1. Calculations for 56 Ni transfer cross sections (p,d)  Zero-range and finite-range options give similar results  Codes mostly consistent with increasing beam energy  Inconsistency with different potentials (d, 3 He)  Discontinuity with increasing energy in TWOFNR calculations with Daehnick deuteron potential [for (d, 3 He) reaction only]

2. Calculation details Same set of options for FRESCO and TWOFNR calcs – “brush” front end produces input file for both calculations did NOT include non-locality – not an option for FRESCO tried both ZR and FR (LEA) options – Near peak, very little difference – remaining calcs use FR (LEA) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO 56 Ni(p,d) 55 Ni Chapel Hill 89 optical potential for p JS Adiabatic + CH89 potential for d 37 MeV/A

3. 56 Ni(p,d) 55 Ni

4. 15 Nov 56 Ni(p,d) cross sections – comparing d potentials Chapel Hill 89 optical potential for p Comparing deutron potentials (JS+CH89 and Daehnick) Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = JS+CH89 (adiabatic) Dashed = Daehnick Shape and magnitude of cross sections are different With Daehnick (DWBA): - peak mag ~2x larger - flattened shape - shifted peaks at high E

5. 15 Nov 56 Ni(p,d) cross sections – increasing beam energy Chapel Hill 89 optical potential for p Johnson-Soper Adiabatic potential + CH89 for d (ADWA) Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO Little difference at peak with adiabatic pot. Differences at: larger angles higher energy

6. 15 Nov 56 Ni(p,d) cross sections – different deuteron potential Chapel Hill 89 optical potential for p Daehnick Global optical potential for d (DWBA) Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO Excellent agreement throughout the energy range using Daehnick deuteron potential Shape and magnitude of cross section is much different than when using adiabatic potential

7. 56 Ni(d, 3 He) 55 Co

8. 15 Nov 56 Ni(d, 3 He) cross sections – increasing energy for (d, 3 He) Daehnick Global optical potential for d Bechetti-Greenlees optical potential for 3 He Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO Little difference at low E (red, black, green) Enormous differences above ~60 MeV/u Related to Daehnick discontinuity ? [see later slides]

9. 23 Nov 56 Ni(d, 3 He) cross sections – different deuteron potential Perey-Perey optical potential for d Bechetti-Greenlees optical potential for 3 He Each color is a different beam energy (MeV/u) Solid = TWOFNR Dashed = FRESCO Excellent agreement throughout the energy range with Perey-Perey deuteron potential

10. 56 Ni(d, 3 He) 55 Co Daehnick discontinuity

11. 56 Ni(d, 3 He) cross sections – Daehnick discontinuity Daehnick Global optical potential for d Bechetti-Greenlees optical potential for 3 He 17 Nov TWOFNR Smooth change in cross section with energy E 76, Discontinuity at E ~ 75.85 MeV Thick black lines are 60, 70, 80 MeV/u Thin lines are 1 MeV/u steps

12. 56 Ni(d, 3 He) cross sections – no Daehnick discontinuity Daehnick Global optical potential for d Bechetti-Greenlees optical potential for 3 He 17 Nov FRESCO Smooth change in cross section with energy over entire range Thick black lines are 60, 70, 80 MeV/u Thin lines are 1 MeV/u steps

13. 56Ni(d,3He) – local, zero-range, BG for 3He 23 Jan Daehnick for deuteron Perey-Perey for deuteron brush+twofnr10brush12+twofnr11

14. 56Ni(d,3He) – local, zero-range, BG for 3He 23 Jan Daehnick for deuteron – still has discontinuity in twofnr (dotted) brush12+twofnr11