Zeitschrift A'l-r~mc,

Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei 310, 329-338 (1983) for Physik A rll.~l I I~.,~
and Nuclei
9 Springer-Verlag 1983

Two-Component Exciton Model

J. Dobe~
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences,
P,e~ near Prague, Czechoslovakia

E. B~tfik*
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, USSR

Received October 29, 1982

The exciton model of nuclear reactions with the distinguishability of protons and
neutrons explicitly included is discussed. The Pauli master equation and transition rates
in this two-component formulation are given. Both the simple considerations and actual
calculations show that the two-component model exhibits new features and modifies
conclusions of the one-component formulation. The ratio of the proton to neutron pre-
equilibrium emissions in proton induced reactions decreases twice to three times when
compared with the usual one-component model.

1. Introduction

The exciton model of nuclear reactions describes a
reaction as a multistep process, in which transitions
between different classes of states occur (see Ref. 1
for a general review). Different classes of states in
the exciton model are characterized by the number
of excitons, i.e. excited particles and/or holes. Cur-
rent versions of the exciton and other pre-equilib-
rium models are done within the one-component
formulation, which does not distinguish between
protons and neutrons. These are taken to be identi-
cal nucleons, and proton and neutron excitons are
mixed together. Of course, one has to distinguish
between protons and neutrons when calculating
spectra of emitted particles. This is accomplished by
the effective treatment of the proton-neutron dis-
tinguishability and its inclusion in the one-com-
ponent formulation as has been suggested by several
authors [2-6].
Some particular considerations have been given to
the two-component exciton model with the proton
and neutron excitons distinguished [6-11], but no
complete calculations were published. In the present
paper we give a detailed account of this problem
and perform explicit calculations.
The two-component Pauli master equations are
written and the method of their solution is described
in Sect. 2. The transition rates are calculated in
Sect. 3. Section 4 contains a simplified discussion
which reveals the main features of the two-com-
ponent model. The numerical calculations and the
comparison with experimental data are done in
Sect. 5. Our conclusions are in Sect. 6.
2. Two-Component Pauli Master Equation
Different classes of states are characterized by a set
of numbers (p~,h~,p,,h,) of proton (neutron) par-
ticles p~ (p~) and holes h~ (h~) in the two-component
formulation of the exciton model. We shorten so-
metimes this notation to (n~,n~) with n~=p~+h~,
n~ = Pv + h~. The intranuclear transitions between states
of different classes are assumed to be due to the
two-body interaction. The six following transitions
are thus possible:

* Permanent address: Institute of Physics E.P.R.C.S.A.S., Dfib- i. (p~,h~,p~,h~)~(p -l,h,-1,p~,hv)

ravsk~t cesta. CSSR-84228 BratisIava, Czechoslovakia with the corresponding transition rate 2~-;
330 J. Dobeg and E. B~t~tk:Two-ComponentExciton Model

ii. (p~,h~,p~,h~)~(p~,h~,p~-l,h~-l), where

transition rate 2;-;
t = (2/- + ,~;- + 2 ~0 , + 2 ~o + 2 + + 2 + +L) -~. (2)
iii. (p~,h~,p~,h~)---,(p~- l , h ~ - l,p~ + l,h~ + l),
transition rate 2 o ; The total emission probability from the state (n~, %)
iv. (p~,h~,p~,h~)-~(p~+ l,h~+ l,p - l , h ~ - l), is denoted as L(n~, %), the energy dependence is not
transition rate 2~ explicitly written in (1) and (2). Note, that unlike the
one-component formulation the An=O transitions
v. (p~,h~,p~,h~)~(p~+ l,h~+ l,p~,h~). 2~ and 2~~ with no change of total exciton number
transition rate 2+; n = n , + % appear in (1) (see a more detailed dis-
vi. (p~,h~,p~,h~)~(p~,h~,p~+ l,h~+ l), cussion in Ref. 11).
Having solved the system (1) and computed the
transition rate 2~+.
mean lifetimes
Also 2~ and 2 o transitions are possible, however,
they cancel in the master equations (see below). oo

