamped, would contradict the reported dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Complete isotopic fission yields distributions of 240Pu have been measured as a function of the initial excitation energy. The 240Pu fissioning system was produced through a two-proton transfer reaction between a 238U beam and a 12C target. The excitation energy of the system was measured on an event-by-event basis by detecting the target-like recoil 10Be. The influence of the excitation energy is manifested in the damping of shell effects that feed the yields in the symmetry valley, as well as in a reduction of the neutron content of the fragments observed only in the heavy fragment.

Load-bearing premise

The excitation energy is measured accurately on an event-by-event basis through detection of the 10Be recoil with negligible background, misidentification, or resolution effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shell effects that enhance symmetric fission yields weaken as excitation energy increases from 8.2 to 11.9 MeV.
  • The average neutron content of fission fragments decreases with excitation energy, but only for the heavy fragment.
  • The light fragment's neutron content remains constant across the measured energy range.
  • Correlated observables such as isotopic yields and excitation energy are required to improve fission models and evaluations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The asymmetric response of light and heavy fragments suggests that deformation or pairing properties differ between the two sides of the fission split.
  • Fission models may need separate excitation-energy damping terms for light and heavy fragments rather than a single global factor.
  • The inverse-kinematics approach could be applied to neighboring nuclei to test whether the heavy-fragment-only neutron loss is general.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports complete isotopic fission yields of 240Pu measured as a function of excitation energy (8.2–11.9 MeV) in a two-proton transfer reaction (238U beam on 12C target) in inverse kinematics. Fragments are isotopically identified with the VAMOS++ spectrometer while the excitation energy is tagged event-by-event via detection of the 10Be target-like recoil in a segmented silicon telescope. The central observations are damping of shell effects that feed yields near symmetry and a reduction in neutron content that appears only in the heavy fragment.

Significance. If the E* tagging is robust, the work supplies new correlated data on excitation-energy evolution of fission yields that can constrain models of shell damping and fragment neutron distributions. The inverse-kinematics approach and recoil tagging are strengths for accessing a continuous E* range with isotopic resolution.

major comments (1)
  1. [Experimental setup and data reduction (recoil identification and E* reconstruction)] The event-by-event E* determination from the 10Be recoil (segmented Si telescope) underpins every reported energy dependence. The manuscript supplies no quantitative validation—background fraction, energy resolution, angular acceptance, Q-value reconstruction systematics, or cross-checks—demonstrating that the 8.2–11.9 MeV bins remain cleanly separated. This is load-bearing for the headline claims of damping and selective neutron-content reduction.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that comparisons with previous measurements, models, and evaluations are presented, but does not identify the specific references or quantify the level of agreement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and for highlighting the importance of the E* tagging validation. We address the single major comment below and will incorporate additional quantitative details in a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental setup and data reduction (recoil identification and E* reconstruction)] The event-by-event E* determination from the 10Be recoil (segmented Si telescope) underpins every reported energy dependence. The manuscript supplies no quantitative validation—background fraction, energy resolution, angular acceptance, Q-value reconstruction systematics, or cross-checks—demonstrating that the 8.2–11.9 MeV bins remain cleanly separated. This is load-bearing for the headline claims of damping and selective neutron-content reduction.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from explicit quantitative validation of the recoil-based E* reconstruction. While the experimental method is described in the text and the 10Be identification relies on standard ΔE-E techniques in the segmented Si telescope, we did not include numerical estimates of background contamination, achieved energy resolution, angular acceptance effects, or Q-value systematics. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) presenting: (i) the background fraction in the 10Be gate from both data and Monte-Carlo, (ii) the measured energy resolution of the telescope, (iii) the angular acceptance of the recoil detector and its impact on Q-value reconstruction, (iv) an assessment of systematic uncertainties in the reconstructed excitation energy, and (v) cross-checks such as comparison of the reconstructed Q-value distribution with known transfer kinematics and with GEANT4 simulations of the setup. These additions will demonstrate the cleanliness of the 8.2–11.9 MeV binning. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: experimental measurement report with no derivation chain

full rationale

This is a direct experimental report of isotopic fission yields measured via VAMOS++ spectrometer and 10Be recoil tagging for E* determination. No equations, model fits, ansatze, or predictions are presented that reduce the reported yields or energy dependence to quantities defined by the input data itself. The central observations (damping of shell effects, selective neutron-content change) are binned empirical counts, not outputs of any self-referential construction. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the measurement results. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks as raw data.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental measurement and introduces no free parameters fitted to data, no invented physical entities, and only standard domain assumptions typical of transfer-reaction and spectrometer experiments.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The two-proton transfer reaction at Coulomb-barrier energies populates the 240Pu fissioning system with excitation energy accurately tagged by the 10Be recoil without significant contamination.
    This is a standard assumption invoked when using transfer reactions to produce specific compound nuclei for fission studies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isotopic fission yields of ${}^{240}$Pu as a function of the excitation energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVR4KLNT

