I. I. Gontchar et al.

Within the framework of the second recipe, the convergence is not reached because the reference point for the

excitation energy always include the potential energy with the shell correction (see Equation (6) of [12]).

To finalize, we have compared two approaches for calculating the driving force for the nuclear fission process

at low excitation energies when the shell effects are expected to be significant. We have found that in the case of

uranium-236 nucleus the quasistationary decay rates

and

resulting from these approaches are rather

close (the difference is about 20%). This is however just because for this nucleus the shell correction is small in

comparison with the typical energy

MeV controlling the smearing out the shell effects. For the lead-

208 nucleus with larger value of the shell correction, the difference between

and

reaches factor of 2.

This is significantly larger than the difference between the rates calculated within the frame work of the first ap-

proach with and without the shell correction. Since the first approach is based on the thermodynamical argu-

ments, we are inclined to make favor to it in comparison with the second one.

Acknowledgements

M. V. C. and E. G. D. are grateful to the Dmitry Zimin Foundation ‘Dynasty’ for financial support.

References

[1] Wagemans, C. (1991) The Nuclear Fission Process. CRC Press Inc.

[2] Hilscher, D. and Rossner, H. (1992) Dynamics of Nuclear Fission. Annals of Physics (France), 17, 471-552.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/anphys:01992001706047100

[3] Oganessian, Yu. (2013) Heaviest Nuclei. Nuclear Physics News, 23, 15-21.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10619127.2013.767694

[4] Itkis, I.M., et al. (2011) Fission and Quasifission Modes in Heavy-Ion-Induced Reactions Leading to the Formation of

Hs. Physical Review C, 83, 064613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.064613

[5] Oganessian, Yu.Ts., et al. (2010) Synthesis of a New Element with Atomic Number Z = 117. Physical Review Letters,

104, 142502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502

[6] Pavlova, E.G. and Gontchar, I.I. (2012) Dissipative Statistical and Dynamical Fission Rates: Case of the Microcanoni-

cal Ensemble. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the Current Problems in Nuclear Physics and

Atomic Energy, Kyiv, 3-7 September 2012, 315-319.

[7] Gontchar, I.I., Fröbrich, P. and Pisc hasov, N.I. (1993) Consistent Dynamical and Statistical Description of Fission of

Hot Nuclei. Physical Review C, 47, 2228-2235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.47.2228

[8] Gontchar, I.I. and Fröbrich, P. (1993) Nuclear Fission: Combining the Dynamical Langevin Equation with the Statisti-

cal Model. Nuclear Physics A, 551, 495-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(93)90459-B

[9] Adeev, G.D., Karpov, A.V., Nadtochy, P.N. and Vanin, D.V. (2005) Multidimensional Stochastic Description of the

Excited Nuclei Fission Dynamics. Physics of Particles and Nuclei, 36, 733-820.

[10] Ignatyuk, A. V., Itkis, M.G., Okolovich, V.N., Smirenkin, G.N. and Tishin, A.S. (1975) Fission of Pre-Actinide Nuclei.

Excitation Functions for the (α, f) Reaction. Physics of Atomic Nuclei (Yadernaya Fizika), 21, 1185-1205.

[11] Aritomo, Y. and Oh ta, M. (2004) Dynamical Calculation for Fusion-Fission Probability in Superheavy Mass Region,

Where Mass Symmetric Fission Events Originate. Nuclear Physics A, 744, 3-14.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.08.009

[12] Aritomo, Y. and Chiba, S. (2013) Fission Process of Nuclei at Low Excitation Energies with a Langevin Approach.

Physical Review C, 88, 044614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044614

[13] Brack, M., Damgaard, J., Jensen, A.S., Pauli , H.C., Strutinsky, V.M. and Wong, C.Y. (1972) Funny Hills: The Shell-

Correction Approach to Nuclear Sell Effects and Its Applications to the Fission Process. Reviews of Modern Physics,

44, 320-405.