The reaction chain in the two-component formu-
lation starts with the initial configuration
(p~o,h~o,P~o,h~o) and develops as it is schematically
depicted in Fig. 1. The thickness of the arrows in
Fig. 1 indicates the strengths of the corresponding
transitions.
In the one-component formalism the reaction chain
is a one-way process, as we have only one way to
come to a particular exciton state. In the two-com-
ponent model we have several possibilities of decay
of the exciton state into more complex stages.
Denoting by P(n~, %, t) the occupation probability of
the (n~, n~) state at the time t, the set of the Pauli
master equations for the two-component system is
written as [11]
dP(n~, %, t)
dt =P(n~+2, n~,t)2~(n~+2, n~)
+P(n~, %+2, t)2;-(n~, %+2)
+ P(n~ + 2, % - 2 , t)).~ +2, % - 2 )
+ P(n~-2, % + 2 , t)2~
T(n~, %) = ~ dt P(n~, %, t), (3)
0
one writes the cross section to the final channel/~ as
d~ = a~ (.~,~,v)T(n~, %). ~.~(et~;n~, %). (4)
Here, a~ is the composite-nucleus formation cross
section in the initial channel and 2~ denotes the
partial emission rate from the state (n~,%) into the
final channel /~ with the energy of the emitted par-
ticle e~.
The number of coupled equations in (1) grows quad-
ratically with maximum exciton number, whereas in
the one-component formulation the growth is linear.
We do not solve the system (1) directly, but proceed
with generalization of the method devised in [12].
Noting that in expression (4) we need only the time-
integrated quantities T, we integrate the system (1)
over time and get
%+2) - O(n~, %) = T(n~ + 2, %) 2 ; (n~ + 2, %)

+ P(n~ - 2, %, t) )~+(n~ - 2, %) + T(n~, n~ + 2)2~(n~, %+2)

+ P(n~, n~- 2, t) 2 + (n~, n~ - 2) + T(n~ + 2, %-2))~~ + 2, % - 2 )

-P(n~, %, t)/t(n~, %), (1) + T(n~-2, % + 2 ) 2 ~ 2, n~+2)

+ T(n~ - 2, %) 2 + (n~ - 2, n~) + T(n~, n~ - 2) 2 + (n~, n~ - 2)
- T(n~, %)h(n~, %) (5)
(Pno,hzo,pv~,hvo)
where D denotes the initial conditions

D(n,, %) = P(n~, %, t = 0).

(pzo+l,hzo.~l,pvo,huo) ~ (p~o,hno,Pvo41, huo§
Considering the fact that the 2 + transition rates are
the strongest ones in (5), we get the zeroth approxi-
( P.~o+2,hreo+2,puo,hvo).~ ........ (Prro+1 , h~'o+l ,Pvo+l,hvo +1 ) .{.~........ (PJro,h.'to,Pro +2,huo §
mation simply from

J/%\ - D(n~, %) = Tt~ - 2, %) 2 + (n~ - 2, %)

+ r[~ n~- 2) 2~+ (n~, n~ - 2)

