Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userReply to the Comment of S. Ayik and D. Lacroix, posted as arXiv:1909.1361v1, on the recent article Fission Dynamics of 240Pu from Saddle-to-Scission and Beyond by Bulgac et al, published as Phys. Rev. C 100, 034615 (2019)
380
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Aurel Bulgac
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
A point-by-point answer to the comment authored by S. Ayik and D. Lacroix is presented. At this point in time this text is not aimed at being submitted to Phys. Rev. C or any other journal, unless the authors of the comment choose to follow such an avenue. I also suggest a possible formulation of a stochastic mean field approach free of the difficulties in the stochastic mean field model due to S. Ayik.
rate research
Read More
Calculations are presented for the time evolution of $^{240}$Pu from the proximity of the outer saddle point until the fission fragments are well separated, using the time-dependent density functional theory extended to superfluid systems. We have tested three families of nuclear energy density functionals and found that all functionals exhibit a similar dynamics: the collective motion is highly dissipative and with little trace of inertial dynamics, due to the one-body dissipation mechanism alone. This finding justifies the validity of using the overdamped collective motion approach and to some extent the main assumptions in statistical models of fission. This conclusion is robust with respect to the nuclear energy density functional used. The configurations and interactions left out of the present theory framework only increase the role of the dissipative couplings. An unexpected finding is varying the pairing strength within a quite large range has only minor effects on the dynamics. We find notable differences in the excitation energy sharing between the fission fragments in the cases of spontaneous and induced fission. With increasing initial excitation energy of the fissioning nucleus more excitation energy is deposited in the heavy fragment, in agreement with experimental data on average neutron multiplicities.
In a comment on arXiv:1006.5070v1, Drechsler et al. present new band-structure calculations suggesting that the frustrated ferromagnetic spin-1/2 chain LiCuVO4 should be described by a strong rather than weak ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interaction, in contradiction with their previous calculations. In our reply, we show that their new results are at odds with the observed magnetic structure, that their analysis of the static susceptibility neglects important contributions, and that their criticism of the spin-wave analysis of the bound-state dispersion is unfounded. We further show that their new exact diagonalization results reinforce our conclusion on the existence of a four-spinon continuum in LiCuVO4, see Enderle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 237207.
In a comment on arXiv:1006.5070v2, Drechsler et al. claim that the frustrated ferromagnetic spin-1/2 chain LiCuVO4 should be described by a strong rather than weak ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interaction, in contradiction with their previous work. Their comment is based on DMRG and ED calculations of the magnetization curve and the magnetic excitations. We show that their parameters are at odds with the magnetic susceptibility and the magnetic excitation spectrum, once intensities are taken into account, and that the magnetization curve cannot discriminate between largely different parameter sets within experimental uncertainties. We further show that their new exact diagonalization results support the validity of the RPA-approach, and strongly reinforce our conclusion on the existence of a four-spinon continuum in LiCuVO4, see Enderle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 237207.
In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].
The preceding Comment by Xu et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 059803 (2019); arXiv:1808.05390) erroneously applies the entropic stress expression in our Letter (T.C. OConnor et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 047801 (2018); arXiv:1806.09509) to transient stress. In addition, the authors only apply this expression at extreme extension rates where we clearly showed deviations from the entropic stress expression for steady-state extensional flow. Hence the surprisingly minor discrepancies noted in the Comment between observed and predicted stress are entirely expected and have no bearing on the discussion or conclusions in our Letter.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
