1: \documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
2:
3: \textwidth 6.80in
4:
5: \textheight 8.70in
6:
7: \topmargin -0.50in
8:
9: \oddsidemargin -0.30in
10:
11: \pagestyle{plain}
12:
13: %\linespread{1}
14:
15: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \begin{center}
20: {\large \bf Nuclear multifragmentation and fission: similarity and differences}
21:
22: \vspace{10mm}
23:
24: V. Karnaukhov$^{1,}$\footnote{Email address: karna@jinr.ru}, H. Oeschler$^2$, S. Avdeyev$^1$, V. Rodionov$^1$, \\
25: V. Kirakosyan$^1$, A. Simonenko$^1$, P. Rukoyatkin$^1$, A. Budzanowski$^3$, \\
26: W. Karcz$^3$, I. Skwirczynska$^3$, B. Czech$^3$, L. Chulkov$^4$, E. Kuzmin$^4$, \\
27: E. Norbeck$^5$, A. Botvina$^6$
28:
29: \vspace{5mm}
30:
31: { \small
32: $^1$Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Russia\\
33: $^2$Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, Darmstadt University of Technology, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany\\
34: $^3$H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, 31-342 Cracow,Poland \\
35: $^4$Kurchatov Institute, 123182 Moscow, Russia\\
36: $^5$University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA\\
37: $^6$Institute for Nuclear Research, 117312 Moscow, Russia\\}
38:
39: \end{center}
40:
41: \vspace{0.5cm}
42:
43: \noindent Thermal multifragmentation of hot nuclei is interpreted as the nuclear {\it liquid--fog}
44: phase transition deep inside the spinodal region. The experimental data for p(8.1GeV) + Au collisions
45: are analyzed. It is concluded that the decay process of hot nuclei is characterized by {\it two size
46: parameters}: transition state and freeze-out volumes. The similarity between dynamics of
47: fragmentation and ordinary fission is discussed. The IMF emission time is related to the mean rupture
48: time at the multi-scission point, which corresponds to the kinetic freeze-out configuration.
49:
50: \section{\normalsize Introduction}
51:
52: \hspace{4mm} The study of the highly excited nuclei is one of the challenging topics of nuclear
53: physics, giving access to the nuclear equation of state for temperatures below ${\it T}_{c}$ -- the
54: critical temperature for the {\it liquid-gas} phase transition. The main decay mode of hot nuclei is
55: a copious emission of intermediate mass fragments (IMF), which are heavier than $\alpha$--particles
56: but lighter than fission fragments. An effective way to produce hot nuclei is via heavy-ion
57: collisions. But in this case the heating of nuclei is accompanied by compression, strong rotation,
58: and shape distortion, which influence the decay properties of excited nuclei. One gains simplicity,
59: and the picture becomes clearer, when light relativistic projectiles (protons, antiprotons, pions)
60: are used. In this case, fragments are emitted by only one source -- the slowly moving target
61: spectator. Its excitation energy is almost entirely thermal. Light relativistic projectiles provide a
62: unique possibility for investigating {\it thermal multifragmentation}. The decay properties of hot
63: nuclei are well described by statistical models of multifragmentation (SMM and MMMC \cite{1,2}). This
64: is an indication, that the system is thermally equilibrated or close to that. For the case of
65: peripheral heavy-ion collisions the partition of the excited system is also governed by heating.
