1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
3: \usepackage[koi8-r]{inputenc}
4: \usepackage[russian]{babel}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \usepackage{psfig}
7: \evensidemargin = -10pt
8: \oddsidemargin = -10pt
9: \topmargin = 0pt
10: \renewcommand{\figurename}{Fig.}
11: \headheight = 0pt
12: \headsep = 0pt
13: \textheight = 9.0in
14: \textwidth = 6.0in
15: \marginparsep = 0pt
16: \marginparwidth = 0pt
17: \footskip = 45pt
18: \pagenumbering{arabic}
19: \usepackage{graphicx}
20:
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \sloppy
25:
26: \thispagestyle{empty}
27:
28: \begin{center}
29:
30: %{\LARGE\bf Direct measurements of the light signal velocity in the water volume of Baikal Neurtino Telescope.
31: %}
32: %{\LARGE\bf Calculation of the group light velocity for Cherenkov water detectors.}
33: {\LARGE\bf{The dispersion formula and the light group velocity in a water}}
34: %{Parametrization of the dispersion formula and calculation
35: %of light group velocity for water with different properties.}}
36: \end{center}
37: %\vspace{1cm}
38: \begin{center}
39: \author\footnotesize{\bf{$I.A. Danilchenko$}}\\
40: %1-Институт Ядерных Исследований Российской Академии Наук.\\
41: %Москва,Российская Федерация.\\
42: Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Science(Moscow),
43: Russian Federation,\\
44: Corresponding E-mail: iad@pcbai10.inr.ruhep.ru\\
45: \end{center}
46:
47: {\it\small {The parametric formulas are obtained whereby the refractive index and
48: the light group velocity could be calculated for any water state
49: (salinity, pressure, temperature) inside of the light
50: wavelength region
51: from 200nm to 1200nm. These formulas are suitable to be used in
52: underwater neutrino telescope activity.}}
53: %\newpage
54: \begin{center}
55: {\bf Introduction}
56: \end{center}
57:
58: In underwater Cherenkov neutrino telescopes /1$\div$5/ water acts
59: as a radiator of Cherenkov photons generated by charge particles.
60: Cherenkov photons are emitted in cone with half-angle defined by the
61: mass and momentum of the particle and the refractive index of the
62: medium (water in our case)
63: $$cos\Theta=1/(\beta\cdot n(\lambda)),\eqno (1)$$
64: where $\beta$ is velocity of particle, $n(\lambda)$ is
65: refractive index and $\lambda$ is wavelength.\
66:
67: % Any transparent material is characterized by a group index
68: % $$n_{gr}(\lambda)=c/v_{gr}(\lambda),\eqno (2)$$
69: % where $c$ is the light velocity in vacuum and $v_{gr}$ is
70: % light group velocity in the medium.
71: Because the medium (water)
72: is disperseve, the group velocity
73: (velocity of light signal transmission in transparent material)
74: is
75: different from phase velocity \\
76: $v_{ph}(\lambda)=c/n(\lambda$) and
77: being characterised by a group index of this medium
78: $$v_{gr}(\lambda)=c/n_{gr}(\lambda),\eqno(2)$$
79: $$n_{gr}(\lambda)=n(\lambda)-\lambda\cdot (dn/d\lambda), \eqno (3)$$\
80: where $c$ is the light velocity in vacuum.\
81:
82: This reality is taken into account for example in construction
83: of a large-area Time Of Flight(TOF) counters. The group index of
84: scintillator is $n_{gr}=1.75$ compared with refractive index
85: $n=1.5$ /6/. In the DUMAND-type installation activity a phase
86: velocity was used for estimation of a photon TOF till it was
87: demonstrated /7/ that such approach leads to errors in results
88: of TOF-calculations. For photon passed through
89: 100m water layer these errors vary from 10ns to 18ns when
90: the light wavelength varies from 500nm to 350nm. A disregard of the
91: $v_{gr}-v_{ph}$ difference does not affect errors in track
92: reconstruction for the existing projects /8/, but, as
93: Baikal Neutrino Telescope experience shows, only $v_{gr}$
94: must be used for time-calibration of the detector modules
95: with the help of an outside laser and its value
96: have to be known with a quite high accuracy.\
97:
98: The measurement of the group velocity may be performed
99: with a help of detector modules lighted by an outside
100: laser which shines through water /9/. Comparison of
101: the experimental result with the value of this physical
102: constant gives
103: an unique possibility to verify the accuracy and reliability
104: of all time measuring units and all time calibration procedures.
