NSR Query Results
Output year order : Descending NSR database version of April 27, 2024. Search: Author = A.K.Sikdar Found 6 matches. 2021PA18 Phys.Lett. B 816, 136173 (2021) D.Pandit, B.Dey, S.Bhattacharya, T.K.Rana, D.Mondal, S.Mukhopadhyay, S.Pal, A.De, P.Roy, K.Banerjee, S.Kundu, A.K.Sikdar, C.Bhattacharya, S.R.Banerjee Puzzle of collective enhancement in the nuclear level density NUCLEAR REACTIONS 165Ho, 181Ta, 197Au(α, X), E=28 MeV; measured reaction products, Eγ, Iγ. 169Tm, 185Re, 201Tl; deduced giant dipole resonance, neutron and proton yields, enhancement factors, collective rotational enhancement in the nuclear level densities.
doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136173
2020RA06 Phys.Rev. C 101, 035801 (2020) A.Ray, A.K.Sikdar, P.Das, S.Pathak, J.Datta Unexpected increase of 7Be decay rate under compression RADIOACTIVITY 7Be(EC)[from 7Li(p, n), E=7 MeV at VECC, Kolkata]; measured Eγ, Iγ, half-life using off-line decay of 7Be ions implanted in Pd and Pb foils; deduced unexpected large increase of 7Be decay rate under compression compared to the state-of-the-art density functional calculations. Comparison with previous experimental values. Implications on the calculated 7Be decay rate at the solar core.
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.035801
2018SI22 Phys.Rev. C 98, 024615 (2018) A.K.Sikdar, A.Ray, D.Pandit, B.Dey, S.Bhattacharyya, S.Bhattacharya, A.Bisoi, A.De, S.Paul, S.Bhattacharya, A.Chatterjee Slow fission of highly excited plutonium nuclei NUCLEAR REACTIONS 238U(α, F), E=60 MeV; measured K x-rays, low-energy γ rays, (K x-ray)(fission fragments)-coin, (γ)(fission fragments)-coin, random coincidence spectra using a four-segmented high purity planar Ge low-energy photon spectrometer (LEPS) for x rays and γ rays, and a photovoltaic cell for fission fragment detection at VECC, Kolkata; deduced Pu Kα1 x-ray at 102.8 keV, plausible shift of plutonium K x-ray lines, fission time of the slow fission events >10-18 s. Comparison with atomic physics theoretical calculations.
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.024615
2016PH02 Phys.Rep. 612, 1 (2016) D.G.Phillips II, W.M.Snow, K.Babu, S.Banerjee, D.V.Baxter, Z.Berezhiani, M.Bergevin, S.Bhattacharya, G.Brooijmans, L.Castellanos, M.-C.Chen, C.E.Coppola, R.Cowsik, J.A.Crabtree, P.Das, E.B.Dees, A.Dolgov, P.D.Ferguson, M.Frost, T.Gabriel, A.Gal, F.Gallmeier, K.Ganezer, E.Golubeva, G.Greene, B.Hartfiel, A.Hawari, L.Heilbronn, C.Johnson, Y.Kamyshkov, B.Kerbikov, M.Kitaguchi, B.Z.Kopeliovich, V.B.Kopeliovich, V.A.Kuzmin, C-Y.Liu, P.McGaughey, M.Mocko, R.Mohapatra, N.Mokhov, G.Muhrer, H.P.Mumm, L.Okun, R.W.Pattie, Jr., C.Quigg, E.Ramberg, A.Ray, A.Roy, A.Ruggles, U.Sarkar, A.Saunders, A.P.Serebrov, H.M.Shimizu, R.Shrock, A.K.Sikdar, S.Sjue, S.Striganov, L.W.Townsend, R.Tschirhart, A.Vainshtein, R.Van Kooten, Z.Wang, A.R.Young Neutron-antineutron oscillations: Theoretical status and experimental prospects COMPILATION A=1; compiled experimental and theoretical information.
doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2015.11.001
2016RA38 Phys.Rev. C 94, 055503 (2016) Timescale of non-exponential decay for the nuclear β-decay process in a decoherence model RADIOACTIVITY 60Co(β-); calculated quantum decoherence time and non-exponential decay time scales of nuclear β-decay processes; not feasible to observe non-exponential decay of 60Co on the time scale of 10-22 s, consistent with the experimental results. Proposed that non-exponential decays could be observed from α-particle emitting states from compound nuclei produced in fusion reactions such as 164,167,170Er(28Si, X)192Pb*/194Pb*/196Pb*.
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.055503
2016SI11 Phys.Rev. C 93, 041604 (2016) A.K.Sikdar, A.Ray, A.Chatterjee Examination of the fission time of the Z=120 nucleus NUCLEAR REACTIONS 64Ni(238U, F)120302*, E=6.6 MeV/nucleon; analyzed percentage of long-lived fission component versus the fission time, fission lifetime versus prefission neutron multiplicity using statistical code JOANNE2. Analyzed large difference in the measured lifetime for asymmetric fission of the highly excited Z=120 super-heavy nucleus measured by the atomic and nuclear techniques; deduced that the difference cannot be explained by sensitivity argument of the techniques in different time domains; questioned formation of excited Z=120 nucleus.
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.041604
Back to query form |