66:
67: The van der Walls equation can be used with nuclear matter because of the similarity of the
68: nucleon-nucleon force to the force between molecules in a classical gas \cite{3,4,5}. In both cases
69: there exists a region in the PVT diagram corresponding to a mixture of liquid and gas phases. This
70: region can contain unstable, homogeneous matter for short times. In a classical gas this can be
71: achieved by cooling through the critical point. In the nuclear case this can be achieved by a sudden
72: expansion of the liquid phase at a temperature well below the critical temperature. The separation of
73: the homogeneous matter into a mixture of stable liquid and gas is called spinodal decomposition. One
74: can imagine that a hot nucleus (at ${\it T}$ = 7--10 MeV) expands due to thermal pressure and enters
75: the unstable region. Due to density fluctuations, a homogeneous system is converted into a mixed
76: phase consisting of droplets (IMF) and nuclear gas interspersed between the fragments. Thus the final
77: state of this transition is a {\it nuclear fog} \cite{5}. Note that classical fog is unstable, it
78: condensates finally into bulk liquid. The charged nuclear fog is stable in this respect. But it
79: explodes due to Coulomb repulsion and is detected as multifragmentation. It is more appropriate to
80: associate the spinodal decomposition with the {\it liquid-fog} phase transition in a nuclear system
81: rather than with the {\it liquid-gas} transition \cite{6,8}. This scenario is supported by a number
82: of
83: observations; some of them are the following:\\
84: \noindent (a) the density of the system at break-up is much lower than the normal one ${\rho}_{0}$
85: \cite{8};\\ (b) the mean life-time of the fragmenting system is very small ($\approx$ 50 {\it fm/c})
86: \cite{9};\\
87: (c) the break-up temperature is significantly lower than $T_{c}$, the critical temperature for the
88: {\it liquid-gas} phase transition \cite{6,7}.\\
89: \indent In this paper we concentrate on the dynamics of thermal multifragmentation and its similarity
90: to ordinary fission. This similarity was noted first by Lopez and Randrup in their statistical theory
91: of multifragmentation \cite{10,11}. First of all, there are two characteristic volumes (or
92: configurations) for both processes. Secondly, the time scale characterizations for fragmentation and
93: fission are similar with respect to their ingredients.\\
94: \indent Experimental data have been obtained using the $4\pi$-device FASA installed at the external
95: beam of the Nuclotron (Dubna). At present, the setup consists of twenty five {\it dE-E} telescopes
96: surrounded by a fragment multiplicity detector, which is composed of 58 thin CsI(Tl) scintillation
97: counters.\\
98:
99:
100: \section{\normalsize Two characteristic volumes in thermal multifragmentation}
101:
102:
103: \hspace{3mm} Traditionally, in statistical models \cite{1,2}, multifragmentation is characterized by
104: just one size \\
105: \noindent parameter -- the freeze-out volume, ${\it V}_{f}$. There are a number of papers with
106: experimental estimations of this characteristic volume, but the values obtained deviate
107: significantly. A mean freeze-out volume $\sim$ 7${\it V}_{0}$ (${\it V}_{0}$ = volume at normal
108: density) was found in $\it ref.$ \cite{12} from the average relative velocities of the IMFs for
109: $^4$He(14.6 MeV) + Au collisions. In paper \cite{13} the nuclear caloric curves were considered
110: within the Fermi-gas model to extract average nuclear densities for different systems. It was found
111: that ${\it V}_{f}$ $\approx$ 2.5${\it V}_{0}$ for the medium and heavy masses. In $\it ref.$
112: \cite{14} the mean IMF kinetic energies were analyzed for Au + Au collisions at 35$\cdot$A MeV. The
113: freeze-out volume was found to be $\sim$ 3${\it V}_{0}$. The average source density for the
114: fragmentation in the 8.0 GeV/$\it c$ ${\pi}^{-}$ + Au interaction was estimated to be $\approx$
115: (0.25--0.30)${\rho}_{0}$, at E*/A$\sim$5
116: MeV from the moving-source-fit Coulomb parameters \cite{15,16}.\\
117: \indent In our paper \cite{8}, the data on the charge distribution and kinetic energy spectra of IMFs
118: produced in {\it p}(8.1GeV)+Au collisions were analyzed using the combined INC +Exp+SMM model. The
119: events with IMF multiplicity {\it M}$\ge$2 were selected. The results obtained are shown at {\it
120: fig.}1. It was shown that one should use two volume (or density) parameters to describe the process
121: of multifragmentation, not just one as in the traditional approach. The first, ${V}_{t}$ =
122: (2.6${\pm}$0.3)${\it V}_{0}$ (or ${\rho}_{t}$ ${\approx}$ 0.38${\rho}_{0}$), corresponds to the stage
123: of pre-fragment formation. Strong interaction between pre-fragments is still significant at this
124: stage.