105: To prove the height level of the TOF measuring the accuracy of
106: $v_{gr}$ calculation have to be higher than this level and
107: therefore all factors which affect the $n_{gr}$ value
108: (wavelength dependence, temperature, pressure, salinity)
109: must be taken into account.
110:
111: %\newpage
112: \begin{center}
113: {\bf 1. Dispersion formulas for pure and sea water}
114: \end{center}
115:
116: In applied optics a calculation of a refraction index for any
117: wavelength in the restricted wavelength region is performed
118: using so called dispersion formulas. These formulas have the same
119: structure for different class of material but differ
120: usually in the formula coefficients. Thus for example for optical
121: colourless glass in the wavelength interval
122: 365$\div$10139 nm the following formula is used /10/:
123: $$n^{2}=A_{1}+A_{2}\cdot \lambda^{2}+A_3\cdot \lambda^{-2}
124: +A_4\cdot \lambda^{-4}+A_5\cdot \lambda^{-6}+
125: A_6\cdot \lambda^{-8} ,\eqno (4)$$\
126: where $A_i$ are the coefficients of the dispersion formula, which
127: depend on the glass class and each class is characterised by
128: one's own set of $A_i$ /10/.\
129:
130: There is abundance of table data/10-12/ which contain the results
131: of the refraction index measurements performed for
132: pure (salinity S=0 $^0/_{00}$)
133: water, atmospheric pressure $P=P_{atm}$ and
134: temperature $t=20^0 C$. The formula (5) represent the best
135: fit to these data and the lower solid line 1 on Fig.1 shows
136: the result of the refraction index calculation by means of
137: this expression. The points on this
138: line correspond to table data used in the fitting procedure.
139: $$n_{0}^2(\lambda)=1.7527-2.55\cdot 10^{-3}\cdot \lambda^4-
140: 5.0\cdot 10^{-3}\cdot \lambda^2+9.9\cdot 10^{-3}\cdot \lambda^{-2}-$$
141: $$-4.0\cdot 10^{-4}\cdot \lambda^{-4}+2.9\cdot 10^{-5}\cdot \lambda^{-6}-
142: 5.0\cdot 10^{-7}\cdot\lambda^{-8},\eqno(5)$$\
143: where $ \lambda$ in mkm and index '0' means distilled water with t=20$^o$C
144: and P=Patm. By comparison with expression (4) the term
145: $A\cdot \lambda^4$ was added to extend the region in which
146: dispersion formula is correct since
147: $\lambda$=214nm up to $\lambda$=1256nm.\
148:
149:
150: Salinity, pressure and temperature
151: affect the value of the water refraction index. The sets of
152: the same black points which are also shown in Fig.1 correspond
153: to the sets of the table data /12/ for different states (S, P, t) of
154: sea water. The dependencies n versus $\lambda$
155: for these sets are described by functions
156: $$n(\lambda, S, P, t)=n_0(\lambda, S_0, P_0, t_0)+\bigtriangleup n(S,P,t) \eqno(6)$$
157: with quite high precision. The last fact permits to conclude, that
158: in distinct with an optical glass, the dispersion formula
159: coefficients are the same for distilled water, sea water and compressed
160: water and they do not depend on temperature. Thus to calculate a refraction
161: index of any water for any wavelength the dispersion formula (5) may be
162: used as an universal one and just S, P, t -corrections ($\bigtriangleup
163: n(S,P,t$)) must be taken into account
164: which do not depend on wavelength.
165:
166: \newpage
167:
168: \begin{figure}[ht]
169:
170: \mbox{\epsfig{ file=fig1l.eps, width=15cm, height=15cm }}
171: \caption[1]{\small Dispersion formulas and table data.
172: The lines (1-5) were calculated by
173: means of the dispersion formula(5) and line 6 by means polinomial /14/.
174: 1 : n=n$_0$; 2 : n=n$_0$+0.0081; \\3 : n=n$_0$+0.0132;
175: 4 : n=n$_0$+0.0182; 5 : n=n$_0$+0.0266.}
176: \end{figure}
177: \begin{center}
178: {\bf2. S, P, t -corrections of water refractive index}\
179: \end{center}
180: In the simplest approach /7, 8/ the Lorentz-Lorentz formula may be used
181: to get such corrections:
182: $$\frac{n^2-1}{n^2+2}\cdot \frac{1}{\rho}=\frac{4}{3}\cdot
183: \frac{N_A}{M}\cdot\alpha_e ,\eqno(7)$$
184: where $M$ is the molecular weight, $N_A$ \ - Avogadro
185: number, $\alpha_e$ \ - polarizability and
186: $$R_{\rho}=\frac{n^2-1}{n^2+2}\cdot \frac{1}{\rho} \eqno(8)$$
187: is the specific refractive index.
