Talk:Continuum-Discretised Coupled Channels methods

From Scholarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

    First Reviewer's Comments

    This article concerning breakup calculations by the CDCC method is mostly accurate. However, there is a major formatting problem that has to be solved, and a number of small corrections to be made.

    Major problem: Citations!. These only appears as blanks in the text. And the list at the end is not numbered, so I do not see how cross-references are possible! This must be fixed asap.

    Minor problems

    1. Wherever possible, html markup should be used in preference to equation images. If you look at [HTML 4.0 Entities], you will see greek and math symbols that would be very useful in many places where equation appear in the line of the text. There are many unnecessary equation-images especially in the citation titles
    2. Just before eq(4): it is not true that the wave function might 'expressed as a sum of three Jacobi components'. Jacobi refers to coordinates, not to components.
    3. After eq(5), E is referenced: should be Ecm
    4. The symbol tilde-phi in eq(6) is nowhere defined.
    5. The Figure 2 caption should explain the meaning of the 3 panels. And what are the axis labels there. E or epsilon or epsilon-hat?
    6. In eq(8), tilde-epsilon_p is never defined.
    7. Maybe there is a reference for FRESCO, but I cannot see even the space intended for it.
    8. The Coulomb dissociation method is not defined. Is it an experimental method, or a theoretical method for analyzing experiments. These need to be distinguished.
    9. The incoming boundary condition is incorrectly defined: only a supposedly-equivalent definition is given.
    10. Define incomplete, complete and total fusions?
    11. The CDCC method does not decompose the wavefunction into c+v and p+t. This is an unacceptable shorthand for a general article.
    12. What is a three-charged particle? A 6Li ion?
    13. If breakup can be decoupled from transfer, does that mean the transfer only comes from the projectile bound state?
    14. What about the limitation of inconsistent potentials in CDCC+transfer calculations: sometimes the transferred particle is described by a complex optical potential, and sometimes (in the same model!) by a real potential!
    15. There should be references for the four extensions listed, if they have already been attempted.

    Comments on the second revision

    This article is now almost ready to be accepted. Most of my comments concern presentation.

    1. Revised the grammar of sentence beginning "Being the deuteron a ...."
    2. Fix "pratical"
    3. What does "in Faddeev" mean?
    4. Fix " whereas in when using the CDCC ..."
    5. Which 'two Hamiltonians are implicit'? Please explain
    6. At end, change 'it is often treated' to 'the wave function is often treated'
    7. References need more changes (a) put commas after titles before the journal titles
    8. (b) If the reference is to eg Ogata (2009b), PLEASE put 2009b in the bibliography, not just 2009!!!
    9. (c) Please order alphabetically!. FInding a reference, especially one given near the end of the article, is a pure nightmare! Especially with (b) above.

    Second Reviewer's Comments

    Overall, this contribution provides to the reader a good overview of the CDCC formalism, including a nice state-of-the-art summary. There are however some small issues listed below for consideration of the authors. 
    1. The citations numbers are missing.
    2. In Sec. "The CDCC method on paper", the scattering states of the projectile are denoted as \(\phi_\vec{k}(\vec r) = \phi_k(\vec r) Y_{lm}({\vec k})\). This cannot be correct, as long as the wave vector \({\vec k}\) and the quantum numbers \( l,m \) cannot characterized simultaneously the same quantum state. So, in other words, a state characterized by the wave vector \({\vec k}\) will be a (infinite) superposition of states characterized by \( l,m \).
    1. Section``Effects of breakup on fusion. The use of a short-range imaginary potential is NOT the incoming boundary condition method, but just an

    approximate way of simulating this method. In addition, this imaginary potentia is not added to the fragment-target interaction, but to the projectile-target relative coordinate.

    1. The description of the knockout processes is maybe too simplified. The usual observable that is recorded in this experiments is the momentum distribution of the heavy fragment. The \( \gamma \) rays due to the de-excitation of the core are usually, but not always detected.
    Personal tools

    Focal areas