1 | %\subsection{Transition to pre-compound modeling \editor{Johannes Peter}} |
---|
2 | Eventually, the cascade assumptions will break down at low energies, and the |
---|
3 | state of affairs has to be treated by means of evaporation and pre-equilibrium |
---|
4 | decay. This transition is not at present studied in depth, and an interesting |
---|
5 | approach which uses the tracking time, as in the Liege cascade code, remains |
---|
6 | to be studied in our context. |
---|
7 | |
---|
8 | For this first release, the following algorithm is used to determine when |
---|
9 | cascading is stopped, and pre-equilibrium decay is called: As long as there are |
---|
10 | still particles above the kinetic energy threshold (75~MeV), cascading will |
---|
11 | continue. Otherwise, when the mean kinetic energy of the participants has |
---|
12 | dropped below a second threshold (15~MeV), the cascading is stopped. |
---|
13 | |
---|
14 | The residual participants, and the nucleus in its current state are then used |
---|
15 | to define the initial state, i.e. excitation energy, number of excitons, |
---|
16 | number of holes, and momentum of the exciton system, for pre-equilibrium decay. |
---|
17 | |
---|
18 | In the case of light ion reactions, the projectile excitation is determined |
---|
19 | from the binary collision participants ($P$) using the statistical approach |
---|
20 | towards excitation energy calculation in an adiabatic abrasion process, as |
---|
21 | described in \cite{GSI1}: |
---|
22 | $$ E_{ex} = \sum_{P} (E_{fermi}^P-E^P) $$ |
---|
23 | |
---|
24 | Given this excitation energy, the projectile fragment is then treated by the |
---|
25 | evaporation models described previously. |
---|