125: \begin{figure}
126: \begin{center}
127: \includegraphics[width=8.1cm]{pic1.eps}\\
128: \caption{Proposed spinodal region for the nuclear system. The experimental points were obtained by
129: the FASA collaboration. The arrow line shows the way from the starting point at {\it T}=0 and normal
130: nuclear density ${\rho}_{0}$ to the break-up point at ${\rho}_{t}$ and to the kinetic freeze-out at
131: the mean density ${\rho}_{f}$. Critical temperature is estimated in \cite{7}.}\label{1}
132: \end{center}
133: \end{figure}
134: \noindent The second one, ${\it V}_{f}$=(5${\pm}$1)${\it V}_{0}$, is the kinetic freeze-out volume.
135: It is determined by comparing the measured fragment energy spectra with the model predictions using
136: multi-body Coulomb trajectories. The calculations have been started with placing all charged
137: particles of a given decay channel inside the freeze-out volume ${\it V}_{f}$. In this configuration
138: the fragments are already well separated from each other, they are interacting via the Coulomb force
139: only. Actually, the system at freeze-out belongs to the mixed phase sector of the phase diagram, with
140: a mean density that is five times less than normal nuclear density. The first characteristic volume,
141: ${\it V}_{t}$, was obtained by analyzing the IMF charge distributions, {\it Y}(Z), within the SMM
142: model with a {\it free} size parameter {\it k}. For simplicity, the dependence of the charge
143: distribution on the
144: critical temperature ${\it T}_{c}$ was neglected in this analysis.\\
145: \indent Recently, we performed a more sophisticated consideration of {\it Y}(Z) with two free
146: parameters, ${V}_{t}$ and ${\it T}_{c}$. A comparison of the data with the calculations was done for
147: the range 3 $<$ Z $<$ 9, in which minimal systematic errors were expected. {\it Figure }2 shows
148: ${\chi}^{2}$ for comparison of the measured and calculated IMF charge distributions as a function of
149: ${\it V}_{t}$ /${\it V}_{0}$ for different values of the critical temperature. The minimum value of
150: ${\chi}^{2}$ decreases with increasing ${\it T}_{c}$ in the range from 15 to 19 MeV and saturates
151: after that. The corresponding value of ${\it V}_{t}$/${\it V}_{0}$ increases from 2.4 to 2.9. The
152: measured IMF charge distribution is well reproduced by SMM with ${\it V}_{t}$ in the range
153: (2.5--3.0)${\it V}_{0}$, which is close to the value obtained in \cite{8}. As for the kinetic
154: freeze-out volume, the present value coincides with the one given in \cite{8}, but its uncertainty is
155: only half as much
156: because the estimated systematic error is less:\\
157: \noindent ${V}_{f}$ = (5.0 ${\pm}$0.5)${\it V}_{0}$.\\
158: \indent Our previous conclusion about the value of the critical temperature \cite{6,7} is also
159: confirmed: ${\it T}_{c}$ exceeds 15 MeV. Note, this value is twice as large as estimated in [17,18]
160: with the Fisher droplet model. This contradiction is waiting for further efforts to clarify the point.
161: \begin{figure}
162: \begin{center}
163: \includegraphics[width=7.6cm]{pic2.eps}\\
164: %\epsfig{bbllx=100,bblly=100,bburx=500,bbury=500,file=pic2.eps}
165: \caption{Value of ${\chi}^{2}$ as a function of ${\it V}_{t}/{\it V}_{0}$ for comparison of the measured and model predicted IMF charge
166: distributions. The calculations with the INC*+SMM combined model was performed under the assumption
167: of two free parameters: ${\it V}_{t}$ -- the effective volume at the stage of pre-fragment formation,
168: and ${\it T}_{c}$ -- the critical temperature for the liquid-gas phase transition.}\label{2}
169: \end{center}
170: \end{figure}
171: \section{\normalsize Comparison of multifragmentation and fission dynamics}
172:
173: \hspace{3mm} The occurrence of two characteristic volumes for multifragmentation has a transparent
174: meaning. The first volume, ${\it V}_{t}$, corresponds to the fragment formation stage at the top of
175: the fragmentation barrier. Here, the properly extended hot target spectator transforms into closely
176: packed pre-fragments. The final channel of disintegration is completed during the evolution of the
177: system up to the moment, when receding and interacting pre-fragments become completely separated at
178: ${\it V}_{f}$. This is just as in ordinary fission. The saddle point (which has a rather compact
179: shape) resembles the final channel of fission having already a fairly well defined mass asymmetry.
