1: \section{\label{analysis} Theoretical analysis}
2:
3: In the most frequently considered scenario of the proton-nucleus
4: collision at GeV proton energies it is assumed that reaction
5: proceeds via two stages.
6:
7: In the first stage of the reaction the proton impinging on to the
8: target nucleus initiates a cascade of nucleon-nucleon collisions
9: which leads to emission of several fast nucleons and pions, and to
10: excitation of the nucleus. This fast stage of reaction is described
11: by intranuclear cascade (INC) model, e.g. \cite{CUG97A,BOU02A},
12: Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (BUU) model, e.g. \cite{BER88A} or by
13: quantum molecular dynamics (QMD) model, e.g. \cite{AIC91A}. The
14: first of the mentioned models gives an account of the
15: nucleon-nucleus interaction by static (time-independent) mean field,
16: the BUU allows for dynamic evolution of the mean field as caused by
17: time dependence of an average nucleon density, and the QMD treats
18: the nucleon-nucleus interaction as a time dependent sum of
19: elementary two-nucleon and three-nucleon interactions of all
20: nucleons. The QMD introduces the largest fluctuations of the density
21: distribution of nucleons and, therefore, allows for emission of
22: clusters of nucleons from the first stage of the reaction. The
23: static mean field description used by INC model automatically
24: precludes possibility of nucleon distribution fluctuations. The BUU
25: model takes into consideration a time dependent modification of the
26: nucleon density distribution, however, the averaging over many test
27: particles, present inherently in BUU, prohibits appearing of
28: fluctuations large enough for nucleon clusters emission. The
29: emission of fast nucleons (in the case of INC and BUU) or fast
30: nucleons and light clusters (in the case of QMD) terminates after a
31: short time, leaving the residual excited nucleus in a status close
32: to the thermodynamic equilibrium.
33:
34: \begin{figure}
35: \begin{center}
36: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{twosrcs.eps}
37: \caption{\label{fig:twosrcs} Open circles represent experimental
38: energy spectrum of $^7Li$ particles measured at 35$^0$ in the
39: current experiment. The lines present result of phenomenological
40: model described below; the short-dashed line shows contribution of
41: the slow emitting source, the long-dashed line depicts contribution
42: of the fast source, whereas the solid line presents sum of both
43: contributions. Please note, that the shape of this experimental
44: energy distribution as compared with spectra shown in right part of
45: Fig. \ref{fig:he4li7buu} also confirms the monotonic change of the
46: exponential slope with the scattering angle.}
47: \end{center}
48: \end{figure}
49:
50:
51: \begin{figure}
52: \begin{center}
53: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{h1232s.eps}
54: \caption{\label{fig:h1232s} Open circles represent typical spectra
55: of protons, deuterons and tritons measured in the present experiment
56: by telescope consisted of silicon semiconductor detectors and 7.5 cm
57: thick scintillating detector CsI placed at scattering angle of 65
58: degree in respect to the proton beam. The dashed lines show
59: evaporation contribution evaluated by means of the BUU and
60: Generalized Evaporation Model whereas the full lines correspond to
61: phenomenological model of two emitting sources described below. Note
62: change of the scale for the triton spectrum.}
63: \end{center}
64: \end{figure}
65:
66: The second stage of reaction consists in the evaporation of nucleons
67: and clusters from this equilibrated system, which can also undergo
68: fission with emission of two heavy fragments. Thus, in the two-step
69: model of reaction mechanism, the non equilibrium emission of
70: nucleons and clusters can appear only in the first stage of the
71: reaction. It is believed that statistical model codes like, e.g. GEM
72: \cite{FUR00A,FUR02A} or GEMINI \cite{CHA88A} are capable to well
73: reproduce emission of nucleons and fragments from equilibrated,
74: excited nucleus. Therefore, observation of any disagreement of the
75: data with predictions of the two-step model would suggest that (i)
76: the model is not adequate to the real situation (e.g. an additional,
77: intermediate stage of the process is necessary before achieving
78: thermodynamic equilibrium), or (ii) description of the emission of
79: particles from the first stage of the reaction (nucleons or
80: clusters)
81: is not properly taken into consideration.\\
82:
83: \begin{figure}
84: \begin{center}
85: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{he3462s.eps}
86: \caption{\label{fig:he346} Typical energy spectra of helium ions
87: $^{3,4,6}$He measured in the present experiment by telescope
88: consisted of silicon semiconductor detectors placed at scattering
89: angle of 35 degree in respect to the proton beam - open circles.