Fig. 1. Scheme of the reaction pathways in the two-component
formalism - T[~ %)/z(n~, %).
J. Dobew and E. B&~tk: Two-Component Exciton Model
Now we perform one simple iteration according to
T U+ ~l(n~, n~) = z(n~, n~). [T 03(n~ + 2, nv) 2~- (n~ + 2, n~)
+ TUl(n,, n~ + 2) 2;- (n~, n~ + 2)
+ TOl(n,~ + 2, n~ - 2) ,t~ + 2, n~ - 2)
+ TUl(n,~ - 2, nv + 2) 2~ - 2, n~ + 2)
+ TUl(n~ - 2 , n~) 2+(n~ - 2 , n~)
+ TUl(n~, n ~ - 2)2 + (n~, n v - 2)+ O(n,~, n~)]
in order to get Tm. We correct T m for the equilib-
rium part by
Tl2l(n~, n~) = Tt11(n,~, n~) + ~ co(n~, n~),
where co(n.,n~) denotes the density of exciton states
and ~ is obtained from normalization condition
D(n,, nv) = ~, T(n,, n~) . L(n,, n~).
Further we proceed with successive iterations ac-
cording to (6a) in order to get the required pre-
cision.
Methods for an exact solution of the time-integrated
set of master equations have been suggested in 1-13].
In practice, however, the iteration method of [12] is
sufficiently precise and efficient with respect to the
computation time.
3. Transition Rates
The model, in which the quantities for the general
two-component formulation of Sect. 2 are calculated,
is specified in this section. We adopt the simplest
and most usual equidistant-spacing model with the
single-particle proton and neutron level densities g.
and gv, respectively. The density of the exciton States
with the energy E has been given by Williams [14]
nr~ nv
co(n~,nv, E)= g" g~ (E_B),-1
p~! h.[ p~[ h~!(n-1)]
with
n=n~+nv,
and with the Pauli correction factor B
B =~[(p~
a 2 + h ~2 +p.-3h~)/g~+(p~ 2 +h v2 +p~-3h~)/g~].
The transition rates are calculated from the general
rule
2--2~ IMI=%,
n cess: a proton-particle scattering and proton particle-hole crea-
where IMI 2 denotes the corresponding average squa-
red two-body transition matrix element, and co.r is
331
the density of final accessible states. We consider
generally three different squared matrix elements
IM,~,~[z, IMv,~12=lM~v] z and [Mv~l2 for the proton-
proton, proton-neutron and neutron-neutron inter-
actions, respectively9 The densities coy of final states
are obtained by a general method of Ref. 15. The
calculations are rather cumbersome but straightfor-
ward. We sketch, therefore, only the main steps in
the derivation9
(6 a)
For example, four processes depicted in Fig. 2 con-
tribute to the transition rate 2~+. We have
2+ = ~ ( I M = ~ [ 2 cofa + [M~=[2 cofb
(6b)
+ I M J 2 cofc+ [M~,J 2 cold)"
where coy~ denotes the density of final states for the
process corresponding to a graph ~:= a, b, c or d of
(6 c)
Fig. 2. For graph a we have
cos~= CL(n~, n . E, E)/co(n~, n . ~)9 (8)
The quantity C~a(n.,
+ nv, Ei, Ey) is the total number of
complexes (possible realization of states), with the
initial exciton number (n~, n~) and energy Ei, and the
final exciton number (n~+2, n~) and energy El,
which are connected by the two-body proton par-
ticle - proton particle interaction. (We write general-
ly Ei:#Es, of course, in (8) only the states on the
energy shell are considered.) Since the Pauli prin-
ciple does not act between particles and holes and
between protons and neutrons, we have
C~+(n~, n~, e,, e y) = ~ dU~ dU~ dU~ dW~ dW~ dW~
9 C~(p~,e, - V~ - ~:~ - U~, e ~ . - WI - W~ - W~)
9c~ Ul, W 1) C~176 C5, W 2) C~176 U 3 , W3).
The expressions for C kj are given in [15]. Proceed-
ing further along the lines of this reference, we get
l ~r1+ iO0 rr2+ioo
(7)
C~+a-(2ni)2~r,~-ioo ,r2-i~ dfldyexp(flEi)
9exp( e ? F/?- F~ F~149
F~
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 2a-d. Scheme of possible realizations of the An,,= +2 pro-
tion, b proton-hole scattering and proton particle-hole creation,
e neutron-particle scattering and proton particle-hole creation,
d neutron-hole scattering and proton particle-hole creation
332 J. Dobeg and E. B~t~tk: T w o - C o m p o n e n t Exciton M o d e l

with quantities F's given in Appendix B of Ref. 15. We have considered only the nucleon emission in
This integral is calculated by applying the Cauchy the present paper as controversies exist in the theo-
residue theorem. The final result for the transition ries of complex particle and gamma emissions. For
rate )~- is example, the proton emission from the (p~, h~, p~, h~)-
exciton state leads to the final (p~-1, h,,p~, h,) state
2n 2 g'.~ and the partial emission rate is simply written as
2~-(n=, n~)=~-[M~,~l ~-p~h,~(n,~-2)
2#~ o)(p~ - 1, h~, p~, hv, U)
9 [1 n-1 2~(e~, n,~, n~) = ~ e,~~,~(e,~) - - - - - (16)
8g~(E -A)(n~ - 2) ((p'~- 1) (p,~- 2) co(p,, h,~,p~, h~, E) "

+ ( h ~ - l ) ( h ~ - 2 ) ) ] + ~2n Here, #~ is the reduced proton mass, a~ is the pro-

