MEMO CP-A/156
27-July-2004
To:
Distribution
From:
F.E. Chukreev
Subject: Scope of data compilation (See Memos CP-C/336, CP-D/385,CP-A/151, CP-E/043, CP-C/343)

What will be lost, if the EXFOR scope will be limited by thescope, which has been proposed in CP-C/343?
Let us see first proposal:•“Incident charged particles from A=l-12, and excluding“fundamental” particles (pions, kaons, antiprotons, etc.).”If particles with A>12 will be excluded, then
1.1 We must refuse to help users, which use a littleaccelerators for material investigations, because heavy
ions (Si, S, O etc.) are needed for Rutherford
backscattering method. INDC took our attention for theproblem, constantly.
1.2 We must stop all compilations of the papers, whereinteractions radioactive nuclei have been investigated,because the experiments use “inverse” geometry. The
investigations are very important to solve physical andastrophysical problems. The majority of experimental
data, which were measured in “inverse” geometry mustnot be compiled too.
1.3 We must stop all compilations of the papers, where fissionof exotic fissioning systems were investigated. But weheard constantly, that physics of fission is mostimportant problem.
1.4 I would like to support JCPRG opinion (see item 3 ofCP-E-043). Our experience show, that numerical data are
available short time only after publication and the data
will be lost if good experiments with “fundamental”
particles will not be compiled. CAJAD compiled“fundamental” particles data, when the data are presented
in the paper together with ‘non-fundamental” particles.
Let us see second proposal:•“Incident-projectile energies up to 1 GeV.”
The limit on incident-projectile energies is notsuitable. If a limit is needed, then EN-CM must be limited.
For example, PR/C,53,347,1996 contains data forinteraction of neon-20 (beam energy – 6680 Mev) withhydrogen target. The data are same as 10-Ne-20(p, datafor proton energy 334 MeV (Coulomb barrier is negligible
for similar energies).
Technical question for proposed limitation:
CP-C/343 contains proposal:

“Any center that wishes to compile the data outside the scope agreed
upon should make a proposal and request a new area code. The scope of theseareas must also be defined.
The following area codes are now free: I, J, K, U, W, X, Y.”
The proposal is ad hoc proposal. Today JCPRG and CAJAD
can use I and J codes for identification data outside
the scope agreed. But tomorrow somebody will refuse toinclude in his data collection, for example, tensor
polarization data. The “somebody” has the right! Thenthe seven identification codes will be exhausted very
quickly.
Therefore our proposal to use N3 field of SUBENTRY (orN3 of BIB record) is more suitable. For example, A in
34 column will designate that EN-CM is larger than 1GeV. B in the column will designate, that EN-CM is larger
than 10 GeV etc. 35-th column may be used, for example,
to distinguish integral and differential data; 36-thcolumn may be used for mass numbers of beam and target
etc.
Obviously, our proposal requests additional
responsibility from compilers.

Distribution:
oblozinsky@bnl.gov
nordborg@nea.fr
maev@ippe.obninsk.ru
feliks@polyn.kiae.su
S.Dunaeva@iaea.org

varlamov@depni.sinp.msu.ru
kato@nucl.sci.hokudai.ac.jp
gezg@iris.ciae.ac.cn
tarkanyi@atomki.hu
hasegawa@ndc.tokai.jaeri.go.jp
kaltchenko@kinr.kiev.ua
jhchang@kaeri.re.kr
v.pronyaev@iaea.org
exfor@nea.fr+

vml@bnl.gov
manokhin@ippe.obninsk.ru
Mmarina@ippe.obninsk.ru
chukreev@polyn.kiae.su
taova@expd.vniief.ru
chiba@earth.sgu.ac.jp

yxzhuang@iris.ciae.ac.cn
hongwei@iris.ciae.ac.cn
stakacs@atomki.hu
vlasov@kinr.kiev.ua
ogritzay@kinr.kiev.ua

ohtsuka@nucl.sci.hokudai.ac.jp
schwerer@iaeand.iaea.org