90: Note different vertical scales for each spectrum. The lines have the
91: same meaning as in Fig. \ref{fig:h1232s}}
92: \end{center}
93: \end{figure}
94:
95:
96: \subsection{Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck model and evaporation model}
97:
98: The present data were compared with results of a two stage model in
99: which the Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport equation
100: \cite{BER88A} has been applied for the description of the first step
101: of the proton - nucleus collision leading to emission of fast
102: nucleons leaving the heavy excited remnant in a state close to
103: equilibrium. Monte Carlo computer program developed at Giessen
104: University \cite{CAS06A} was utilized to simulate this first stage
105: of the reaction and to find properties of excited residual nuclei.
106: Deexcitation of these nuclei, which proceeds by emission of nucleons
107: and complex fragments, was calculated in the frame of statistical
108: model using the GEM (Generalized Evaporation Model) computer program
109: of Furihata \cite{FUR00A,FUR02A}. Theoretical energy spectra of
110: various ejectiles found from this two stage model are shown in Figs.
111: \ref{fig:he4li7buu} - \ref{fig:cno_2s035} as dashed lines. It can
112: be concluded from examination of these figures that the model
113: predictions describe well low energy part of spectra for hydrogen,
114: helium and lithium isotopes. For heavier ejectiles the theoretical
115: cross sections underestimate the experimental data. Moreover, it can
116: be observed that the high energy part of the spectra is clearly not
117: reproduced by the two stage model, which predicts much steeper slope
118: of the spectra than is observed experimentally. Thus, another
119: mechanism seems to give a significant contribution to the proton -
120: nucleus reactions.
121: %
122: % The BUU model is based on the
123: %Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport equation:
124: %\begin{tiny}
125: %\begin{eqnarray*}
126: %\{\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \: + \: (\frac{\vec{p}_{1}}{m_{1}} \:
127: %+ \:
128: % \frac{\partial U(\vec{r},\vec{p}_{1},t)}{\partial \vec{p}_{1}}) \: \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{r}} \: - \: \frac{\partial U(\vec{r},\vec{p}_{1},t)}{\partial \vec{r}} \,
129: % \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{p}_{1}}\} f(\vec{r},\vec{p}_{1},t)
130: % &=&
131: %\nonumber \\
132: % \frac{4}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \: \int \, d^{3} {p}_{2} \, d^{3} {p}_{3} \, d\Omega \; \upsilon_{12} \;
133: % \frac{d\sigma_{12}}{d\Omega} \; \delta^{3}(\vec{p}_{1}+\vec{p}_{2}-\vec{p}_{3}-\vec{p}_{4}) \cdot [f_{3}f_{4}\overline{f}_{1}\overline{f}_{2} - f_{1}f_{2}\overline{f}_{3}\overline{f}_{4}]
134: %\end{eqnarray*}
135: %\end{tiny}
136: %
137: %\noindent where: \\
138: %$f_{i} \equiv f(\vec{r},\vec{p}_{i},t)$ -- one-body phase-space distribution of nucleons, \\
139: %$\overline{f}_{i} \equiv 1 - f(\vec{r},\vec{p}_{i},t)$ -- a factor
140: %responsible for Pauli blocking of nucleon-nucleon collisions,\\
141: %$U(\vec{r},\vec{p}_{1},t)$ -- mean-field representing the
142: %nucleon-nucleus potential parameterized as a function of local nucleon density:\\
143: % $U(\vec{r})=\frac{3}{4} t_{0} \rho(\vec{r})+\frac{7}{8} t_{3} \rho(\vec{r})^
144: %{4/3}+V_{0} \int d^{3}\vec{r'} \frac{exp(-\mu |\vec{r} -
145: %\vec{r'}|)}{\mu |\vec
146: %{r} - \vec{r'}|} \rho(\vec{r'}) + V_{Coul}$\\
147: %where the parameters are fixed at following values:\\
148: %$t_{0}$=-1124 MeV$\cdot$fm$^{3}$; $t_{3}$=2037 MeV$\cdot$fm$^{4}$;
149: %$V_{0}$=-378 MeV; $\mu$=2.175 fm$^{-1}$.\\
150: %$\upsilon_{12}$ -- relative velocity of colliding particles 1 and 2, \\
151: %$\Omega$ -- angle between momenta of outgoing particles:
152: %$\vec{p}_{3}$ and
153: %$\vec{p}_{4}$, \\
154: %$\frac{d\sigma_{12}}{d\Omega}$ -- differential cross section
155: %of the reaction proceeding in the nucleon-nucleon system.\\
156: %
157: As concerns hydrogen and helium production, the authors of
158: \cite{HER06A}, \cite{LET02A}, and \cite{BOU04A} papers propose the
159: coalescence of nucleons as the mechanism responsible for this
160: effect, however, no microscopic model is able to reproduce observed
161: effects for heavier composite ejectiles.
162:
163: An extensive comparison of predictions resulting from the models
164: mentioned above with our experimental data presented here will be
165: subject of a forthcoming paper. We restrict ourselves here on
166: conclusions we can draw from the application of a phenomenological
167: model described in the next section.
168:
169: Following properties of the spectra should be taken into
170: consideration when looking for an appropriate phenomenological
171: model:
172: \begin{description}
173: \item[(i)] \hspace{0.5em} The position
174: of the peak present at low energies
175: in the experimental spectra of all observed particles (and its height
176: for light ejectiles) is quite well reproduced by the two stage model discussed above.
177: This means that the mechanism described by this model gives a large
178: contribution to the reaction and therefore it must be
179: taken into account in the frame of any phenomenological model.
180: %
181: \item[(ii)] \hspace*{0.4em} The slope of the exponential, high energy tail
182: of the
183: experimental spectra for all ejectiles varies monotonically, increasing
184: strongly with the scattering angle
185: as can be seen from Fig. \ref{fig:he4li7buu}. Such a behavior is
186: in contradistinction to properties of the spectra evaluated in
187: the frame of the two stage model, which are almost independent of angle.
188: This indicates that high energy particles are not emitted from heavy residuum
189: of the intranuclear cascade but from another source which moves much
190: faster than the residuum.
191: \end{description}
192:
193: These arguments call for using of a phenomenological model of two
194: emitting sources; one source moving slowly would imitate emission
195: from heavy residuum of the intranuclear cascade whereas the second
196: source should simulate emission from faster (and thus probably
197: lighter) nuclear system. Of course, one could imagine that more than
198: two sources of emitted particles are necessary for reasonable
199: description of the data. The applied model of two moving sources
200: corresponds to minimal number of parameters necessary to fulfill
201: qualitative demands put on the model by the experimental data.
202:
203:
204:
205:
206:
207:
208:
209:
210:
211:
212: \begin{figure}
213: \begin{center}
214: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{li6789buu.eps}
215: \caption{\label{fig:li6789_2s035} Typical spectra of lithium ions
216: $^{6,7,8,9}$Li measured in the present experiment by telescope
217: consisted of silicon semiconductor detectors placed at scattering
218: angle of 35 degree in respect to the proton beam - open circles.
219: Note different vertical scales for $^{6,7}$Li and $^{8,9}$Li. The
220: lines have the same meaning as in Fig. \ref{fig:h1232s}}
221: \end{center}
222: \end{figure}
223:
224:
225: \begin{figure}
226: \begin{center}
227: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{be7910buu.eps}
228: \caption{\label{fig:be7910_2s035} Typical spectra of beryllium ions
229: $^{7,9,10}$Be measured in the present experiment by telescope
230: consisted of silicon semiconductor detectors placed at scattering
231: angle of 35 degree in respect to the proton beam - open circles. The
232: lines have the same meaning as in Fig. \ref{fig:h1232s}}
233: \end{center}
234: \end{figure}
235:
236:
237: \begin{figure}
238: \begin{center}
239: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{b101112buu.eps}
240: \caption{\label{fig:b10_12_2s035} Typical spectra of boron ions
241: $^{10,11,12}$B measured in the present experiment by telescope
242: consisted of silicon semiconductor detectors placed at scattering
243: angle of 35 degree in respect to the proton beam - open circles. The
244: lines have the same meaning as in Fig. \ref{fig:h1232s}}
245: \end{center}
246: \end{figure}
247:
248:
249: \begin{figure}
250: \begin{center}
251: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{cnobuu.eps}
252: \caption{\label{fig:cno_2s035} Typical spectra of carbon, nitrogen
253: and oxygen ions measured in the present experiment without isotopic
254: separation by telescope consisted of silicon semiconductor detectors
255: placed at scattering angle of 35 degree in respect to the proton
256: beam - open circles. The lines have the same meaning as in Fig.