188: If we suppose that the right part of the expression (7) is constant, the
189: change in refractive index with density is given by
190: $$\frac{\bigtriangleup n}{\bigtriangleup \rho}=\frac{(n^2+2)
191: \cdot (n^2-1)}{6\cdot n\cdot \rho}, \eqno(9)$$
192: and calculation of $\bigtriangleup\rho(S, P, t)$ is enough
193: for the estimation of $\bigtriangleup n(S, P, t)$.\
194:
195: Analysis of table
196: data/12/ shows some dependence $R_\rho$ versus $t$ and versus $S$ and
197: so the described approach becomes not quite correct. Direct comparison
198: of the measured increasing $\bigtriangleup$ $n_{exp}$ which
199: occurs due to water
200: temperature fall from 20$^0$C to t$^0$C with the
201: value $\bigtriangleup$ $n_{L-L}$ (formula (7)) shows that
202: the measured results exceed the estimated values
203: on 18\%, 23\%, 29\% and
204: 37\% for temperatures
205: 15$^0$C, 10$^0$C, 5$^0$C and 0$^0$C
206: correspondingly.
207: Therefore in the given
208: calculations the experimental results are used as fully as
209: possible and the formula (9) may be used, if such results are not
210: available, but only for $\bigtriangleup n_p$ correction, when
211: density is changed directly due to the pressure increasing.
212: To calculate the corrections it is supposed that
213: $$\bigtriangleup n(S, P, t)=\bigtriangleup n_{St}(S, P_0, t)+
214: \bigtriangleup n_p(S, P, t). \eqno(10)$$
215: % where index '1' means that the refractive index table data are used
216: % and these data have been measured under conditions $(S_1, t_1)$ which
217: % are the nearest to the real conditions $(S, t)$.\\
218:
219:
220: % and for large depth correction the dependence $n$ versur
221: % $\rho$ is is extracted by combining $n$ versus $t^o$ and
222: % $\rho$ versus $t^0$ dependences.\\
223:
224:
225: %\begin{center}
226: %{\bf{2.1 Sea water}}
227:
228:
229: %\end{center}
230: \
231:
232: The refractive index table data which
233: have been measured for sea water /12/ were used to get some
234: mathematical expressions to describe the dependencies $n$ versus
235: $S$, $t$ and $P$. The points on Fig. 2
236: correspond to sea water refractive index values
237: measured under atmospheric pressure for photons
238: with $\lambda=583.9nm$ /12/ and the lines are calculated using the
239: expression (11), which is the best fit to these points:
240: %obtaned from specific refractiv index($R_{\rho}$)
241: %table data/12/ by means formula (8) and formula(11).
242: %The best fit to these points is
243: %represented by expression (11):
244: $$n(S, P_0, t)=1.3340+0.19705\cdot10^{-3} \cdot S-$$
245: $$-(0.15655+0.010045\cdot S-0.41077\cdot 10^{-4} \cdot S^2) \cdot 10^{-4}\cdot t-$$
246: $$-(0.17585-0.14300 \cdot 10^{-2} \cdot S+0.12525 \cdot 10^{-4}\cdot S^2)\cdot 10^{-5} \cdot t{^2}. \eqno(11)$$
247:
248: Because of the salinity varies inside the region $(35\pm4) ^0/_{00}$
249: in projects planned to be installed in a deep sea, the table data /12/
250: are used
251: which contain refractive index values ($\lambda=501.7nm$)
252: measured under high pressure in water with $S=35^0/_{00}$.