- I M ~1 2 g~p,~h,~n~
ton absorption cross section in the inverse reaction,
e~ is the energy of the emitted proton and U is the
-[1 n-1 -1))] excitation energy of the residual nucleus. The total
8 g , ( E - A ) n~ (P~(Pv- 1) + h,(h,
emission rates L appearing in (2) are obtained from
where (16) by integrating over the outgoing particle en-
1 2 t 2 1 ergies and summing over the channels considered.
A =g~- ~. (~p~ +~h~ + ~ p ~ - ~ h3 ~ ) For the single-particle level densities we take
..t_g~-I [ 1 ~ 2 - - 1
1.2 1 3
9t~V~ -t-~n~ +~p~-~h O.
Z N
The transition rate 2+ is obtained from the time g =iS'
reversal invariance as
where Z and N are the numbers of protons and
2+(n~,n,)=2~(n~+2, n~)'c~(n,~+2, n~)/co(n~,n~). (10) neutrons, respectively, in the composite system
(A -- N + Z). The squared matrix elements we paramet-
For the transition rate 2~ we have
rized as
= 2 ~ [M~,~Iz 2g 2 p,~h,~(E- A )
2~ nv)
IM~I2 - K~,
h n
ANZ. E'
Q

8 ( E - A ) \g__ g~ /3 IMpel2 = K~ 1
AN 2. E R'
and 2~ from the time reversal relation is K~ 1
] M ~ I 2 - A ~ : E R' (17)
,L~ n3 = 2~ + 2, n~- 2) co(n~ + 2, n~ - 2)/co (n~, n~).
(12) where K ~ is a fit parameter.
We get more simple formulae for the transition rates The factor R accounts for a difference in interactions
without the Pauli principle corrections from (7), (9)- between unlike and like nucleons, the interaction
(12) in the limit of g~-l, g~l ~E, namely between the unlike ones being generally stronger by
a factor of about 3. We take this parameter to be
2~t R=2.89 [16]. We shall discuss the parametrization
,~(n~,n~)=~p,~h,~ ([M,.~[2g~(n~- 2)+'M~12 g~n@ (17) in a subsequent paper. This point is not impor-
tant for the present considerations. We note that in
(13)
the limit of R = 1.0, N =Z= 89 the matrix elements
2+(n~,n~ ) 2re g~E2 ( 2grc )
-h n(n+l)IMpel ~-n,~+lm~lZg~n~, (17) reduce to the frequently used parametrization of
Ref. 17 for the one-component model
(14)
IM] 2 =KA-3E -1. (18)
2O(n= '
n0, = ~-I1Vl
2=,,
~1,22g~p,~h,~E
n ' (15)

and analogously for the other transitions with rc and
v interchanged. The results (13)-(15) agree with the
expressions given previously in [8-10] in the case of
IM~=12=lM==lZ=lM~l 2 (in Refs. 8 and 10, however,
the 2~ process is not considered and [8] requires
g~=g,).
4. Comparison of the One-
and Two-Component Models
The simple considerations show immediately the dif-
ference between the one- and two-component ex-
citon models. We assume N = Z = 8 9 and g,~=gv
J. Dobeg and E. B&~tk: Two-Component Exciton Model 333