180: Nuclear interaction between fission pre-fragments ceases after the descent of the system from the top
181: of the barrier to the scission point. In the papers by Lopez and Randrup \cite{10,11} the similarity
182: of the two processes was used to develop a theory of multifragmentation based on a generalization of
183: the transition-state approximation first suggested by Bohr and Wheeler in 1939. The transition states
184: are located at the top of the barrier or close to it. The phase space properties of the transition
185: states are decisive for the further fate of the system, for specifying the final channel. No size
186: parameters are used in the theory.\\
187: \begin{figure}
188: \begin{center}
189: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{pic3.eps}\\
190: \caption{Upper: qualitative presentation of the potential energy of the hot nucleus (with excitation energy
191: ${\it E}_{0}^{*}$) as a function of the system radius. The ground state energy of the system
192: corresponds to {\it E}=0. {\it B} is the fragmentation barrier, {\it Q} is the released energy.
193: Bottom: schematic view of the multifragmentation process and its time scale: ${\it t}_{1}$ --
194: thermalization time, ${\it t}_{2}$ -- time of the expansion driven by thermal pressure, ${\it t}_{3}$
195: -- the mean time of the multi-scission point (with dispersion, which is measured as fragment emission
196: time, ${\tau}_{em}$ ).}\label{3}
197: \end{center}
198: \end{figure}
199: \indent Being conceptually similar to the approach of {\it ref.} \cite{10,11}, the statistical
200: multifragmentation model (SMM) uses a size parameter that can be determined by fitting to data. The
201: size parameter obtained from the IMF charge distribution can hardly be called a freeze-out volume.
202: This is the “transition state volume”, corresponding to the top of the fragmentation barrier (see
203: {\it fig.}3). The freeze-out volume, ${\it V}_{f}$, corresponds to the multi-scission point, when
204: fragments became completely separated and start to be accelerated in the common electric field. In
205: the statistical model (SMM) used, the yield of a given final channel is proportional to the
206: corresponding statistical weight. This means that the nuclear interaction between pre-fragments is
207: neglected when the system volume is ${\it V}_{t}$ and that this approach can be viewed as a
208: simplified transition-state approximation. Nevertheless, the SMM well describes the IMF charge (mass)
209: distributions for thermally driven multifragmentation. Note once again that in the traditional
210: application of the SMM, only one size parameter is used. The shortcoming of such a simplification of
211: the
212: model is obvious now.\\
213: \indent The evidence for the existence of two characteristic multifragmentation volumes changes the\\
214: \noindent understanding the time scale of the process (see the bottom of {\it fig.}3). One can
215: imagine the following ingredients of the time scale: ${\it t}_{1}$ -- the mean thermalizataion time
216: of the excited target spectator, ${\it t}_{2}$ -- the mean time of the expansion to reach the
217: transition state, ${\it t}_{3}$ -- the mean time up to the multi-scission point.\\
218: \indent The system configuration on the way to the scission point contains several pre--fragments
219: connected by necks. Their random rupture is characterized by the mean time, ${\tau}_{n}$, which seems
220: to be a decisive ingredient of the fragment emission time:
221: ${\tau}_{em}$ ${\approx}$ ${\tau}_{n}$.
