Dear Professor,
Every time I read your blogs, I always learn a lot.
I know that the question below goes a little beyond the discussion of this blog. But I wish that I can here the advice from you.
If I want to modify the mass table from FRDM to HFB in the network calculation, I would have some nuclei in HFB that don't include in FRDM. For most of mass tables, the ground state spin and the partition function didn't include in its published data. So to modify the mass table in the network, the data of these two parts would missing. To deal with this problem, perhaps, I have two choices:
(Assume that the (n,\gamma) reaction and beta decay rate that connect these nuclei are not problems)
Update all the masses of nuclei in the new mass tables, and set the ground state spin and partition to some special reasonable values. (Which are the reasonable values?)
Keep the network of 8230 nuclei and update the masses of nuclei in the new mass tables that also exist in the network of 8230 nuclei. This would leads to the not self-consistent near the drip line, But as the r-process path still have some distance with the drip line, so this is acceptable.
Do you think which way is better? Or do you have some other advice?
Thank you very much.
I am looking forward to your reply.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks for your post. It sounds like you are trying to run an r-process calculation with HFB data instead of FRDM. Before you worry about updating with inconsistent data, you might want to make sure the spin and partition function data for HFB don't already exist. You might look through Bruslib. I suspect they already have some or most of what you need. Keep me posted. Best wshes.
Last edit: Bradley S. Meyer 2019-01-11
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
Anonymous
-
2019-01-13
Thank you very much for the reply and introducing the Bruslib for me.
Yes, HFB is one of the choice, But also some other mass tables would be considered. Among these tables, few (or none) have the ground state spin and partition function data. So I need to consider an acceptable and uniform way to deal with these mass tables. To take or to produce the spin and partition for these mass tables seem impractical.
I have tried the calculation that cut off about 10% of the neutron rich side nuclei in the network. The final abundance only changes a little, which indicates that the nuclei near drip line is not so important in the calculation. The difference of the border of two mass tables is around or beyond the drip line, so the new nuclei in a mass table that didn't exist in 8230-nuclei network may not important in the calculation.
So I think maybe I can just keep the 8230-nuclei network, and modify the masses of these nuclei by other mass tables, keeping the spin and partition function as the value in the reaclib data. The idea is to focus on the masses uncertainty in the calculation.
If I am going forward on a totally wrong direction, please pull me back. :)
Thank you very much.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I agree that fully self-consistent data are hard to come by. Even the reaclib data base mixes experimental and theoretical data. Such a consistent set of data is the long-term goal of the nuclear physics/astrophysics community.
I think the most important thing is to be absolutely clear in what you are doing. You are running codes (numerical experiments) with a particular set of input data and gettng certain results. Those will be interesting--just be sure to communicate exactly what your inputs were. You can provide the input and instructions to others to be perfectly clear, if you want. That would be my advice. I hope that helps. Best wishes.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
Anonymous
-
2019-01-17
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much.
I am really glad to have the reply from you. Yes, communicating exactly what the inputs were is important. I will remember this advice.
Thanks again.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Moved from here:
Dear Professor,
Every time I read your blogs, I always learn a lot.
I know that the question below goes a little beyond the discussion of this blog. But I wish that I can here the advice from you.
If I want to modify the mass table from FRDM to HFB in the network calculation, I would have some nuclei in HFB that don't include in FRDM. For most of mass tables, the ground state spin and the partition function didn't include in its published data. So to modify the mass table in the network, the data of these two parts would missing. To deal with this problem, perhaps, I have two choices:
(Assume that the (n,\gamma) reaction and beta decay rate that connect these nuclei are not problems)
Do you think which way is better? Or do you have some other advice?
Thank you very much.
I am looking forward to your reply.
Thanks for your post. It sounds like you are trying to run an r-process calculation with HFB data instead of FRDM. Before you worry about updating with inconsistent data, you might want to make sure the spin and partition function data for HFB don't already exist. You might look through Bruslib. I suspect they already have some or most of what you need. Keep me posted. Best wshes.
Last edit: Bradley S. Meyer 2019-01-11
Thank you very much for the reply and introducing the Bruslib for me.
Yes, HFB is one of the choice, But also some other mass tables would be considered. Among these tables, few (or none) have the ground state spin and partition function data. So I need to consider an acceptable and uniform way to deal with these mass tables. To take or to produce the spin and partition for these mass tables seem impractical.
I have tried the calculation that cut off about 10% of the neutron rich side nuclei in the network. The final abundance only changes a little, which indicates that the nuclei near drip line is not so important in the calculation. The difference of the border of two mass tables is around or beyond the drip line, so the new nuclei in a mass table that didn't exist in 8230-nuclei network may not important in the calculation.
So I think maybe I can just keep the 8230-nuclei network, and modify the masses of these nuclei by other mass tables, keeping the spin and partition function as the value in the reaclib data. The idea is to focus on the masses uncertainty in the calculation.
If I am going forward on a totally wrong direction, please pull me back. :)
Thank you very much.
I agree that fully self-consistent data are hard to come by. Even the reaclib data base mixes experimental and theoretical data. Such a consistent set of data is the long-term goal of the nuclear physics/astrophysics community.
I think the most important thing is to be absolutely clear in what you are doing. You are running codes (numerical experiments) with a particular set of input data and gettng certain results. Those will be interesting--just be sure to communicate exactly what your inputs were. You can provide the input and instructions to others to be perfectly clear, if you want. That would be my advice. I hope that helps. Best wishes.
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much.
I am really glad to have the reply from you. Yes, communicating exactly what the inputs were is important. I will remember this advice.
Thanks again.