=89 in this section and take the simplified forms of the n = 3 exciton configurations in the two-com-
the transition rates without the Pauli principle cor- ponent model (the unimportant common factors are
rections (13)-(15). The reactions induced by an in- deleted in the equations below)
cident proton are studied as an example.
The transition rates ;~+ dominate for the initial sta- drr~ U e(e + 1)
ges of a reaction, when the exciton number is low. de~ (n = 3) ~ e~ o-~(e~)K~,, (2R + 1)2 (20)
The initial configuration (1, 0, 0,0) decays into more
complex n = 3 configurations (2, 1, 0, 0) and (1, 0, 1, 1). dcrv (n=3)~e" U e2
The initial flux is divided into two parts with the dev a~(e~) K~-~ (2R + 1)2.
transition rates 2+(1,0) and 2+(1,0), the ratio of The residual excitation energies U differ, of course,
populating the (2, 1,0,0) state to the (1,0, 1, 1) state for different final channels.
being In the one-component model the proton-neutron
1 distinguishability is taken into account by introduc-
ing an additional factor into the emission rates. Sev-
2R
eral proposals to do that appeared in literature [2-
The configuration (1,0, 1, 1) is more probable to be 6]. We discuss mainly the factor Q of [5], which
populated than the (2, 1,0,0) configuration. There agrees for N = Z with the factor (~ of [6]. The one-
are two factors which contribute to this effect. The component emission rate of particle fi is
first one is caused by the distinguishability of neu-
(.o(p Pa, h)
trons and protons, which results in that the unlike 2~ = ~ e~ a p(ep) oo(p,h) QP(P)' (21)
nucleon is more easily excited than the like nucleon.
It causes the appearance of the factor 89 standing p and h denoting the number of excited particles
together with the proton exciton number n~ in the and holes, respectively. For proton induced reac-
expression for 2~+ (14). This was also pointed out in tions
[8]. The second factor 1/R which increases the exci-
tation of unlike nucleons, comes out from the fact 1N
that the interaction between the unlike nucleons is Q.(p) = 1 + - ~-, (22)
p
stronger than that between the like ones.
The n = 3 configurations decay into more complex 1
Q~(p) = 1 - - .
n = 5 configurations. The total transition rate for this p
decay ;t~+ +)~+ is dependent only on the total exciton
number n = n~ + n~, Approximating the one-component model lifetimes
by T = l / 2 + and taking the usual formulae [14, 18]
for the one-component densities and transition rates
-2~ h 2A n+l" (with the Pauli principle neglected) and (18) for the
matrix element, one obtains the cross section for the
The mean lifetimes of the n = 3 states are approxi- proton and neutron pre-equilibrium emission from
mated by (6) the n = 3 configuration in the one-component model
(again the common factors are deleted, as has been
2+(1,0,0,0) 1 done in (20))
T(2, 1, 0, 0) = (19)
A+(n= 1) A+(n=3)
2+(1,0,0,0) 1
dtr,~(n=3)~e,~tr,~(e=) U 3 (23)
T(1, 0, 1, 1) = de,~ K 8'
A+(n= 1) A+(n=3)"
dav(n=3)~e ~ U 1
Note that the mean lifetimes are not equal simply to de~ a~(~)~ 8"
[A+(n= 3)] -~ as was deduced in [6]. Of course, they
must also depend on the decay of the lower exciton The emission from the n = 3 exciton state is expected
states. In the one-component version only one decay to give the main contribution to the most energetic
path is possible and T is approximated by T = 1/2 +. part of the preequilibrium spectra. Neglecting the
This is not true, however, in the two-component difference in the composite-nucleus formation cross
model. sections of protons and neutrons, as well as that in
Taking the lifetimes (19) and calculating the emis- the residual energies U we get the ratio of the n = 3
sion rates from (16) one gets the cross section for the proton-to-neutron emission in the two-component
proton and neutron pre-equilibrium emission from model
334 J. Dobeg and E. B6tfik: Two-Component Exciton Model

da~ R+ 1 decays completely into the n = 3 configuration. The

(n = 3) = -~ (24)
In the one-component model this ratio equals 3.
Equation (24) gives the ratio of 3 for the value of
R=0.5, ratio of 2 for R = 1.0, whereas for the realistic
value R = 2 . 8 9 one has da=/dc%=l.35. The ratio of
proton-to-neutron pre-equilibrium emission in the
two-component model decreases thus twice to three
times as compared to the one-component formu-
lation with the distinguishability factor Q of [5].
When the distinguishability factor is taken in accord
with [3], we get the one-component ratio d%/da~
= 2.0. This is in better agreement with our two-com-
ponent formulation, nevertheless, for R close to 3 still
some discrepancy remains.
Comparing (20) and (23) we see that the proton
spectra in the one- and two-component formulation
agree when the parameters of the matrix elements
are chosen to be
value n = 3 can thus be taken as the initial exciton
number. In the two-component model, however, we
must start from the appropriate n--1 state, which
forks into two different n = 3 configurations.
5. Calculations
We have written the computer program, which sol-
ves the set of the two-component master equations
by the use of the above discussed method and cal-
1000
54Fe§ p
Ep = 29 MeV Ep=39MeV
100
A

>~
R.(R+I)
(25) -~100"
K 3 (2R + 1) 2.

This ratio equals 0.5, 0.593 and 0.652 for R =0.5, 1.0 .g \
and 2.89, respectively. Further on, taking into ac- 10 )
count the differences in squared matrix element
parametrization in the one-component (18) and two-
component (17) versions, we conclude that in order
to get the same magnitude of pre-equilibrium cross a 1 i I

