Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Zhao, X.*; Zhang, Z.*; Hattori, Takanori; Wang, J.*; Li, L.*; Jia, Y.*; Li, W.*; Xue, J.*; Fan, X.*; Song, R.*; et al.
Nature Communications (Internet), 16, p.7713_1 - 7713_8, 2025/08
Times Cited Count：0 Percentile：55.06Caloric effects usually occur in the vicinity of solid-state phase transitions with a limited refrigeration temperature span. Here, we introduce and realize an unprecedented concept -all temperature barocaloric effect, i.e., a remarkable barocaloric effect in KPF
across an exceptionally wide temperature span, from 77.5 to 300 K and potentially down to 4 K, covering typical room temperature, liquid nitrogen, liquid hydrogen, and liquid helium refrigeration regions. The directly measured barocaloric adiabatic temperature change reaches 12 K at room temperature and 2.5 K at 77.5 K upon the release of a 250 MPa pressure. This effect is attributed to a persistent phase transition to a rhombohedral high pressure phases. We depict the thermodynamic energy landscape to account for the structural instability. This unique all-temperature barocaloric effect presents a novel approach to highly applicable solid-state refrigeration technology, transcending the conventional multi-stage scenario.
structures from a coupled-channel perspectiveZhang, Y.*; Song, Q.-F.*; L
, Q.-F.*; Nagahiro, Hideko*; Hosaka, Atsushi
Physical Review D, 112(3), p.034035_1 - 034035_11, 2025/08
no abstracts in English
Song, Q.-F.*; L, Q.-F.*; Hosaka, Atsushi
European Physical Journal C, 84(1), p.89_1 - 89_15, 2024/01
Times Cited Count：5 Percentile：65.25(Physics, Particles & Fields)no abstracts in English
Shangguan, Y.*; Bao, S.*; Dong, Z.-Y.*; Xi, N.*; Gao, Y.-P.*; Ma, Z.*; Wang, W.*; Qi, Z.*; Zhang, S.*; Huang, Z.*; et al.
Nature Physics, 19(12), p.1883 - 1889, 2023/09
Times Cited Count：23 Percentile：93.38(Physics, Multidisciplinary)Liu, B.*; Feng, R.*; Busch, M.*; Wang, S.*; Wu, H.*; Liu, P.*; Gu, J.*; Bahadoran, A.*; Matsumura, Daiju; Tsuji, Takuya; et al.
ACS Nano, 16(9), p.14121 - 14133, 2022/09
Times Cited Count：110 Percentile：98.70(Chemistry, Multidisciplinary)
resonances in a boxOno, Akira*; Xu, J.*; Colonna, M.*; Danielewicz, P.*; Ko, C. M.*; Tsang, M. B.*; Wang, Y,-J.*; Wolter, H.*; Zhang, Y.-X.*; Chen, L.-W.*; et al.
Physical Review C, 100(4), p.044617_1 - 044617_35, 2019/10
Times Cited Count：78 Percentile：98.61(Physics, Nuclear)International comparison of heavy-ion induced reaction models were discussed in the international conference "Transport2017" held in April 2017. Owing to their importance for safety assessment of heavy-ion accelerators and dosimetry of astronauts, various models to simulate heavy-ion induced reaction models are developed. This study is intended to clarify the difference among them to pinpoint their problems. In the comparison study, 320 protons and neutrons were packed in a 20-fm-large cube to calculate the number and energies of collisions during the time evolution. The author contributed to this study by running calculation using JQMD (JAERI Quantum Molecular Dynamics). This study showed that time step in the calculation is one of the biggest causes of the discrepancies. For example, the calculation by JQMD comprises 1-fm/c time steps, each of which is composed of transport, scattering and decay phases. Therefore a sequence of scattering, and decay followed by another scattering in 1 fm/c cannot be considered. Moreover, in JQMD particles are labeled by sequential numbers and scattering reactions are simulated by the order. Therefore scattering between low ID numbers, that between high ID numbers and that between the first (low ID) pair is overlooked in JQMD. Above indications obtained in this study must be kept in our mind for future JQMD upgrades.
Tang, C.*; Song, Q.*; Chang, C.-Z.*; Xu, Y.*; Onuma, Yuichi; Matsuo, Mamoru*; Liu, Y.*; Yuan, W.*; Yao, Y.*; Moodera, J. S.*; et al.
Science Advances (Internet), 4(6), p.eaas8660_1 - eaas8660_6, 2018/06
Times Cited Count：34 Percentile：83.78(Multidisciplinary Sciences)Zhang, Y.-X.*; Wang, Y,-J.*; Colonna, M.*; Danielewicz, P.*; Ono, Akira*; Tsang, M. B.*; Wolter, H.*; Xu, J.*; Chen, L.-W.*; Cozma, D.*; et al.
Physical Review C, 97(3), p.034625_1 - 034625_20, 2018/03
Times Cited Count：122 Percentile：99.01(Physics, Nuclear)International comparison of heavy-ion induced reaction models were discussed in the international conference "Transport2017" held in April 2017. Owing to their importance for safety assessment of heavy-ion accelerators and dosimetry of astronauts, various models to simulate heavy-ion induced reaction models are developed. This study is intended to clarify the difference among them to pinpoint their problems. In the comparison study, 320 protons and 320 neutrons were packed in a 20-fm-large cube to calculate the number of particle-particle collisions as well as the energies of collisions during the time evolution. In addition to the calculation, their algorithms were compared. The author contributed to this study by running calculation using JQMD (JAERI Quantum Molecular Dynamics). The results were compared with those calculated by the other 15 codes from over the world. Algorithm comparison showed that JQMD calculates collision probabilities from protons at first and collisions by neutrons are simulated later, which might be unreasonable. On the other hand, it was clarified that the calculation by JQMD agrees with those by the others. Despite the fact that some codes deviate from the average by a factor of 2, JQMD exhibited stable performance.