@misc{pith2026260527234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isotopic fission yields of $^240$Pu as a function of the excitation energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVR4KLNT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.27234}
}
abstract

Complete isotopic fission yields distributions of $^{240}$Pu have been measured as a function of the initial excitation energy. The $^{240}$Pu fissioning system was produced through a two-proton transfer reaction between a $^{238}$U beam and a $^{12}$C target. The reaction was measured in inverse kinematics at Coulomb barrier energies, allowing for the full distribution of fission fragments to be isotopically identified with the VAMOS++ Spectrometer. The excitation energy of the system was measured on an event-by-event basis by detecting the target-like recoil $^{10}$Be in a segmented silicon telescope. This manuscript reports on the evolution of the fission yields as a function of the excitation energy of the system between 8.2 to 11.9 MeV. The influence of the excitation energy is manifested in the damping of shell effects that feed the yields in the symmetry valley, as well as in a reduction of the neutron content of the fragments. This reduction, however, is observed only in the heavy fragment, while the neutron content of the light fragment remains unaffected. The comparison with previous measurements, models, and evaluations highlights the importance of correlated observables for improving fission models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27234 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Excitation energy distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Normalized isotopic fission yields of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Fission yields of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fission yields of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Elemantal fission yields of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Post-neutron-evaporation neutron excess of fission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Total prompt neutron multiplicity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Isotonic fission yields. Present data at three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The actinide 240Pu was produced through two- proton-transfer reactions 12C(238U, 240 Pu∗ )10Be in in- verse kinematics, and underwent fission in flight

    14 AMeV and impinged on a 100 µ g/cm2-thick 12C target. The actinide 240Pu was produced through two- proton-transfer reactions 12C(238U, 240 Pu∗ )10Be in in- verse kinematics, and underwent fission in flight. The fissioning system was identified by detecting the target- like recoil 10Be, using the SPIDER silicon telescope, as described in Ref. [23]. Its excit...

  2. [2]

    This distribution in- cludes a contributon from the first excited state (2 +) of 10Be, with a measured probability of 0 . 14 ± 0. 04 [23], obtained using the HPGe EXOGAM detector [34]. The excitation of the target-like recoil results in an effective reduction of the excitation energy available for 240Pu. To correct for this effect, the measured distribution ...

  3. [3]

    The selection of 10Be events includes 5 ± 2 % of con- tamination due to overlap with 9Be [23]

    The blue solid and the green dashed lines represent the con- tributions of the ground state and the first excited state of 10Be to the corrected distribution. The selection of 10Be events includes 5 ± 2 % of con- tamination due to overlap with 9Be [23]. The subtrac- tion of this contamination results in a maximum shift of 0.04 MeV towards lower Ex. This va...

  4. [4]

    Present data are compared with calculations from the GEF code (V1.1/2024) at the respective Ex

    The three data sets at 8.2, 10.0, and 11.9 MeV of excitation energy are shown with black circles, blue squares, and red triangles, respectively. Present data are compared with calculations from the GEF code (V1.1/2024) at the respective Ex. Previ- ous measurements using a similar two-proton-transfer in- duced fission [40] suggest an upper limit of J = 10 ℏ...

    2024

  5. [5]

    Data sets at different Ex are indicated with 8 Neutron Number 50 60 70 80 90 Normalized Yields (%) 0 5 10 15 >=8.2 MeVxPresent data, <E >=10.0 MeVxPresent data, <E >=11.9 MeVxPresent data, <E hGEF V1.1/24, E_x=8.2 MeV, J=10 hGEF V1.1/24, E_x=10.0 MeV, J=10 hGEF V1.1/24, E_x=11.9 MeV, J=10 Excitation Energy (MeV) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mean Neutron Content 58 59...

    2012

  6. [6]

    Schunck and D

    N. Schunck and D. Regnier, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 125, 103963 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience , volume =

    A. Bulgac, S. Jin, and I. Stetcu, Frontiers in Physics Vol- ume 8 - 2020 , 10.3389/fphy.2020.00063 (2020)

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2020.00063 2020

  8. [8]

    B. D. Wilkins, E. P. Steinberg, and R. R. Chasman, Phys. Rev. C 14, 1832 (1976)

    1976

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    J.-F. m. c. Lema ˆ ıtre, S. Panebianco, J.-L. Sida, S. Hilaire, and S. Heinrich, Phys. Rev. C 92, 034617 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Schmidt, B

    K.-H. Schmidt, B. Jurado, C. Amouroux, and C. Schmitt, Nucl. Data Sheets 131, 107 (2016) , version 2023

    2016

  3. [11]

    Bulgac, P

    A. Bulgac, P. Magierski, K. J. Roche, and I. Stetcu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 122504 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Tanimura, D

    Y. Tanimura, D. Lacroix, and S. Ayik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 152501 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Scamps and C

    G. Scamps and C. Simenel, Nature 564, 382 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Scamps and C

    G. Scamps and C. Simenel, Phys. Rev. C 100, 041602 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Ramos, M

    D. Ramos, M. Caama˜ no, F. Farget, C. Rodr ´ ıguez- Tajes, A. Lemasson, C. Schmitt, L. Audouin, J. Ben- lliure, E. Casarejos, E. Clement, D. Cortina, O. De- laune, X. Derkx, A. Dijon, D. Dor´ e, B. Fern´ andez- Dom ´ ınguez, G. de France, A. Heinz, B. Jacquot, C. Pa- radela, M...

    2023

  8. [16]

    J. N. Wilson, D. Thisse, M. Lebois, N. Jovanˇ cevi´ c, D. Gjestvang, R. Canavan, M. Rudigier, D. ´Etasse, R.- 10 B. Gerst, L. Gaudefroy, E. Adamska, P. Adsley, A. Al- gora, M. Babo, K. Belvedere, J. Benito, G. Benzoni, A. Blazhev, A. Boso, S. Bottoni, M. Bunce, R. Chakma, N. C...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Hirose, K

    K. Hirose, K. Nishio, S. Tanaka, R. L´ eguillon, H. Makii, I. Nishinaka, R. Orlandi, K. Tsukada, J. Smallcombe, M. J. Vermeulen, S. Chiba, Y. Aritomo, T. Ohtsuki, K. Nakano, S. Araki, Y. Watanabe, R. Tatsuzawa, N. Takaki, N. Tamura, S. Goto, I. Tsekhanovich, and A. N. Andreyev...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Abdurrahman, M

    I. Abdurrahman, M. Kafker, A. Bulgac, and I. Stetc u, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 242501 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    J. E. Escher, J. T. Burke, F. S. Dietrich, N. D. Scielzo, I. J. Thompson, and W. Younes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 353 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    L´ eguillon, K

    R. L´ eguillon, K. Nishio, K. Hirose, H. Makii, I. Nishinaka, R. Orlandi, K. Tsukada, J. Smallcombe, S. Chiba, Y. Ar- itomo, T. Ohtsuki, R. Tatsuzawa, N. Takaki, N. Tamura, S. Goto, I. Tsekhanovich, C. Petrache, and A. Andreyev, Physics Letters B 761, 125 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Schmidt, S

    K.-H. Schmidt, S. Steinh¨ auser, C. B¨ ockstiegel, A. Grewe, A. Heinz, A. Junghans, J. Benlliure, H.-G. Clerc, M. de Jong, J. M¨ uller, M. Pf¨ utzner, and B. Voss, Nucl. Phys. A 665, 221 (2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    Morfouace, J

    P. Morfouace, J. Taieb, A. Chatillon, L. Audouin, G. Blanchon, R. N. Bernard, N. Dubray, N. Pillet, D. Regnier, H. Alvarez-Pol, F. Amjad, P. Andr´ e, G. Au- thelet, L. Atar, T. Aumann, J. Benlliure, K. Boret- zky, L. Bott, T. Brecelj, C. Caesar, P. Carpentier, E. Casarejos, J....

    2025

  15. [23]

    Caama˜ no, O

    M. Caama˜ no, O. Delaune, F. Farget, X. Derkx, K.-H. Schmidt, L. Audouin, C.-O. Bacri, G. Barreau, J. Benl- liure, E. Casarejos, A. Chbihi, B. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, L. Gaudefroy, C. Golabek, B. Jurado, A. Lemasson, A. Navin, M. Rejmund, T. Roger, A. Shrivastava, and C. Sch...