section one has to take the two-component squared 1C) 20 10 20 30

matrix element to be approximately twice the one- E(MeV)
component squared matrix element.
54Fe + p
This fact is quite understandable and has been dis-
cussed also by G u p t a [6]. In the one-component
100 Ep - 62 MeV
model we average also over the "false" transitions in
which the number of protons and neutrons is not
conserved separately, and which are excluded in the
two-component model. This must be compensated } lc
by diminishing the average transition squared ma-
trix element by a factor of about two.
We notice that in the two-component model we do
not consider other conservation laws (e.g. those for
angular m o m e n t u m and isospin). This causes anoth- lC -'-"~.~.~p, n}
er diminishing of the transition squared matrix ele-
ment when compared to the effective residual in-
teraction elements from nuclear structure calcu-
b 1 , , , ,'-.'..x. ,
lations, in which the conservation laws are consid- 20 40 ~lMeV) 60
ered. This fact plays also the main role in discrepan- Fig. 3a. Proton and neutron spectra calculated for the reaction of
cies between exciton and nuclear structure matrix 29 MeV and 39 MeV protons on S4Fe. The full line represents the
elements found in [19-1. two-component calculations with the recommended value
Finally, we conclude this section by commenting the R = 2.89, the dotted-dashed and the dotted lines that of R = 1.0 and
R=0.5, respectively. The one-component calculations are drawn
choice of the initial exciton configuration. In the as a dashed line. In several cases, the curves are undistinguishable
one-component model the n = l configuration does in this scale and not all four of them can be drawn; b the same
not contribute to the inelastic nucleon emission and as in a, but for 62MeV incident protons
J. Dobeg and E. B&fik: Two-Component Exciton Model 335

culates the spectra of emitted particles. The secon-

\ 103Rh * p
dary, as well as the further emissions can be includ-
ed. In the present paper, however, only the emission 100
\'k~ Ep " 18HeY
of primary and secondary nucleons is taken into
account. The expressions for the densities and the
transition rates are those of Sect. 3 with the Pauli-
principle corrections included. The two-component
results are compared with the analogous one-com-
10 \)~
ponent exciton-model calculations with the dis-
tinguishability factor Q (22). The composite-nucleus
"~- , ] "\.
\ \\\~
formation cross sections are computed for both pro-
tons and neutrons from the Becchetti-Greenless
optical potential [20-]. The single-particle level den-
-~100
"~ ,\ ~L--.~.\.\
__.__~ \\ \
sities have been specified in Sect. 3. (P,P')
We do not intend to perform a detailed comparison
with the experiment in the present work. We shall
rather concentrate on comparison of the one- and I0~ ~ 7
[
two-component models. We take the recommended
value K = 4 0 0 M e V 3 [5] for the one-component mo-
del in (18). The constant K ~ for the two-component
/ ,
calculations (see (17)) is obtained from (25) in order
i 1 , I i i i t I i i i i i i
to get approximately the same proton spectra in 5 10 15 ~(MeV )
both the one- and two-component calculations. Sev- Fig. 5. The comparison of theoretical (lines) and experimental
eral different values are taken for the ratio R. Doing (histograms) spectra of the (p,n) and (p,p') reactions on l~ at
that, we keep in mind that the most realistic one 18 MeV. The standard two- and one-component calculations are
value is R=2.89. drawn in full and dashed line, respectively. The dotted-dashed
one represents the two-component calculations with (2, 0, 0, 0)
Spectra for proton-induced reactions on 54Fe and being the initial exciton configuration. The experimental data are
2~ are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The curves for from [211
different values of R are depicted. The results of the
one- and two-component models are very close for
R=0.5, in accord with our estimate in the preceding k 169Tm +P
section. The proton spectra agree well in both mo- 100 ~ Ep = 18HeV
dels also for R = I . 0 and R = 2 . 8 9 ( K ~ was chosen in
that way). The neutron spectra then increase with
increasing R. The actual ratio of proton to neutron
spectra is in very good agreement with the simple
estimate of Sect. 4. This is true not only for the 54Fe lo ' ~ ~
target, which is close to N=Z, but also for reactions
on 2~

1001 209Bi P 41
Ep-39MeV

10 ~ ~
I=~mo
E f"
10 -.x {p,n ) (p,n.~

= i , , I i /t'/~//, , i i , , , f t"
10 20 30 5 10 ~ (HEY) 15
Fig. 4. The same as in Fig. 3, but for 39 MeV and 62 MeV protons Fig. 6. The same as in Fig. 5, but for the Z69Tm target
on 2~
336 J. Dobew and E. B&~k: Two-Component Exciton Model

Reactions, in which both the proton and neutron
spectra are measured simultaneously, would be most
useful for a comparison of the two-component for-
mulation with the experiment. Such data are, unfor-
tunately, rare. We have compared the calculated
proton and neutron spectra with the experiment of
18MeV protons of l~ and 169Tm [-21]. The re-
sults are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The agreement of
calculated proton spectra with the experiment is
good, for ~~ target being underestimated by a
factor of about 2, which is still considered to be
reasonable. The neutron spectra are, however, sub-
stantially overpredicted in the two-component mo-
del. The one-component calculations give a slightly
better agreement, but the differences, especially for
the l~ target, are large up to a factor of 5. It has
been suggested [21], that the situation can be cured
by a change of the starting exciton configuration.
Since the targets are odd-proton nuclei, the starting
configuration (p~,h~, p~, hJ = (2, 0, 0, 0) was taken.
The two-component results with this starting con-
figuration are also shown in Figs. 5 and 6 (dotted-
dashed lines). The fit to the neutron spectra is now
good. On the other hand, the agreement with proton
spectra deteriorates considerably. The calculations
with the changed values of the constant K ~ and/or
single-particle level densities did not improved the
fit to the experiment. Nor the changed energy de-
pendence of the exciton-model matrix element in the
way of [19] has any effect.
Further comparison with the experiment was made
for proton spectra from [22] and neutron spectra
from Ref. 23 with incident protons between Ep=
25-62 MeV. The energies and targets for these two ex-
periments are close. The proton spectra from 54Fe
+p and 2~ reactions are in Figs. 7 and 8, the
neutron spectra for 48Ca+p and 2~ +p reactions
are in Figs. 9 and 10. The agreement of calculated
and measured proton spectra is reasonable. The
two-component results agree closely with the results
i 209Bi(p,p' )
10 =

10 20 ~, 10 20 30

5/-'Fe (p,p')

100
1; 2; 3b /.0 5; ~'p(MeVl

Fig. 8. The same as in Fig. 7, but for 2~ at 39 and 62MeV

10
..CI
E 100
48C0 (p,n)
P,
t,O
"0 Ep=25HeV Ik Ep=35MeV Ep~/..5MeV
~o( =

~I0
E
10
\

1 i i i I I ~It i . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . ,t

10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 10 20 30 20 30 40
~n (MeV)
~p (MeV)
Fig. 7. Theoretical and experimental spectra of 54Fe(p, p') reaction Fig. 9. Theoretical and experimental spectra of 48Ca(p, n) reaction
at 29, 39 and 62 MeV. The experiment 1-22] is drawn as a histo- at 25, 35 and 45 MeV. The experiment 1-23] is drawn as a full
gram, the two-component calculations are represented as a full line heavy line, the thin lines represent the two-component (full) and
and the one-component ones as a dashed line one-component (dashed) calculations, respectively
J. Dobeg and E. B&fik: Two-Component Exciton Model
100
208pb[p n ]
,~~35MeV Ep:45MeV
\"x"x\x\ \ ~
C \\
\%x
1 ,%
I0 20 30 20 30 Z.O
En(MeVl
Fig. 1O. The same as in Fig. 9, but for 2~ reactions at 35
and 45 MeV
of the one-component formulation in which these
reactions have been frequently studied before (e.g.
[5, 9, 10]). The neutron spectra are also described
well in the two-component model. Therein, the re-
suits are considerably better than those from one-
component formulation, except, may be, one case:
35 MeV protons on 2~ The one-component cal-
culations underpredict the experiment. So both the
proton and neutron spectra of [22] and [23] are
fitted well in the two-component model, which is
superior to the one-component formulation in this
case.
6. Conclusions
The proton-neutron distinguishability has been ex-
plicitly introduced in the two-component exciton
model. The important change of the emitted proton-
to-neutron cross section ratio appear. The pre-
equilibrium neutron spectra are enhanced by a fac-
tor of 2-3 in proton-induced reactions as compared
to the one-component formulation. This relative en-
hancement of neutron cross sections is explained by
two facts not considered in the one-component cal-
culations:
i. the distinguishability of nucleons enables the un-
like nucleon to be more easily excited than the like
one;
ii. the interaction between unlike nucleons is
stronger than that between the like ones.
The two-component calculations are much more
complicated than the one-component ones. The
question arises whether an effective one-component
337
formulation can be found, which reproduces the
two-component results. This would be consistently
achieved by summing over proton and neutron ex-
citons to characterize the exciton states only by their
sum n=n~+n v. The procedure for eliminating ad-
ditional subscripts in the exciton model has been
discussed in [24]. We can perform the summation in
the master equations to obtain the effective one-
component probabilities P(n, t) = ~ P(n~, nv, t).
n~+nv=n
To calculate nuclear spectra we need, however,
quantities as
p. P(n., n., t) and E P, P(n=, n., t),
the meaning of which is not clear in the one-com-
ponent simplification. The summation over (n~,nv)
can easily be done when intending to analyse only
the total nucleon cross section a~ + a~.
We can consider, of course, proton-neutron dis-
tinguishability in the one-component model by in-
troducing by hand a factor analogous to the pre-
sently used distinguishability factors. Such a factor
can be arranged as to give good proton-to-neutron
emission ratio for the lowest exciton configuration
and also for the most complex equilibrium stage. Its
consistent introduction for the intermediate stages of
a reaction and/or for the secondary and further
emission is, however, unclear.
The experimental indications for our predictions are
still controverse. We have found a very bad agree-
ment with the experiment for the (p, n) spectra on
l~ and 169Tm at Ep=18MeV, where the two-
component model acts in a wrong direction. The
(p,n) spectra on 4SCa and 2~ with Ep=
25-45 MeV have been noticeably improved in the two-
component calculations. The discrepancy found for
the spectra on l~ and 169Tm needs a further
analysis. Recently, a kind of shell-effect corrections
has been suggested for the exciton model [7]. These
effects might appear to be important in our case. We
note also that nuclei studied in Figs. 7-10, where the
agreement with experiment is good, are spherical
ones. The nuclei l~ and a69Tm are deformed, so
the effect of deformation might play also some
role.
In the present paper we have studied the proton-
neutron distinguishability in the exciton model. We
note that a similar treatment should be done also in
the other pre-equilibrium decay models [4, 25].
References
1. Blann, M.: Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 25, 123 (1975)
2. Cline, C.K.: Nucl. Phys. A 193, 417 (1972)
338 J. Dobeg and E. B&gk: Two-Component Exciton Model

3. Birattari, C., Gadioli, E., Gadioli Erba, E., Grassi Strini, A.M., 19. Kalbach, C.: Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei 287, 319 (1978)
Strini, G., Tagliaferri, G.: Nucl. Phys. A201, 579 (1973) 20. Becchetti, F.D., Greenless, G.W.: Phys. Rev. 182, 1190 (1969)
4. Blann, M.: Nucl. Phys. A213, 570 (1973) 21. Kalbach, C., Grimes, S.M., Wong, C.: Z. Phys. A - Atoms
5. Kalbach, C.: Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei 283, 401 (1977) and Nuclei 275, 175 (1975)
6. Gupta, S.K.: Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei 303, 329 (1981) 22. Bertrand, E.E., Peelle, R.W.: Phys. Rev. C8, 1045 (1973)
7. Ribansk~,, I., Gmuca, S.: Contribution to EPS Topical Conf. 23. Blann, M., Doering, R.R., Galonsky, A., Patterson, D.M.,
on Neutron Induced Reacts. Smolenice, Czechoslovakia, 1982 Serr, F.E.: Nucl. Phys. A257, 15 (1976)
Proceedings (in press)
- 24. Luider, F.J.: Report ECN-17, Petten, 1977
8. B&~tk, E., Oblo~insk~,, P., Ribansk), I.: Nukleonika 19, 687 25. Feshbach, H., Kerman, A., Koonin, S.: Ann. Phys. 125, 429
(1974) (1980)
9. B&hk, E.: Thesis, Inst. of Physics, Bratislava, 1977
10. Wu, J.R.: Thesis, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, 1977
11. B&~k, E., Dobe~, J.: Aeta Phys. Slov. 29, 76 (1979)
12. Dobe~, J., B~t~tk, E.: Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei 288, 175 J. Dobeg
(1978) Institute of Nuclear Physics
13. Akkermans, J.M.: Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei 292, 57 Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences
(1979) CS-25068 ~.e~ near Prague
Chatterjee, A., Gupta, S.K.: Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei Czechoslovakia
301, 271 (1981)
14. Williams, F.C. Jr.: Nucl. Phys. A166, 215 (1971)
15. Dobe~, J.,/3&/tk, E.: Nucl. Phys. A272, 353 (1976) E. B&~tk
16. Kumabe, I., Fukuda, K., Matoba, M.: Phys. Lett. 92B, 15 Institute of Physics
(19B0) Electro-Physical Research Centre
17. Kalbach-Cline, C.: Nuc]. Phys. A210, 590 (1973) Slovak Academy of Sciences
18. Oblo~insk~, P., Ribansk~, I., B&~k, E.: Nucl. Phys. A226, 347 CS-84228 Bratislava
(1974) Czechoslovakia