253: These points for which the sea depth values (h(m)) are used instead
254: the pressure values are shown on Fig. 3 and dependence of the refractive index
255: versus h and versus t is described well by the expression (12) :
256: $$n(35, h ,t)=1.3448+0.15024\cdot 10^{-5}\cdot h-0.13122
257: \cdot 10^{-10}\cdot h^2-$$
258: $$-(0.50560+0.80127\cdot 10^{-4}\cdot h-0.99739\cdot 10^{-9}
259: \cdot h^2)\cdot 10^{-4}\cdot t-$$
260: $$-(1.3118-0.11469\cdot 10^{-3}\cdot h+0.18712\cdot 10^{-8}
261: \cdot h^2)\cdot 10^{-6}\cdot t^2. \eqno(12)$$
262: \\
263: The expressions (11) and (12) may be used to calculate
264: (S, t)-correction and P$_h$-correction correspondingly :
265: $$\bigtriangleup n_{St}=n(S, P_0,t)-n(0,P_0,t_0), \eqno(13)$$
266: $$\bigtriangleup n_p=n(35,P_h,t)-n(35,P_0,t). \eqno(14)$$
267: A pure water compressibility is higher than the one for
268: salt water and, therefore, according (9) one has
269: $\bigtriangleup n_p(0,P,t)>\bigtriangleup n_p(S,P,t)$. To
270: account it (in the absence of direct experimental data) the depth
271: correction for pure water may be calculated as
272: $$\bigtriangleup n_p(0,P_h,t)=\bigtriangleup n_p(35,P_h,t)\cdot K_S,\eqno(15)$$
273:
274: \begin{figure}[ht]
275: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=15cm,height=7.2cm}}
276: \caption[1]{\small Refractive index $(\lambda=589.3 nm)$ of sea water under
277: atmospheric pressure /12/.
278: }
279: \end{figure}
280: \begin{figure}[h]
281: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=15cm,height=7.2cm}}
282: \caption[1]{\small Refractive index $(\lambda=501.7nm)$ of
283: sea water (S=35$^0/_{00}$) for various depths /12/.
284: }
285: \end{figure}
286: where $K_S=\bigtriangleup\rho(0, P_h, t)/\bigtriangleup\rho(35, P_h, t)$. Analysis of the table data /12/ gives $K_S=1.07\pm 0.01$
287: for $t=(0\div 5)^o C$ and $h=(0\div 14000)m$.
288: \begin{center}
289: {\bf 3. $\bigtriangleup$n(S, P, t) -corrections and group light
290: velocity for existing projects}
291: \end{center}\
292:
293: The refractive index corrections caused by environmental
294: parameters ($S,P_h, t$) of detector sites, and values of the light group
295: velocity for $\lambda$=475 nm which have been calculated by means
296: expressions 5$\div$6 and 10$\div$14 are put in the table. The points on Fig. 4
297: reflect the results of such calculations for the various values of
298: light wavelength.\
299:
300: \begin{center}
301: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
302: \hline
303: Detector & S ($^0/_{00}$) & h (m) & t ($^0$C) & $ \bigtriangleup n(S, P_h, t)$ & v$_{gr}$(10$^{10}$cm/s)\\[5pt]
304: \hline
305: DUMAND & 35 & 4600 & 1.3 & 0.0147 & 2.1729\\
306: NESTOR & 38.7 & 3800 & 14 & 0.0129 & 2.1757\\
307: ANTARES & 33.65 & 2500 & 13.2 & 0.0103 & 2.1799\\
308: BAIKAL & 0.12 & 1150 & 3.4 & 0.0027 & 2.1919\\
309: \hline
310: \end{tabular}
311: \end{center}
312: \begin{figure}[ht]
313: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=15cm,height=10cm}}
314: \caption[1]{\small The dependencies of calculated light velocity
315: versus light wavelength for the existing underwater neutrino telescope
316: projects. The points and upper line have been calculated
317: by means the expressions (2$\div$3), (5$\div$6) and (10$\div$14). The stars
318: correspond to
319: the experimental results/9,14/. The other lines are calculated by means
320: the formula(16).
321: }
322: \end{figure} \
323:
324: It seems to be completely justified to simplify the calculation procedure
325: by using the following formula which is the best fit for these points:
326: $$v_{gr}(\lambda,S,P,t)=c/(1.333+0.57\cdot10^{-2}\cdot\lambda^{-2}
327: +0.3\cdot10^{-3}\cdot\lambda^{-4}+\bigtriangleup n(S, P, t)). \eqno(16)$$\
328:
329:
330:
331:
332:
333: \newpage
334:
335:
336: \begin{center}
337:
338: {\bf 4. Comparison with the experimental result}\
339:
340: \end{center}
341: The first direct measurements of the light ($\lambda$=475nm) signal velocity
342: ($V$) have been performed in the water volume of Baikal Neutrino
343: Telescope (NT-200) /9/. These measurements did not
344: require any add devices and any changes in NT-200 standard regime. Data
345: of usual laser calibration run has been used to do this. During such
346: runs NT-200 Channels (Ch) detect the flashes of laser, which has
347: attached to NT-200 central string on 20m lower than the lowest Ch. Laser
348: generates five flash series with the decreased photon intensity. Only
349: central string data have been taken into account to avoid the influence
350: of the neighbour strings co-ordinates ambiguities. Mean measured
351: values of Time Difference($T_{ij}$) for
352: any of two Ch's (45 pairs in the
353: total) and the (measured before) spaces between Ch's
354: attachment points
355: and laser attachment point were used as an input
356: information. Increasing
357: of Ch time delay with the laser flash intensity decreasing
358: (time walk effect) was observed for all Ch's. The special
359: procedure /9/ was
360: applied to compensate an influence of this effect on the final result.