    2013

  16. [24]

    Pellereau, J

    E. Pellereau, J. Ta ¨ ıeb, A. Chatillon, H. Alvarez- Pol, L. Audouin, Y. Ayyad, G. B´ elier, J. Benlliure, G. Boutoux, M. Caama˜ no, E. Casarejos, D. Cortina-Gil, A. Ebran, F. Farget, B. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, T. Gor- binet, L. Grente, A. Heinz, H. Johansson, B. Jurado, A. ...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Ramos, M

    D. Ramos, M. Caama˜ no, F. Farget, C. Rodr ´ ıguez-Tajes, L. Audouin, J. Benlliure, E. Casarejos, E. Clement, D. Cortina, O. Delaune, X. Derkx, A. Dijon, D. Dor´ e, B. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, G. de France, A. Heinz, B. Jacquot, A. Navin, C. Paradela, M. Re- jmund, T. Roger, ...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Chatillon, J

    A. Chatillon, J. Ta ¨ ıeb, H. Alvarez-Pol, L. Audouin, Y. Ayyad, G. B´ elier, J. Benlliure, G. Boutoux, M. Caama˜ no, E. Casarejos, D. Cortina-Gil, A. Ebran, F. Farget, B. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, T. Gorbinet, L. Grente, A. Heinz, H. T. Johansson, B. Jurado, A. Keli ´ c Heil,...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Martin, J

    J.-F. Martin, J. Ta ¨ ıeb, G. Boutoux, A. Chatillon, T. Gor- binet, E. Pellereau, L. Audouin, A. Heinz, H. Alvarez- Pol, Y. Ayyad, G. B´ elier, J. Benlliure, M. Caama˜ no, E. Casarejos, D. Cortina-Gil, A. Ebran, F. Farget, B. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, L. Grente, H. T. Johans- ...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-Tajes, F

    C. Rodr ´ ıguez-Tajes, F. Farget, X. Derkx, M. Caama˜ no, O. Delaune, K.-H. Schmidt, E. Cl´ ement, A. Di- jon, A. Heinz, T. Roger, L. Audouin, J. Benlliure, E. Casarejos, D. Cortina, D. Dor´ e, B. Fern´ andez- Dom ´ ınguez, B. Jacquot, B. Jurado, A. Navin, C. Pa- radela, D. Ra...

    2014

  21. [29]

    Sguazzin, B

    M. Sguazzin, B. Jurado, J. Pibernat, J. A. Swartz, M. Grieser, J. Glorius, Y. A. Litvinov, J. Adamczewski- Musch, P. Alfaurt, P. Ascher, L. Audouin, C. Berth- elot, B. Blank, K. Blaum, B. Br¨ uckner, S. Dellmann, I. Dillmann, C. Domingo-Pardo, M. Dupuis, P. Er- bacher, M. Flay...

    2025

  22. [30]

    Rejmund, B

    M. Rejmund, B. Lecornu, A. Navin, C. Schmitt, 11 S. Damoy, O. Delaune, J. M. Enguerrand, G. Fre- mont, P. Gangnant, L. Gaudefroy, B. Jacquot, J. Pancin, S. Pullanhiotan, and C. Spitaels, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 646, 184 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Caama˜ no, F

    M. Caama˜ no, F. Farget, O. Delaune, K.-H. Schmidt, C. Schmitt, L. Audouin, C.-O. Bacri, J. Benlliure, E. Casarejos, X. Derkx, B. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, L. Gaudefroy, C. Golabek, B. Jurado, A. Lemasson, D. Ramos, C. Rodr ´ ıguez-Tajes, T. Roger, and A. Shri- vastava, Phys. ...

    2015

  24. [32]

    Caama˜ no and F

    M. Caama˜ no and F. Farget, Physics Letters B 770, 72 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Ramos, M

    D. Ramos, M. Caama˜ no, F. Farget, C. Rodr ´ ıguez-Tajes, L. Audouin, J. Benlliure, E. Casarejos, E. Clement, D. Cortina, O. Delaune, X. Derkx, A. Dijon, D. Dor´ e, B. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, G. de France, A. Heinz, B. Jacquot, C. Paradela, M. Rejmund, T. Roger, M.-D. Salsac...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Ramos, M

    D. Ramos, M. Caama˜ no, A. Lemasson, M. Rej- mund, L. Audouin, H. ´Alvarez-Pol, J. D. Frankland, B. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, E. Galiana-Bald´ o, J. Piot, D. Ackermann, S. Biswas, E. Clement, D. Durand, F. Farget, M. O. Fregeau, D. Galaviz, A. Heinz, A. I. Henriques, B. Jacquo...

    2019

  27. [35]

    Ramos, M

    D. Ramos, M. Caama˜ no, A. Lemasson, M. Rej- mund, H. Alvarez-Pol, L. Audouin, J. D. Frankland, B. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, E. Galiana-Bald´ o, J. Piot, C. Schmitt, D. Ackermann, S. Biswas, E. Clement, D. Durand, F. Farget, M. O. Fregeau, D. Galaviz, A. Heinz, A. Henriques, B...

    2020

  28. [36]

    Schmitt, A

    C. Schmitt, A. Lemasson, K.-H. Schmidt, A. Jhin- gan, S. Biswas, Y. H. Kim, D. Ramos, A. N. An- dreyev, D. Curien, M. Ciemala, E. Cl´ ement, O. Dor- vaux, B. De Canditiis, F. Didierjean, G. Duchˆ ene, J. Du- douet, J. Frankland, B. Jacquot, C. Raison, D. Ralet, B.-M. Retaillea...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Jhingan, C

    A. Jhingan, C. Schmitt, A. Lemasson, S. Biswas, Y. H. Kim, D. Ramos, A. N. Andreyev, D. Curien, M. Ciema/suppress la, E. Cl´ ement, O. Dorvaux, B. De Canditiis, F. Didier- jean, G. Duchˆ ene, J. Dudouet, J. Frankland, G. Fr´ emont, J. Goupil, B. Jacquot, C. Raison, D. Ralet, B...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Cobo and et.al., Acta Phys

    A. Cobo and et.al., Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl. 18, 2-A12 10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.18.2-A12 (2025)

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Simpson, F

    J. Simpson, F. Azaiez, G. de France, G. Fouan, J. Gerl, R. Julin, W. Korten, P. Nolan, B. Nyako, G. Sletten, and P. Walker, Acta Physica Hungarica New Series-Heavy ion 11, 159 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Lemasson and M

    A. Lemasson and M. Rejmund, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sectio n A: Accelerators,

  33. [41]

    Schmitt, A

    C. Schmitt, A. Guessous, J. Bocquet, H.-G. Clerc, R. Brissot, D. Engelhardt, H. Faust, F. G¨ onnenwein, M. Mutterer, H. Nifenecker, J. Pannicke, C. Ristori, and J. Theobald, Nuclear Physics A 430, 21 (1984)

    1984

  34. [42]

    A. Bail, O. Serot, L. Mathieu, O. Litaize, T. Materna, U. K¨ oster, H. Faust, A. Letourneau, and S. Panebianco, Phys. Rev. C 84, 034605 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    J. E. Gindler, L. E. Glendenin, D. J. Henderson, and J. W. Meadows, Phys. Rev. C 27, 2058 (1983)

  36. [44]

    See Supplementary Material for numerical values

  37. [45]

    Tanaka, K

    S. Tanaka, K. Hirose, K. Nishio, K. R. Kean, H. Makii, R. Orlandi, K. Tsukada, and Y. Aritomo, Phys. Rev. C 105, L021602 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    H. Naik, S. P. Dange, R. J. Singh, and W. Jang, Nuclear Science and Engineering 196, 824 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    T. R. ENGLAND and B. F. RIDER, Evaluation and compilation of fission product yields (1993), lA-UR- 94-3106, ENDF-349, ENDF/B-VI,Los Alamos National Laboratory

    1993

  40. [48]

    Schmidt and B

    K.-H. Schmidt and B. Jurado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 212501 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Ramos, M

    D. Ramos, M. Caamano, F. Farget, C. Rodriguez- Tajes, A. Lemasson, M. Rejmund, C. Schmitt, E. Clement, O. Litaize, O. Serot, L. Au- douin, J. Benlliure, E. Casarejos, D. Cortina, D. Dore, B. Fernandez-Dominguez, G. de France, A. Heinz, B. Jacquot, C. Paradela, and T. Roger, Hi...

    2026 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Tsuchiya, Y

    C. Tsuchiya, Y. Nakagome, H. Yamana, H. Moriyama, K. Nishio, I. Kanno, K. Shin, and I. Kimura, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 37, 941 (2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    B´ egu´ e-Guillou, A

    L. B´ egu´ e-Guillou, A. Lemasson, P. Morfouace, D. Ramos, J. Taieb, J. D. Frankland, M. Rejmund, G. Fremont, P. Gangnant, A. Cobo-Zarzuelo, N. Kumar, T. Efremov, A. Chatillon, E. Cl´ ement, G. D. France, A. Francheteau, I. Jangid, C. Lenain, D. Mauss, T. Tanaka, L. Au- doin, ...

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.