222: Formally ${\tau}_{em}$ may be understood as the standard deviation of ${t}_{3}$:\\
223:
224: \hspace{40mm} ${\tau}_{em}$ =$(<{t}^{2}_{3}>-<{t}_{3}>^{2})^{1/2}$.\\
225:
226: \noindent In the earlier papers, the emission time was related to the mean time of density
227: fluctuations in the system at the stage of fragment formation, at {\it t}
228: ${\approx}$ $t_{2}$ \cite{19}.\\
229: \indent What are the expected values of these characteristic times? Thermalization or energy
230: relaxation time after the intranuclear cascade, ${\it t}_{1}$, is model estimated to be (10--20) {\it
231: fm/c} \cite{20,21}. The Expanding Emitting Source model (EES) predicts
232: $<$${\it t}_{2}$ -- ${\it t}_{1}$$>$ ${\approx}$ 70 {\it fm/c}
233: for {\it p}(8.1GeV)+Au collisions \cite{22}. The model calculation in \cite{23} results in estimation
234: of ${\it t}_{3}$ to be (150--200) {\it fm/c}. The only measured temporal characteristic is a fragment
235: emission time, ${\tau}_{em}$, which is found in number of papers to be ${\approx}$ 50 {\it fm/c} ({\it
236: e.g.} see
237: \cite {9}). It would be very important to find a way to measure the value of ${\it t}_{3}$.\\
238: \indent Note, that in the case of ordinary fission ${\it t}_{2}$ is specified by the fission width
239: ${\Gamma}_{f}$, which corresponds to a mean time of about ${10}^{-19} s$ (or $3.3 {\cdot} {10}^{4}$
240: {\it fm/c}) for an excitation energy of around 100 MeV [24]. The value $<$${\it t}_{3}$ -- ${\it
241: t}_{2}$$>$ is model estimated in a number of papers to be about 1000 {\it fm/c} \cite{25}. A mean
242: neck rupture time, considered as a Rayleigh instability, is estimated in \cite{26} to be:
243:
244: \vspace{5mm}
245:
246: \begin{equation}
247: {\tau}_{n}=
248: [1.5{\cdot}{({R_n}/{\it fm})}^3]^{1/2}{\cdot}{10}^{-22} s
249: \end{equation}
250:
251: \vspace{5mm}
252:
253: \noindent Generally, the values of ${\tau}_{n}$ are found to be 200--300 {\it fm/c} for fission.\\
254: \indent Using (1) for the estimation of the mean time for the rupture of the multi-neck configuration
255: in fragmentation, one gets ${\tau}_{n}$ between 40 and 115 {\it fm/c} under the assumption of a neck
256: radius $R_n$ between 1 and 2 {\it fm}. This estimation is in qualitative agreement with the measured
257: values of the fragment emission time ${\tau}_{em}$. Evidently, the multifragmentation process is much
258: faster than high energy fission. {\it Table} 1 summarizes these
259: estimates.\\
260:
261: \vspace{5mm}
262:
263: \begin{center}
264: \noindent{\it Table} 1 Characteristic times (in {\it fm/c}) for fragmentation and
265: fission; the models used are given in brackets; experimental values are marked (Exp).
266: \end{center}
267:
268: \begin{center}
269: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
270: & ${\it t}_1$ & ${\it t}_2 $ & $<$ ${\it t}_{3}$ -- ${\it t}_{2}$ $>$ &
271: ${\sigma}({\it t}_{3})$ \\
272: \hline
273: & & & & \\
274: Fragmentation & 20 & 80 & 150 & $50{\pm}10$ \\
275: & (UU) & (EES) & (QMD) & (Exp) \\
276: & & & & \\
277: \hline
278: & & & & \\
279: Fission & & $3 {\cdot} {10}^{4}$ & $ 2 {\cdot} {10}^{3}$ & 200 \\
280: & & (Exp) & (LD) & (RI) \\
281: & & & & \\
282:
283: \hline
284:
285: \end{tabular}
286: \end{center}
287:
288: \vspace{10mm}
289:
290: \indent As for the spatial characteristics, the relative elongation of the very heavy systems (Z$>$99)
291: at the fission scission point is similar to that for the multi-scission point of medium heavy nuclei.
292: For the fission of the lighter nuclei, (Po--Ac), the scission elongation is
293: larger \cite{26}.\\
294: \indent A few words about the experimental possibility for finding the total time scale for
295: fragmentation, {\it i.e.} the mean value of ${\it t}_{3}$. It can be done by the analysis of the
296: fragment-fragment correlation function with respect to relative angle. But, in contrast to the usual
297: IMF-IMF correlation, one of the detected fragments should be the particle ejected during the
298: thermalization time ${\it t}_{1}$. For the light relativistic projectiles, it may be the
299: pre-equilibrium IMF’s; for heavy-ion induced multifragmentation, a projectile residual (PR) may be
300: used as the trigger related to the initial collision. In the last case the PR--TIMF correlation
301: function should be measured, where TIMF is the intermediate mass fragment from the disintegration of
302: the hot target spectator created via the partial fusion.