361: Analysis of the $V$-distributions measured for
362: different $S_{ij}=S_i-S_j$
363: ($S_i$
364: is the distance from laser to Ch$_i$) has demonstrated
365: % the strong dependence
366: % of a relative deviation versus $S_{ij}$ ($dV/V=0.2/S_{ij}(m)$) and
367: no dependence of
368: mean velocity values $<V>$ on $S_{ij}$ (Fig 5A). For selection
369: criterion $S_i-S_j$ $>$ 12.5 m
370: the expected value of the laser signal velocity
371: $$V=(2.178 \pm 0.014)\cdot10^{10} cm/s$$
372: had been obtained using data of 30 pairs of Ch's which satisfy
373: this criterion (Fig 5B).
374: \begin{figure}[ht]
375: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig5.eps,width=15cm,height=9cm}}
376: \caption[1]{\small The results of $in$ $situ$ measurements of
377: light signal velocity /9/.}
378: \end{figure}
379: This result is comparable with predicted value 2.1919$\cdot10^{10}$cm/s
380: (see table and Fig.4), the distinction does not exceed one standard deviation
381: ($\sim0.7\%$ of the measured value) and it is possible
382: to conclude with high confidence level that
383: the experimental light signal velocity value agrees with the
384: calculated value of light
385: group velocity and does not agree with the phase velocity
386: value. To verify an
387: influence of salinity, pressure and
388: temperature on velocity the precision of measurements has to be increased.\
389:
390: Next more extensive and more precise measurements have
391: been done with the experimental
392: string developed near NT-200 site to test new deep underwater techniques /14/.
393: %and detection methods for next generation neutrino telescopes /14/.
394: Light Beacons supplied short flashes with fixed photon intensity
395: were used as light sources in these measurements.
396: UV($\lambda$ =370 $\pm$ 6 nm),blue ($ \lambda$ =470 $\pm$ 11 nm)
397: and green
398: ($\lambda$ =520 $\pm$ 17 nm) LEDs were
399: used in Light Beacon. LED flashes
400: were detected by four standard NT-200 Channels attached to experimental string.
401: The measurements of the time
402: intervals between trigger signals of LED drivers and time responses
403: of Chennels, the time delay in electronics and cables (obtained in the
404: laboratory) and the distances between light source and Channels (31m, 34m,
405: 58m, 64m) were used to get the light signal velocity. In contrast with first
406: experiment there were no ability to estimate the influence of the
407: time walk effect, nevertheless the results : (2.148$\pm0.010)\cdot10^{10}$ cm/s
408: ($\lambda=370\pm 6$ nm); ($2.193\pm0.009)\cdot10^{10}$ cm/s ($\lambda=470\pm$11 nm);
409: ($2.206 \pm 0.009)\cdot10^{10}$ cm/s ($\lambda=520 \pm$ 0.017 nm) are in the excellent agreement
410: with the predicted values which are 2.1516$\cdot10^{10}$ cm/s,
411: 2.1920$\cdot10^{10}$ cm/s and 2.2029$\cdot10^{10}$ cm/s
412: correspondingly (see also Fig4.).
413: \begin{center}
414: {\bf 5. Summary and conclusion}
415: \end{center}
416:
417: The measured properties /10$\div$12/ of the water refractive index
418: as functions of light wavelength($\lambda$), salinity(S), pressure(P)
419: and temperature(t) have been employed in the performed analysis as fully
420: as possible.\
421:
422: The structure of dispersion formula for water was applied which is
423: similar with dispersion formula structure for an optical glass /10 /. This
424: structure was used to describe sucsesfully (see formula (5) and Fig.1)
425: the experimental
426: refractive index dependence on the light wavelength in the
427: interval (200$\div$1250)nm for distilled
428: water with t=20$^0$C and P=P$_{atm}$ /10$\div$12/. The polynomial using/14/
429: gives true result only in the interval (300$\div$600)nm (see Fig.1) in which
430: Cherenkov light contributes to the signal of a muon.\
431:
432: Analysis of the extensive table data /12/
433: shows that formula (5) may be also successfully used (see fig. 1)
434: for water with other
435: properties (S, P, t) just by means adding some
436: correction $\bigtriangleup$n$_{SPt}$(S, P, t) which does not
437: depend on $\lambda$.\
438:
439: The assumption is used that equality
440: $\bigtriangleup$n$_{SPt}$=$\bigtriangleup$n$_{St}$+$\bigtriangleup$n$_P$ is
441: sufficiently true in the considered case, and these corrections are
442: computed for any water states using expressions (11$\div$15).\
443:
444: To simplify calculations of the light group velocity the suitable
445: formula (16) has been selected which quite satisfactorily
446: describe the computed group velocity values in the light wavelength
447: interval 200$\div$1250 nm (see Fig. 4).\
448:
449: The comparison of the group velocity value calculated for Baikal
450: Neutrino Telescope site with the results of $in$ $situ$ measurement /9, 14/
451: demonstrates good agreement, the distinctions do not exceed one standard
452: deviation ($\sim 0.7\%$ of measured value) /9/ and 0.4 standard deviation /14/
453: while the difference between
454: calculated phase velocity value
455: and the measured light velocity amounts to four standard
456: deviations. Moreover the results /14/ permit to confirm
457: a validity of $\bigtriangleup$v$_{gr}$(S, P, t) estimations (see Fig.4).\
458:
459: The obtained parametric expressions (5), (6), (10$\div$16) could be used
460: to calculate a velocity of monochromatic light signal
461: for calibration of TOF system by means of a power laser
462: lighting through water. These expressions are also suitable for using in
463: simulation of events detection and in reconstruction procedure for existed
464: Underwater Neutrino Telescope projects and for future
465: 1$km^3$ Neutrino Telescopes /13/.\
466: \begin{center}
467: {\bf Acknowledgements}
468: \end{center}
469: The author is grateful to Dr. E. Bugaev from INR for reading this paper
470: and useful remarks.
471: %for each $n$ and $v_{gr}$ have to
472: %ncluded in list of so called inherent optical properties.
473:
474:
475: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
476: \bibitem{}DUMAND II proposal, Hawaii DUMAND Centr, HDC-2-88, 1988.
477: \bibitem{}A. Roberts, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64 (1992) 259.
478: \bibitem{}I. A.Belolaptikov et al., Astroparticle Physics 7 (1997) 263.
479: \bibitem{}L. K.Resvanis, Proceeding of the 3$^{rd}$ NESTOR Workshop, Pylos (1983).
480: \bibitem{}ANTARES proposal astro-ph/9907432.
481: \bibitem{}T. Massam, Preprint CERN 76-21, EPD, 1976.
482: \bibitem{}L. K. Kuzmichev, NIM A482(2002), 303-304, also in arXiv hep-ex/0005036, 25 May 2000.
483: \bibitem{}P. B. Price, K. Woschangg, arXiv hep-ex/0008001, 1 Aug 2000.
484: \bibitem{}V. A. Balkanov et al., Preprint INR-1061/2001, July 2001.
485: %\bibitem{}A.Capone et al., Proceeding of the XXVI ICRC, HE 6.3.05 (1999).
486: \bibitem{}Physical Values. Handbook edited by I. S. Grigorie and E. Z. Meilihova, Moscow, Energoatomizdat, 1991.
487: \bibitem{}Physical values tables. Handbook edited by I. K. Kikoin, Moscow, Atomizdat, 1976.
488: \bibitem{}N. I. Popov, K. N. Fedorov, V. M. Orlov, Sea water, edited by A. S. Monin, Moscow, NAUKA, 1979.
489: \bibitem{}A.Capone et al., arXiv astro-ph/0109005 v2 2 Nov 2001.
490: \bibitem{}B.K. Lubsandorzhiev, P.G.Pokhil, R.V.Vasiliev, Y.E. Vyatchin,
491: arXiv astro-ph/0211079
492: \end{thebibliography}
493:
494:
495:
496: \end{document}
497:
498: