### Abstract

We compare results of dynamical modeling of the fission process with predictions of the Kramers formulas. For the case of large dissipation these are two: the integral rate R_{I} and its approximation R_{O}. As the ratio of the fission barrier height B_{f} to the temperature T reaches 4, any analytical rate is expected to agree to the dynamical quasistationary value R_{D} within 2 %. We performed modeling using four different potentials and found that the difference between the R_{O} and the R_{D} sometimes exceeds 20 %. Such discrepancy is not acceptable nowadays because it is comparable to the quantum, non-markovian and multidimensional effects. The features of the potentials used which cause this disagreement are identified and studied. It is demonstrated that this is the R_{I}, not the R_{O}, which meets the expectation above irrespectively of the shape of potential.

Original language | English |
---|---|

Title of host publication | 3rd International Conference on Current Problems in Nuclear Physics and Atomic Energy, NPAE 2010 - Proceedings |

Publisher | Kiev Institute for Nuclear Research,KINR |

Pages | 46-50 |

Number of pages | 5 |

Publication status | Published - 2011 |

Event | 3rd International Conference on Current Problems in Nuclear Physics and Atomic Energy, NPAE 2010 - Kyiv, Ukraine Duration: 7 Jun 2010 → 12 Jun 2010 |

### Other

Other | 3rd International Conference on Current Problems in Nuclear Physics and Atomic Energy, NPAE 2010 |
---|---|

Country | Ukraine |

City | Kyiv |

Period | 7.6.10 → 12.6.10 |

### Fingerprint

### ASJC Scopus subject areas

- Nuclear and High Energy Physics
- Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

### Cite this

*3rd International Conference on Current Problems in Nuclear Physics and Atomic Energy, NPAE 2010 - Proceedings*(pp. 46-50). Kiev Institute for Nuclear Research,KINR.

**How much accurate is description of nuclear fission rate by means of Kramer's formula?** / Gontchar, I. I.; Pavlova, E. G.; Litnevsky, A. L.; Aktaev, N. E.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

*3rd International Conference on Current Problems in Nuclear Physics and Atomic Energy, NPAE 2010 - Proceedings.*Kiev Institute for Nuclear Research,KINR, pp. 46-50, 3rd International Conference on Current Problems in Nuclear Physics and Atomic Energy, NPAE 2010, Kyiv, Ukraine, 7.6.10.

}

TY - GEN

T1 - How much accurate is description of nuclear fission rate by means of Kramer's formula?

AU - Gontchar, I. I.

AU - Pavlova, E. G.

AU - Litnevsky, A. L.

AU - Aktaev, N. E.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - We compare results of dynamical modeling of the fission process with predictions of the Kramers formulas. For the case of large dissipation these are two: the integral rate RI and its approximation RO. As the ratio of the fission barrier height Bf to the temperature T reaches 4, any analytical rate is expected to agree to the dynamical quasistationary value RD within 2 %. We performed modeling using four different potentials and found that the difference between the RO and the RD sometimes exceeds 20 %. Such discrepancy is not acceptable nowadays because it is comparable to the quantum, non-markovian and multidimensional effects. The features of the potentials used which cause this disagreement are identified and studied. It is demonstrated that this is the RI, not the RO, which meets the expectation above irrespectively of the shape of potential.

AB - We compare results of dynamical modeling of the fission process with predictions of the Kramers formulas. For the case of large dissipation these are two: the integral rate RI and its approximation RO. As the ratio of the fission barrier height Bf to the temperature T reaches 4, any analytical rate is expected to agree to the dynamical quasistationary value RD within 2 %. We performed modeling using four different potentials and found that the difference between the RO and the RD sometimes exceeds 20 %. Such discrepancy is not acceptable nowadays because it is comparable to the quantum, non-markovian and multidimensional effects. The features of the potentials used which cause this disagreement are identified and studied. It is demonstrated that this is the RI, not the RO, which meets the expectation above irrespectively of the shape of potential.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84898892228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84898892228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

SP - 46

EP - 50

BT - 3rd International Conference on Current Problems in Nuclear Physics and Atomic Energy, NPAE 2010 - Proceedings

PB - Kiev Institute for Nuclear Research,KINR

ER -