Figure 1

Effect on the position of the “Airy minima” of the farside contribution to elastic scattering (labeled $A_2$, $A_3$, and $A_4$; full lines) of a reduction of the nominal absorption of the optical model potential used by Ogloblin et al. [5] to describe their ${}^{\mathrm{16}}\mathrm{O}+{}^{\mathrm{12}}\mathrm{C}$ data at 132 MeV (dots). Inset: comparison of the classical (full line) and quantum mechanical (open circles) deflection function calculated with the real part of the same potential (adapted from 6).Reuse & Permissions

Figure 2

Top: comparison of the ${}^{\mathrm{16}}\mathrm{O}+{}^{\mathrm{16}}\mathrm{O}$ folding potential of Nicoli et al. [16] (full line) with a square well, and with a Luneburg potential ($V_0=310\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$, $R=4.8\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$, long dashed line) and its smooth-edge version ($\rho =3.6\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$, short dashed line). Bottom: classical trajectories for the ${}^{\mathrm{16}}\mathrm{O}+{}^{\mathrm{16}}\mathrm{O}$ system at 75 MeV incident energy, calculated using the folding potential of Nicoli et al. [16] (left) and the Luneburg potential with radius $R=4.8\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}$ (cf. dashed line, right) (the Coulomb interaction has been switched off).Reuse & Permissions

Figure 3

Schematic representation of a Luneburg potential and its classical deflection function for $E<E_{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}$ (top); a smooth-edge Luneburg potential and its semiclassical deflection function for $E<E_{\rho }^{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}$ and $E>E_{\rho }^{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}$ (bottom).Reuse & Permissions