Fragmentation cross sections of 600 MeV/nucleon 20Ne on elemental targets

Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 249021-2490216

  Zeitlin, C ^a   Fukumura, A ^b   Heilbronn, L ^a   Iwata, Y ^b   Miller, J ^a   Murakami, T ^b  

^a LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RADIOLOGICAL SCIENCES   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 14344284731     PISSN: 05562813     EISSN: 1089490X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.64.024902     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. [1] S. B. Curtis, L. W. Townsend, and J. W. Wilson, Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. 64, 462 (1991).
2. [2] J. R. Castro, in Cancer Management in Man, edited by A. L. Goldson (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1989), pp. 179-182.
3. [3] National Research Council, Task Group on the Biological Effects of Space Radiation, Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions - Biological Issues and Research Strategies (National Academy, Washington, D.C., 1996).
4. [4] J. A. Simpson, in Composition and Origin of Cosmic Rays, edited by M. M. Shapiro (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983), p. 1.
5. [5] J. W. Wilson, M. Kim, W. Schimmerling, F. F. Badavi, S. A. Thibeault, F. A. Cucinotta, J. L. Shinn, and R. Kiefer, Health Phys. 68, 50 (1995).
6. [6] C. Zeitlin, J. Miller, L. Heilbronn, K. Frankel, W. Gong, and W. Schimmerling, Radiat. Res. 145, 655 (1995).
7. [7] C. Zeitlin, L. Heilbronn, J. Miller, S. E. Rademacher, T. Borak, T. R. Carter, K. A. Frankel, W. Schimmerling, and C. E. Stronach, Phys. Rev. C 56, 388 (1997).
8. [8] C. J. Zeitlin, K. A. Frankel, W. Gong, L. Heilbronn, E. J. Lampo, R. Leres, J. Miller, and W. Schimmerling, Radiat. Meas. 23,65 (1994).
9. [9] M. Wong, W. Schimmerling, M. H. Phillips, B. A. Ludewigt, D. A. Landis, J. T. Walton, and S. B. Curtis, Med. Phys. 17, 163 (1990).
10. [10] A. S. Goldhaber, Phys. Lett. 53B, 306 (1974).
11. [11] R. Brun, O. Couet, C. E. Vandoni, and P. Zanarini, Comput. Phys. Commun. 16, 147 (1989).
12. [12] L. W. Townsend and J. W. Wilson, Radiat. Res. 106, 283 (1986).
13. [13] J. W. Wilson, J. L. Shinn, L. W. Townsend, R. K. Tripathi, F. F. Badavi, and S. Y. Chun, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 94, 95 (1994).
14. [14] H. C. Bradt and B. Peters, Phys. Rev. 77, 54 (1950).
15. [15] C.-X. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. C 49, 3200 (1994).
16. [16] W. R. Webber, J. C. Kish, and D. A. Schrier, Phys. Rev. C 41, 533 (1990).
17. [17] A. Fukumra, T. Hiraoka, T. Tomitani, T. Kanai, T. Murakami, S. Minohara, N. Matsufuji, H. Tomura, Y. Futami, T. Kohno, and T. Nakamura, JAERI-Conf 96-008, Proceedings of the 1995 Symposium on Nuclear Data, 1996, p. 248.
18. [18] C. N. Knott et al., Phys. Rev. C 53, 347 (1996).
19. [19] J. R. Cummings et al., Phys. Rev. C 42, 2508 (1990).
20. [20] B. S. Nilsen, C. J. Waddington, J. R. Cummings, T. L. Garrard, and J. Klarmann, Phys. Rev. C 52, 3277 (1995).
21. [21] F. A. Cucinotta, J. W. Wilson, R. K. Tripathi, and L. W. Townsend, Adv. Space Res. 22, 533 (1998).
22. [22] F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343 (1975).
23. [23] R. K. Tripathi and L. W. Townsend, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2237 (1994).
24. eff, resulting in complicated substructures around the various peaks. Also, the fit errors returned by MINUIT are inflated, since there is strong correlation between the parameters for neighboring peaks. Because of the generally unsatisfactory results obtained by peak fitting, we have opted to sum over what we believe are the appropriate bins corresponding to the various event categories, and to take into account the uncertainties arising from the slightly subjective process of choosing bins.
25. 34≈0.7, significantly larger than the observed Z's. Using the high-gain channels does not help; the majority (50-85 %) of these events appear as pedestals, which is why we count them as pedestals, but some (10-30%) appear as protons, and the rest still appear between 0.2-0.5 in Z. Nothing unusual is seen in examining the x and y position distributions for these events, ruling out the possibility that they are due to hits at the edges of the detectors. An increasing fraction of events falls into this category as the target mass increases.
26. [26] G. Lynch and O. Dahl, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 58, 6 (1991). We use the Molière form defined by equations (1), (2), and (7).
27. [27] Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 15, 1 (2000).
28. 8Be - the contamination of the true Be sample can be no worse than 20%. It seems likely that the actual contamination is in fact smaller than this.
29. 0. The uncertainties shown in Table VII are the quadrature sums of the contributions from acceptance, the factors in Table VI, and the uncertainties on the cross sections in Table V.