| Original Articles |
|
|
|
|
Multi-Electron Processes in 4.15--11.08keV/u13C6+ on Argon Collisions |
| RUAN Fang-Fang 1,2;CAI Xiao-Hong 1;YU De-Yang 1;LU Rong-Chun 1,2;SHAO Cao-Jie 1;LI Ming-Sheng 1,2;ZHANG Hong-Qiang 3;CUI Ying 3;SHAO Jian-Xiong 3;DING Bao-Wei 3;XUE Ying-Li 1,2;QI De-Jun 1,2;YANG Zhi-Hu 1;CHEN Xi-Meng 3 |
| 1Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 7300002Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 1000493Department of Modern Physics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000 |
|
| Cite this article: |
|
RUAN Fang-Fang, CAI Xiao-Hong, YU De-Yang et al 2007 Chin. Phys. Lett. 24 921-924 |
|
|
|
Abstract The relative partial cross sections for 13C6+--Ar collisions at 4.15--11.08keV/u incident energy are measured. The cross-section ratios σ2E/σSC,σ3E/σSC, σ4E
σSC and σ5EσSC are approximately the constants of 0.51±0.05, 0.20±0.03, 0.06±0.03 and 0.02±0.01 in this region. The significance of the multi-electron
process in highly charged ions (HCIs) with argon collisions is demonstrated (σME/σSC as high as 0.79±0.06). In multi-electron processes, it is shown that transfer ionization is dominant while pure electron capture is weak and negligible. For all reaction channels, the cross-sections are independent of the incident energy in the present energy region, which is in agreement with the static characteristic of classic models, i.e. the molecular Coulomb over-the-barrier model (MCBM), the extended classical over-the-barrier model (ECBM) and the semiempirical scaling laws (SL). The result is compared with these
classical models and with our previous work of 13C6+-Ne collisions [Chin. Phys. Lett. 23(2006)95].
|
| Keywords:
34.70.+e
82.30.Fi
|
|
|
Received: 07 November 2006
Published: 26 March 2007
|
|
| PACS: |
34.70.+e
|
(Charge transfer)
|
| |
82.30.Fi
|
(Ion-molecule, ion-ion, and charge-transfer reactions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Janev K R and Winter H 1985 Phys. Rep. 117 265
[2] Cocke L C et al %, DuBois R, Gray J T, Justiniano E, Can C1981 Phys. Rev. Lett. 46 1671
[3] M\"uller A, Groh W and Salzborn E 1983 Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 107
[4] Barat M and Roncin P 1992 J. Phys. B 25 2205
[5] Ullrich J et al %, Moshammer R, D\"{orner R, Jagutzki O, Mergel V,%Schmidt-B\"{ocking H and Spielberger L1997 J. Phys. B 30 2917
[6] D\"{orner R et al%, Mergel V, Jagutzki O, Spielberger L, Ullrich J, Moshammer R and%Schmidt-Bocking H2000 Phys. Rep. 330 95
[7] Ullrich J et al %, Moshammer R, Dorn A, D\"{orner R, Schmidt P H L,%Schmidt-B\"{ocking H2003 Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 1463
[8] de Nijs G, Hoekstra R and Morgenstern R 1996 J. Phys. B 29 6143
[9] Yu D Y et al%, Cai X H, Lu R C, Shao C J, Lu J, Ruan F F, Zhang H Q,%Cui Y, Xu X, Shao J X, Ding B W, Yang Z H and Chen X M2005 Chin. Phys. Lett. 22 1398
[10] Ruan F F et al %, Cai X H, Yu D Y, Lu R C, Shao C J, Lu J, Cui Y,%Shao J X, Xu X, Zhang H Q, Ding B W, Yang Z H and Chen X M2006 Chin. Phys. Lett. 23 95
[11] Niehaus A 1986 J. Phys. B 19 2925
[12] B{\'ar{\'any A et al %, Astner G, Cederquist H, Danared H, Huldt S,%Hvelplund P, Johnson A, Knudsen H, Liljeby L and Rensfelt K G1985 Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 9 397
[13] Selberg N, Biedermann C and Cederquist H 1996 Phys. Rev. A 54 4127
[14] Selberg N, Biedermann C and Cederquist H 1997 Phys.Rev. A 56 4623
[15] Guillemot L, Roncin P, Gaboriaud N M, Laurent H and Barat M1990 J. Phys. B 23 4293
[16] Zhang H et al 5, Fl\'echard X, Cassimi A, Adoui L, Cremer G,%Fr\'emont F and Hennecart D2001 Phys. Rev. A 64 012715
[17] Wu W et al%, Cocke L C, Giese P J, Melchert F, Raphaelian L A M and St\"ockli M1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 1054 |
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