303:
304: \vspace{4mm}
305:
306: \section{\bf Conclusion}
307:
308: \hspace{4mm} Thermal multifragmentation of hot nuclei is interpreted as the nuclear {\it liquid--fog}
309: phase transition inside the spinodal region. Experimental evidence is presented for the existence of
310: two characteristic volumes for the process: transition state and kinetic freeze-out volumes. This is
311: similar to that for ordinary fission. The dynamics is similar also for the two processes, but
312: multifragmentation is much faster than high energy fission. The IMF emission time is related to the
313: mean rupture time at the multi-scission point, which corresponds to the freeze-out configuration.\\
314:
315: \indent The authors are grateful to A. Hrynkiewicz, A.I. Malakhov, A.G. Olchevsky for support and to
316: I.N. Mishustin and W. Trautmann for illuminating discussions. The research was supported in part by
317: the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Grant ¹ 06-02-16068, the Grant of the Polish
318: Plenipotentiary to JINR, Bundesministerium f\"ur Forschung und Technologie, Contract {\it No} 06DA453.
319:
320: {\small
321:
322: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
323: \itemsep=0cm
324:
325: \bibitem{1} BOTVINA A.S. ET AL., {\it Yad. Fyz.} {\bf 42} (1985) 1127;\\
326: BONDORF J.P. ET AL., {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 257} (1995) 133.
327: \bibitem{2} GROSS D.H.E., {\it Rep. Progr. Phys.} {\bf 53} (1990) 605.
328:
329: \bibitem{3} SAUER G., CHANDRA H. AND MOSEL U., {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf 264} (1976) 221.
330:
331: \bibitem{4} JAQAMAN
332: H., MEKJIAN A.Z. AND ZAMICK L., {\it Phys. Rev.}, C {\bf 27} (1983) 2782.
333:
334: \bibitem{5} SIEMENS P.J., Nature, 305 (1983) 410; {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf428} (1984) 189c.
335:
336: \bibitem{6} KARNAUKHOV V.A., {\it Phys. of At. Nuclei} {\bf 62} (1997) 237.
337:
338: \bibitem{7} KARNAUKHOV V.A. ET AL., {\it Nucl. Phys}, A{\bf 734} (2004) 520.
339:
340: \bibitem{8} KARNAUKHOV V.A. ET AL., {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf 749} (2005) 65c.
341:
342: \bibitem{9} RODIONOV V.K. ET AL., {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf 700} (2002) 457.
343:
344: \bibitem{10} LOPEZ J.A. AND RANDRUP J., {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf 503} (1989) 183.
345:
346: \bibitem{11} LOPEZ J.A. AND RANDRUP J., {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf 512} (1990) 345.
347:
348: \bibitem{12} BAO-AN Li ET AL., {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 335} (1994)1.
349:
350: \bibitem{13} NATOWITZ J.B., ET AL., {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 66} (2002) 031601(R).
351:
352: \bibitem{14} D'AGOSTINO M., ET AL., {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf 699} (2002) 795.
353:
354: \bibitem{15} VIOLA V.E., {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf 734} (2004) 487.
355:
356: \bibitem{16} RADUTA AD.R., BORDERIE B. ET AL., {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 623} (2005)43.
357:
358: \bibitem{17} ELLIOTT J.B. ET AL., {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88} (2002) 042701.
359:
360: \bibitem{18} ELLIOTT J.B. ET AL., {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 67} (2003) 024609.
361:
362: \bibitem{19} WANG G. ET AL., {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 48} (1998) R2786.
363:
364: \bibitem{20} CASSING W., {\it Z. Phys.} A {\bf 327} (1987) 447.
365:
366: \bibitem{21} BORDERIE B., Preprint Orsay/IPNO-DRE-92-03, Preprint, 1992.
367:
368: \bibitem{22} AVDEYEV S.P. ET AL., {\it Eur. J. Phys.} A {\bf 3} (1998) 75.
369:
370: \bibitem{23} BARAN V. ET AL., {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf 703} (2002)603.
371:
372: \bibitem{24} GOLDENBAUM F. ET AL., {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 82} (1999) 5012.
373:
374: \bibitem{25} HILSCHER D., H. ROSSNER H., {\it Annales de Phys.} {\bf 17} (1992) 471.
375:
376: \bibitem{26} BROSA U. ET AL., {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 197} (1990) 162.
377:
378: \end{thebibliography}
379: }
380:
381: \end{document}
382: