Evaporation residue cross-section measurements for ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^{203,205}\mathrm{Tl}$

Evaporation residue cross sections for the ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^{203,205}\mathrm{Tl}$ reactions were measured at laboratory beam energies in the range of 82–113 MeV using a gas-filled separator. Transmission efficiency of the separator was estimated using a calibration reaction ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^{197}\mathrm{Au}$ and by simulating the evaporation residues angular distributions. Statistical model calculations were performed for both the measured systems. These calculations overestimate the experimental evaporation residue cross sections. This could be attributed to the presence of noncompound nuclear fission. An estimation of noncompound nuclear fission contribution was carried out. Comparison with neighboring systems shows that a slight change in the entrance channel or the compound nucleus properties makes a large difference in evaporation residue cross sections.

Figure 1

Angular distributions of ERs at different beam energies using PACE4 [34, 35]. The vertical line at $9.5^{\circ }$ denotes the HYRA angular acceptance.

Figure 2

Yield of individual exit channels for (a) ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^{203}\mathrm{Tl}$ and (b) ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^{205}\mathrm{Tl}$ reactions at different beam energies by HIVAP [42, 43].

Figure 3

Experimental ER and fission cross sections for the ${}^{12}\mathrm{C}+{}^{209}\mathrm{Bi}$ reaction (Beyec et al. [14], Gen-Ming et al. [51], Britt et al. [52]) along with HIVAP calculations.

Figure 4

Experimental ER cross sections for ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^{205}\mathrm{Tl}$ reaction along with HIVAP calculations.

Figure 5

Experimental ER cross sections for ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^{203}\mathrm{Tl}$ reaction along with HIVAP calculations.

Figure 6

Comparison of the reduced ER cross sections for ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^{203}\mathrm{Tl}$ and ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^{205}\mathrm{Tl}$ reactions with nearby systems (Brinkmann et al. [33], Gen-Ming et al. [51], Morton et al. [53], Hinde et al. (2002) [54], Hinde et al. (1999) [55], Mukherjee et al. [56]).