257: \ref{fig:h1232s}}
258: \end{center}
259: \end{figure}
260:
261:
262: \begin{figure}
263: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
264: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{bcdfig.eps}\\
265: \caption{Examples of energy spectra for heavier, elementally identified IMF's
266: obtained in the current experiment by means of Bragg curve ionization
267: chambers. The open circles represent experimental data and the solid lines
268: show results of phenomenological model analysis obtained with assumption
269: of only one moving source, discussed in the next
270: section of the paper.}\label{fig:bcdfig.eps}
271: \end{figure}
272:
273:
274: \subsection{Phenomenological model of two moving sources}
275:
276:
277: In the frame of the phenomenological model of two moving sources the
278: angular and energy dependence of the double differential cross
279: sections $d^2 \sigma/ d\Omega dE$ is described by analytical
280: formulae. The details of the model and interpretation of its
281: parameters are presented in the Appendix. An example of the
282: description of the experimental energy spectrum by the two source
283: model is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:twosrcs}. The symbols depict the
284: data from present experiment obtained for $^7$Li ejectiles detected
285: at scattering angle 35$^0$ whereas the lines show result of the fit
286: of the phenomenological model. The short-dashed line presents
287: contribution from the slowly moving source, the long-dashed line
288: shows contribution from the fast source and the solid line
289: corresponds to sum of both contributions. As can be seen, very good
290: description of full energy spectrum could be achieved.
291:
292: The parameters of the theoretical formula of the two moving sources
293: model have been searched for by fitting simultaneously
294: %, by the same set of parameters,
295: experimental spectra at several scattering angles for each
296: ejectile. Exceptions from this rule were the spectra of ejectiles
297: heavier than oxygen (F, Ne, Na, Mg, and Al), which were measured
298: only at these two angles at which Bragg curve ionization chambers
299: have been positioned, \emph{i.e}. at 15$^0$ and 120$^0$. Such
300: spectra were fitted assuming that only one moving source gives
301: contribution to the reaction.
302: %
303: Furthermore, the spectra of C, N, and O which were measured both, by
304: silicon detectors at 35$^0$, 50$^0$, 80$^0$, and 100$^0$ as well as
305: by Bragg curve ionization chambers at 15$^0$ and 120$^0$ degree were
306: fitted using one emitting source and two emitting sources. The
307: parameters of sources for light charged particles and isotopically
308: identified IMF's are listed in Table \ref{table:parameters} whereas
309: those for heavier IMF's, which were only elementally identified, are
310: collected in Table \ref{table:elements}.
311:
312: The first source should simulate evaporation of particles from
313: heavy remnant of the first stage of the reaction, \emph{i.e.}
314: intranuclear cascade of nucleon-nucleon collisions. Thus, its
315: velocity was fixed at value $\beta$=0.002 (in units of velocity of
316: light) as it was extracted from BUU calculations. This value was
317: constant for all calculations. Other parameters characterizing the
318: source, \emph{i.e.} \emph{k}-parameter (ratio of the actual height
319: of Coulomb barrier to its value found from simple estimation for two
320: touching, charged spheres), \emph{T}-parameter (apparent
321: temperature), and $\sigma$ (energy and angle integrated cross
322: section for production of given ejectile) were free parameters of
323: the fit.
324:
325: All parameters of the second source were freely modified in fits
326: since no hypothesis concerning origin of this source was made before
327: the analysis. Usually the program was able to find unambiguously the
328: best parameters, corresponding to the minimum value of chi-square.
329: In such a situation the routine provides estimation of errors. In
330: some cases, however, the valley of chi-square values was so
331: complicated that the program was not able to produce reasonable
332: estimation of errors. The ambiguity of parameters lead sometimes the
333: searching procedure to nonphysical values of the parameters, as
334: \emph{e.g.} negative height of the Coulomb barrier. Then it was
335: necessary to fix these parameters at values, which still have
336: physical meaning. Such values of parameters are quoted in the tables
337: as closed in square parentheses.
338:
339:
340:
341:
342: % rotated 90 deg table - NOTE: "rotating" package is necessary for this purpose
343: %=====================----------------------------------------------------------
344: %
345: %\begin{sidewaystable}
346: \begin{table*}
347: % \centering
348: \caption{\label{table:parameters}Parameters of two moving sources for isotopically identified products }
349: \begin{tabular}{|l||l|l|l||l|l|l|l||c|}
350: \hline
351: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
352: & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{Slow source} & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{Fast source} & \\
353: \cline{2-8}
354: Ejectile & \emph{k}$_1$ & \emph{T}$_1$/MeV & $\sigma_1$/mb & \emph{k}$_2$ & $\beta_2$ & \emph{T}$_2$/MeV & $\sigma_2$/mb & $\chi^2$ \\
355: \hline
356: \hline
357: \emph{p} & 0.67 $\pm$ 0.02 & 5.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 1712 $\pm$ 46 & [0.05] & 0.147 $\pm$ 0.005 & 51.0 $\pm$ 1.4 & 4839 $\pm$ 86 & 22.6 \\
358: \hline
359: \emph{d} & 0.75 $\pm$ 0.02 & 9.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 870 $\pm$ 29 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.127 $\pm$ 0.004 & 48.3 $\pm$ 0.8 & 1100 $\pm$ 24 & 13.2 \\
360: \hline
361: \emph{t} & 0.85 $\pm$ 0.02 & 9.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 627 $\pm$ 17 & [0.05] & 0.072 $\pm$ 0.003 & 36.1 $\pm$ 0.7 & 323 $\pm$ 13 & 6.1 \\
362: % \hline
363: \hline
364: $^3$He & 0.75 $\pm$ 0.03 & 14.9 $\pm$ 0.8 & 112 $\pm$ 7 & [0.05] & 0.083 $\pm$ 0.005 & 45.5 $\pm$ 1.2 & 106 $\pm$ 7 & 4.6 \\
365: \hline
366: $^4$He & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.02 & 7.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 1722 $\pm$ 43 & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.048 $\pm$ 0.005 & 26.6 $\pm$ 1.5 & 251 $\pm$ 30 & 59 \\
367: \hline
368: $^6$He & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.04 & 9.0 $\pm$ 0.6 & 24.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 0.35 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.040 $\pm$ 0.007 & 21.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 7.5 $\pm$ 1.4 & 2.1 \\
369: % \hline
370: \hline
371: $^6$Li & 0.86 $\pm$ 0.04 & 11.1 $\pm$ 0.8 & 25.3 $\pm$ 1.7 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.034 $\pm$ 0.003 & 23.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 14.5 $\pm$ 1.7 & 2.0\\
372: \hline
373: $^7$Li & 0.88 $\pm$ 0.03 & 11.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 50.8 $\pm$ 2.6 & 0.36 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.035 $\pm$ 0.003 & 20.9 $\pm$ 0.5 & 20.3 $\pm$ 2.6 & 3.1\\
374: \hline
375: $^8$Li & 0.90 $\pm$ 0.09 & 11.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 9.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 0.45 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.029 $\pm$ 0.005 & 18.0 $\pm$ 1.0 & 6.4 $\pm$ 1.5 & 2.1\\
376: \hline
377: $^9$Li & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.22 & 10.4 $\pm$ 3.0 & 2.1 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.025 $\pm$ 0.003 & 18.2 $\pm$ 1.6 & 2.1 $\pm$ 0.6 & 1.2\\
378: % \hline
379: \hline
380: $^7$Be & 0.92 $\pm$ 0.27 & 11.2 $\pm$ 4.3 & 2.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0.48 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.038 $\pm$ 0.005 & 24.0 $\pm$ 1.2 & 4.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & 1.4\\
381: \hline
382: $^9$Be & 0.86 $\pm$ 0.12 & 9.6 $\pm$ 1.7 & 12.5 $\pm$ 1.9 & 0.53 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.020 $\pm$ 0.005 & 16.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 8.1 $\pm$ 2.3 & 1.4\\
383: \hline
384: $^{10}$Be & 0.90 $\pm$ 0.08 & 11.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 10.0 $\pm$ 1.4 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.026 $\pm$ 0.004 & 14.5 $\pm$ 0.9 & 6.8 $\pm$ 1.5 & 1.3\\
385: % \hline
386: \hline
387: $^{10}$B & 0.85 $\pm$ 0.20 & 10.5 $\pm$ 3.4 & 6.6 $\pm$ 1.3 & 0.73 $\pm$ 0.14 & 0.020 $\pm$ 0.010 & 18.2 $\pm$ 2.7 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.7 & 1.8\\
388: \hline
389: $^{11}$B & 0.93 $\pm$ 0.18 & 10.5 $\pm$ 2.1 & 12.8 $\pm$ 2.5 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.022 $\pm$ 0.004 & 14.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 12.8 $\pm$ 2.8 & 1.7\\
390: \hline
391: $^{12}$B & 0.87 & 8.8 & 1.6 & 0.73 & 0.012 & 13.2 & 5.1 & 1.0\\
392: \hline
393: \end{tabular}
394: %\end{sidewaystable}
395: \end{table*}
396:
397:
398:
399: \begin{table*}
400: \centering
401: \caption{\label{table:elements}Parameters of one or two moving sources for elementally identified products }
402: \begin{tabular}{|l||l|l|l||l|l|l|l||l|}
403: \hline
404: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
405: & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{Slow source} & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{Fast source} & \\
406: \cline{2-8}
407: Ejectile & \emph{k}$_1$ & \emph{T}$_1$/MeV & $\sigma_1$/mb & \emph{k}$_2$ & $\beta_2$ & \emph{T}$_2$/MeV & $\sigma_2$/mb & $\chi^2$ \\
408: \hline
409: \hline
410: C & 0.879 & 12.3 & 28.4 & 0.150 & 0.0367 & 15.8 & 11.8 & 3.34 \\
411: \cline{2-9}
412: & & & & 0.759 $\pm$ 0.032 & 0.0076 $\pm$ 0.0007 & 13.4 $\pm$ 0.5 & 33.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 3.26 \\
413: \hline
414: N & 1.00 & 12.2 & 15.9 & 0.206 & 0.0382 & 14.5 & 9.6 & 1.47 \\
415: \cline{2-9}
416: & & & & 0.822 $\pm$ 0.045 & 0.0118 $\pm$ 0.0007 & 13.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 18.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 1.41 \\
417: \hline
418: O & 0.75 & 14.1 & 1.3 & 0.71 & 0.0129 & 12.2 & 11.8 & 0.78 \\
419: \cline{2-9}
420: & & & & 0.784 $\pm$ 0.045 & 0.0118 $\pm$ 0.0007 & 13.5 $\pm$ 0.6 & 13.1 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0.75 \\
421: \hline
422: F & & & & 0.545 $\pm$ 0.079 & 0.0105 $\pm$ 0.0014 & 17.0 $\pm$ 3.2 & 5.12 $\pm$ 0.32 & 0.40 \\
423: \hline
424: Ne & & & & 0.670 $\pm$ 0.098 & 0.0090 $\pm$ 0.0018 & 15.3 $\pm$ 1.9 & 5.25 $\pm$ 0.44 & 0.54 \\
425: \hline
426: Na & & & & 0.801 $\pm$ 0.117 & 0.0104 $\pm$ 0.0020 & 12.0 $\pm$ 0.7 & 5.99 $\pm$ 0.63 & 0.61 \\
427: \hline
428: Mg & & & & 0.577 $\pm$ 0.090 & 0.0103 $\pm$ 0.0019 & 12.0 $\pm$ 1.2 & 4.59 $\pm$ 0.52 & 0.59 \\
429: \hline
430: Al & & & & 0.772 $\pm$ 0.180 & 0.0036 $\pm$ 0.0013 & 10.0 $\pm$ 0.7 & 5.24 $\pm$ 0.91 & 0.23 \\
431: \hline
432: \end{tabular}
433: %\end{sidewaystable}
434: \end{table*}
435:
436:
437:
438:
439: \begin{figure}
440: \begin{center}
441: %\vspace*{-2cm}
442: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{s1tos12vsa.eps}
443: \caption{\label{fig:s1tos12vsa} Ratio of total production cross
444: section corresponding to emission from the slow source to sum of the
445: total cross sections representing emission from both sources versus
446: mass number of the detected reaction product. The parameters $\sigma
447: _1$ and $\sigma _2$ were taken as total cross sections because
448: they correspond to angle and energy integrated double differential
449: cross sections $d^2\sigma/d\Omega dE$. The solid line shows average
450: value of the ratio (0.560 $\pm$ 0.044).}
451: \end{center}
452: \end{figure}
453:
454:
455:
456:
457: \begin{figure}
458: \begin{center}
459: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{t12vsa.eps}
460: \caption{\label{fig:t12vsa} Apparent temperature of the slow source
461: (full squares and solid lines) and that of the fast source (open
462: squares and dashed lines) versus mass number of the ejectiles. The
463: lines were fitted separately for light charged particles ($^1$H -
464: $^4$He) and intermediate mass fragments (A$_F \geq 6)$.}
465: \end{center}
466: \end{figure}
467:
468:
469: \begin{figure}
470: \begin{center}
471: %\vspace*{-2.5cm}
472: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.49\textwidth]{k12vsa.eps}
473: \caption{\label{fig:k12vsa} The ejectile mass number dependence of
474: the factor scaling the Coulomb barrier of two touching spheres to
475: the actual height -- necessary for good description of the data.
476: Full squares represent the slow source and open squares show results
477: for the fast source. The line \emph{k}=1 is also depicted to
478: facilitate interpretation of the figure.}
479: \end{center}
480: \end{figure}
481:
482:
483: % ----- beta of the fast source -----
484:
485: \begin{figure}
486: \begin{center}
487: %\vspace*{-2.5cm}
488: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\textwidth]{b2a.pdf}
489: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.51\textwidth]{b2vsa.eps}
490: \caption{\label{fig:b2vsa} Velocity of the second (fast) source as a
491: function of emitted fragment mass number - open squares. Thin solid
492: line $\beta_2$=0.018 represents velocity of the common center of
493: mass of the proton projectile and the target and thick solid line
494: $\beta_1$=0.002 shows velocity of the first (slow) source fixed at
495: velocity of heavy residuum of intranuclear cascade.}
496: \end{center}
497: \end{figure}
498:
499:
500: \bigskip
501: Thorough inspection of the parameter dependence leads to the
502: following conclusions:
503: \begin{enumerate}
504: \item \textbf{\emph{The contribution $\sigma_1$ of the first (slow) emitting source is comparable
505: to contribution $\sigma_2$ of the second source.}}
506:
507: It is illustrated by
508: Fig. \ref{fig:s1tos12vsa} in which ratio of the total cross
509: section for emission of ejectiles from the first
510: source to the sum of the total cross sections for emission
511: from both sources is shown as function of mass number of the
512: ejectiles. The average value of the ratio $\sigma_1/(\sigma_1+\sigma_2)$ is equal to 0.560
513: $\pm$ 0.044. It should be, however, emphasized that rather
514: large deviations from the average value appear for
515: individual ejectiles. For example, almost 90 \% of alpha particles
516: is emitted from the slow source, whereas it is the case only for $\sim$~25~\% of
517: protons.
518:
519:
520: %
521: \item \textbf{\emph{The parameters of the slow source have values which
522: agree with the assumption that this source simulates evaporation from a heavy
523: nucleus}} corresponding, \emph{e.g.}
524: to the residuum of the target after the intranuclear cascade of
525: nucleon-nucleon collisions, namely:
526: \begin{itemize}
527: \item The apparent temperature of the slow source is independent
528: of the mass of emitted intermediate mass
529: fragments, what can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:t12vsa}
530: where the slope parameter of the
531: solid line is equal to zero
532: within the limits of errors~:~-~0.15~$\pm$~0.17.
533: Its stability indicates that the
534: recoil effect of the source during emission of fragments is
535: negligible, thus, mass of the source
536: must be much larger than masses of observed IMF's (cf. Appendix).
537: %
538: Moreover, the horizontal line: \emph{T}~=~11.9~$\pm$~1.5~MeV,
539: fitted to temperature values extracted from spectra of IMF's
540: reproduces also quite well values of the apparent
541: temperature for light charged particles (H and He
542: ions) as can be expected for emission from heavy residuum
543: of the intranuclear cascade of nucleon-nucleon collisions.
544: %
545: \item The $k$ parameter, which determines the height of the effective
546: Coulomb barrier between the emitted fragment and the rest of
547: the emitting source (cf. Appendix) is very close to unity, what means that
548: the charge of the source does not differ significantly from
549: the charge of the target.
550: It is illustrated by Fig. \ref{fig:k12vsa} where
551: $k$ parameters for both sources are shown for
552: individual ejectiles. The full squares represent the slow source and
553: open squares correspond to the second, fast source.
554: The dashed line $k=1$ is shown in the figure to facilitate judgment on the
555: magnitude of the \emph{k} -- parameter.
556: \end{itemize}
557: %
558: \item \textbf{\emph{The second (fast) source is much lighter than the residual nucleus
559: of the intranuclear cascade}} because:
560: %
561: \begin{itemize}
562: \item Its velocity is always larger
563: than limiting velocity of the proton-target center of mass which
564: would be obtained only when
565: total beam momentum is transferred to the target ($\beta \approx
566: 0.018$). Fig. \ref{fig:b2vsa} illustrates this fact
567: showing $\beta_2$ values for individual ejectiles as
568: well as the horizontal line $\beta=0.018$.
569: \item The Coulomb barrier between the source and the
570: ejectile is several times smaller than the
571: Coulomb barrier of two touching charged spheres
572: representing the target nucleus and the ejectile. This is well
573: illustrated by open squares in Fig. \ref{fig:k12vsa}.
574: \item The recoil effect (cf. Appendix) is clearly visible in the dependence
575: of the apparent temperature of the source on the
576: mass of the ejectile as it is shown in Fig.
577: \ref{fig:t12vsa} - open squares.
578: \end{itemize}
579:
580: %
581: \item \textbf{\emph{The fast source describing LCP's
582: emission (hydrogen and helium ions up to $^4$He) is much lighter than the
583: fast source responsible for emission of intermediate mass fragments.}}
584:
585: This may be inferred from different recoil effects visible as
586: different slopes of two lines which describe the
587: dependence of the apparent temperature on the mass of ejectiles
588: (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:t12vsa}).
589: The line corresponding to LCP's is more steep, giving
590: the mass of the source equal to $A_S$=(8~$\pm$~2) nucleons, and very high
591: temperature of the source $\tau$=(62~$\pm$~7) MeV (cf. Appendix for meaning of $\tau$).
592: Velocity of this light source is very high; $\beta~=~0.05~-~0.15$.
593: Such a source can be, perhaps, identified with the
594: \emph{fireball} created by the proton impinging on to the target together
595: with nucleons present on its straight line way through the
596: target nucleus \cite{WES76A},
597: % WES78A
598: % CUM80A 3 - 4 nucleons (effective target)
599:
600:
601:
602: The line describing temperature of IMF's corresponds to mass
603: of the source $A_S$=(20 $\pm$ 3) nucleons and its temperature
604: $\tau$= (33 $\pm$ 2) MeV. Velocity of this source is much
605: smaller ($\beta= 0.02 - 0.04$) than velocity of source emitting LCP's.
606: % \end{itemize}
607: \end{enumerate}
608:
609: Very different properties of the fast source emitting light charged
610: particles (LCP's) and the fast source emitting intermediate mass
611: fragments (IMF's) leads to conclusion that the picture of two
612: sources is oversimplified. The presence of a fireball, which can
613: give contribution to emission of LCP's only and occurrence of the
614: light ($A_S \approx 20$), fast source emitting LCP's as well as
615: IMF's may be interpreted as indication of a three body decay of the
616: target nucleus. The third partner of such a decay would be heavy
617: and hardly distinguishable from heavy residuum of the intranuclear
618: cascade, therefore its occurrence could be described effectively by
619: the same slow source.
620: