UNIVERSITEITSTELLENBOSCHUNIVERSITY

jou kennisvennoot

your knowledge partner

Stopping Power of 500 keV - 1500 keV Protons in Mylar Foil

by

Tinyiko Simon Maluleke 14706075

Nuclear Physics Project 754

Department of Physics, University of Stellenbosch, Private X1, Matieland 7602.

Supervisors: Dr. P. Papka (US & iThemba LABS) Dr. C. Pineda-Vargas (iThemba LABS) Mr. M. Msimanga (iThemba LABS)

November 2009

Declaration
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the work contained in this report is my own work and that work from other authors has been properly referenced and aknowledged.

------------------------------Tinyiko Simon Maluleke

-----------Date

Copyright

2009 Stellenbosch University

All rights reserved

Acknowledgments

I like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Carlos Pineda-Vargas and Mr. Mandla Msimanga, for their support and guidance throughout the project. Their knowledge, dedication and patience made it possible for me to nish this project. I also thank the sta at the Material Research Department, who assisted me during the experiment. I extend my thanks to Dr. Paul Papka and Mr. J.J. van Zyl for organizing such interesting project for me. It empowered me and provided me with a way forward for my future studies.

Contents
Contents Abstract List of Figures List of Tables Nomenclature 1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i iii iv v vi 1 1 1 3 4 5 6 9 10

2 Theory And Techniques 2.1 2.2 2.3 Rutherford Backscattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy Loss, Stopping Power and Stopping cross section . . . Energy straggling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Experimental Setup And Procedure 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2

Sample Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Primary Target (Pt/C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Mylar Foil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Irradiation And Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

CONTENTS

ii Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Analysis Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Evaluation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 18 24 26 28

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3

4 Results And Discussion 5 Conclusion A The Van De Graa Accelerator Bibliography

Abstract
Stopping power of mylar foil (1.68 m thick) have been measured for protons in the energy range from 500 keV to 1500 keV, at the Van de Graa Accelerator at Material Research Department (MRD), iThemba LABS, with an experimental uncertainty of 5.4%. The experimental setup was based on the Rutherford Backscattering spectroscopy (RBS) technique currently used at MRD, using the split-foil technique. The stopping power was obtained at average scattered proton energies. Since the energy loss in the 1.68 m mylar foil was found to be less than 20% of incident proton energy, the proton average path-length was approximated to be equal to the thickness of mylar foil and the stopping power was obtained by taking the ratio of energy loss E to the thickness x of mylar. The current results have been compared with calculations done on SRIM2008 and PSTAR computer codes, and with previous experimental results from Damache et al. [1] and Shiomi-Tsuda et al. [2]. The results are a little higher than the calculated results and previous results, but still within acceptable experimental error limit. In addition, the current results showed a kink between 1200 keV and 1500 keV, previously observed by Ammi et al. [3].

iii

List of Figures
1.1 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Stopping power of protons in mylar [3]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ion beam interaction with target material. . . . . . . . . . . . . Scattering kinematics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 7

Schematic diagram of evaporation process. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Front area of the Si barrier detector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 The Van de Graa accelerator with experiment beam. . . . . . . 13 The electronics setup for the experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Electronics. (1) - Scattering chamber, (2) - Si surface barrier detector, (3) - Preampliers, (4) - Beam line, (5) - Collimator (2mm diameter) and (6) - Target holder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.6 3.7

Experimental setup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Determination of energy loss through mylar foil using Pt peak position on the energy spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Comparison of energy loss for incident proton energies E0 = 700 keV and E0 = 1500 keV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Energy calibration E1 vs. C1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Deviation in stopping power from SRIM2008 calculations due to thickness of foil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Current stopping power results compared with previous results and calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

A.1

Generalized schematic diagram of a Van de Graa accelerator. . 26 iv

List of Tables
3.1 4.1 Beam experimental parameters and beam characteristics. . . . . 14 Experimental results where the energies are in keV and stopping powers are in keV/m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Nomenclature
Variables K E0 E1 E2 E E M1 M2 S Se Sn Kinematic Factor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[ Unitless ] [ MeV ] [ MeV ] [ MeV ] [ MeV ] [ MeV ] [o] [u] [u] [ MeV , keV , etc. ] m mm [ MeV , keV , etc. ] m mm [ MeV , keV , etc. ] m mm
keV [ mg.cm2 , etc. ]

Incident proton energy

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

Backscattered ion energy (not through myalar foil) Backscattered ion energy (through myalar foil) Average backscattered ion energy Energy loss
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

Scattering angle

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

Mass of incident ion Mass of target atom total stopping power

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

electronic stopping power nuclear stopping power Stopping cross section

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

proton path length or thickness of foil

. .

. .

. .

[ m, mm, etc ]

vi

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Overview

Understanding the process of interaction of charged particles with matter is important for applications in atomic and nuclear physics. This includes studying the energy loss characteristics of charged particles when they traverse a target material to extract the stopping power of that particular material for charged particles. The study of energy loss of light charged particles in thin polymer lms, such as mylar and kapton, has seen an increased interest in the recent past. Therefore databases of stopping powers for light charged particles have to be constantly updated. Accurate measurements and calculation of stopping powers can then be achieved if there is enough data available to compare with. The availability of data also help to improve theoretical calculations and simulations performed by computer codes such as SRIM2008 [4]. Ion beam analysis (IBA) techniques are generally used for stopping power measurements.

1.2

Literature Review

Stopping power for protons in thin polymer lms have been measured experimentally for proton energy in the range from about 200 keV to several MeVs. 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Ammi et al. [3] measured the stopping power of protons in 6.30 m mylar using Rutherford Backscattering Spectroscopy technique. The experimental results showed about 10% deviation from calculated results of TRIM92, predecessor of latest SRIM and TRIM codes (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Stopping power of protons in mylar [3].

Shiomi-Tsuda et al. [2], provide experimental results for stopping power of protons in mylar for energy range between 400 keV to 3.25 MeV. However this time, scattered protons were detected at forward scattering angle. The results were again compared with theoretical calculations and previous results. The stopping power were calculated at average incident ion energies. Amongst the latest results are the results by Damache et al. [1], which provide the stopping power of protons in mylar for proton energy 236 keV to 3.019 MeV. Experimental setup used was similar to that of Ammi et al. [3]. The experimental stopping power was compared with results obtained from theoretical calculations.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Various methods and computer programs to calculate stopping powers for ions in matter have been developed based on collected experimental data and proposed theoretical models (see [4; 5; 6; 7; 8]). However there is less experimental data available on stopping power for protons in the lower energy region, therefore the accuracy of these models and programs is still in question, especially in the lower energy region. Overall less experimental data is available for stopping power of protons in the lower energy region (below 1.50 MeV) for mylar foil. However the available experimental results, some mentioned above, showed agreement with previous results and theoretical calculations.

1.3

Scope

Based on the literature survey and current trends on ion solid interaction in relation to the experimental conrmation of theoretical models for stopping power in thin polymer foils, the objective of the present research project is to report on the experimental measurement of stopping power of protons in mylar (C10 H8 O4 ) at energies between 500 keV and 1500 keV. The B-Line of the Van de Graa accelerator at the Material Research Department (MRG), iThemba LABS, was used for this purpose. The technique of Rutherford Backscattering Spectroscopy (RBS) was used to measure the stopping power of protons on a thin mylar foil. The rst chapter gives an overview of a interaction process of the problem. Chapter two presents a description of theory and the techniques used in charged particle interaction with matter, particularly those related to Rutherford backscattering, energy loss, stopping power and energy straggling. Chapter three gives the description of the experimental setup and experimental procedures, including irradiation and measurement, electronics and the software used for the evaluation of the experimental data. Chapter four presents the results and discusion of reluts, and chapter ve give the conclusion to the overall report.

Chapter 2 Theory And Techniques

To describe the interaction of charged particles with matter, consider a beam of charged particles with initial energy E0 , mass M1 and charge Z1 incident on a target material of thickness x, mass M2 and charge Z2 , as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Ion beam interaction with target material.

These charged particles are produced in a charged particle accelerator 4

CHAPTER 2. THEORY AND TECHNIQUES

such as the Van de Graa accelerator. The charged particles can be transmitted, absorbed or backscattered elastically or inelastically. If a charged particle is transmitted, it appears with energy E0 E where E is the energy lost in the target material. If the incident ion is absorbed, it can excite or ionize the target atoms if it carries enough energy. Photons are emitted upon de-excitation. Inelastic scattering results in knockout reaction where an electron is emitted. Elastic scattering results in ions being deected by target nuclei due to Coulomb interation.This is the process of interest when measuring the stopping power of ions in matter.

2.1

Rutherford Backscattering

Consider a beam of charged particles incident on the target material as shown in Figure 2.2. An incident ion will interact with target nuclei and then it is scattered at an angle . The scattered ion appears with energy E1 which depends on incident energy, ion mass M1 , ion charge Z1 , target mass M2 , target charge Z2 and scattering angle [5]. E1 = KE0 (2.1)

where K, the kinematic factor, is dened as K=

2 M2

2 M1

sin + M1 cos M1 + M2

1 2

2 (2.2)

For backscattering spectroscopy, we are interested in scattering angles closer to 180o , where ions retain most of their energy. Backscattering yield can be determined from dierential Rutherford cross-section [9] gives the Rutherford dierential cross section as
d . d

Yacobi et al.

CHAPTER 2. THEORY AND TECHNIQUES

d = d Z1 Z2 e2 4E
2

1 4 sin4

M1 M2

1 2

2 + cos 1 2 2 (2.3)

sin
M1 M2

sin

The number of backscattered ions detected is related to the cross-section by A= d QN t d (2.4)

where Q is the total number of incident ions, N is the particle volume density in atoms/cm3 , is detector solid angle and t is the thickness of the target.

2.2

Energy Loss, Stopping Power and Stopping cross section

As mentioned before, incident ions lose energy when they traverse a target material. Consider a backscattering conguration in which an ion with initial energy E0 is incident on a target material of thickness x, as shown in Figure 2.2. The energy at depth x is Ex = E0 x dE dx (2.5)

After scattering at depth x, the ion appears with energy E2 = KEx x dE cos dx (2.6)

Therefore the energy lost by the ion in the material is E = KE0 E2 (2.7)

CHAPTER 2. THEORY AND TECHNIQUES

Figure 2.2: Scattering kinematics.

The stopping power S is dened as the ratio of dierential energy loss to dierential path length traversed by the ion. S= dE dx (2.8)

Stopping power is also reered to as the specic energy loss. Units for stopping power is M eV /mm, keV /m, keV /mg.cm2 , etc. Tesmer and Nastasi [5] gives Bethe-Bloch formula for stopping power as dE = N Z2 Z1 e2 dx
2

E M1

(2.9)

Now combining (2.5) and (2.6), (2.7) becomes

CHAPTER 2. THEORY AND TECHNIQUES

E = x K + or

1 cos

dE dx

(2.10)

E = xSef f

(2.11)

where Sef f , known as the eective stopping power, is given by Sef f = K+ 1 cos dE dx (2.12)

Interaction processes between incident ions and target atoms depend on ion velocity, and ion and target masses. At low velocities nuclear energy loss due to interation with target nuclei dominates. As velocity increases nuclear energy loss diminishes and electronic energy losses due to interation with target electron dominates. The total stopping power S is then the sum of electronic stopping power Se , due to electronic interations, and nuclear stopping power Sn , due to nuclear interactions. S = Se + S n (2.13)

At high energies, S as follows

Se . Ziegler et al. [6] provide equations for calculating

electronic and nuclear stopping power. Stopping cross section is dened

1 dE 1 = S N dx N

(2.14)

In case the target of interest is a compound or a mixture Braggs rule can be applied to compute the stopping powers of ions in compounds [9; 5]. Let Am Bn be a coumpound or a mixture, according to Braggs rule, the stopping cross section is Am Bn = mA + nB (2.15)

CHAPTER 2. THEORY AND TECHNIQUES

Then the stopping power is calculated as follows S Am Bn = N Am Bn (2.16)

2.3

Energy straggling

When individual ions traverse a target material, they experience dierent interactions with target atom. Some travel longer distances than others. Therefore there is a uctuation in the energy of the scattered ions. This is called energy straggling. Straggling increases with path length traversed by ions in the target material. Other sources of energy straggling include detector resolution, beam energy spread, geometry of scattering spectroscopy and kinematics eects.

Chapter 3 Experimental Setup And Procedure

The experimental setup was based on Rutherford Backscattering Spectroscopy (RBS technique. The experimental setup comprised of a charged particle accelerator (Van de Graa accelerator), experimental chamber and data acquisition system. The scattering or experimental chamber was setup as shown in Figure 3.4, similar to the setup of Damache et al. [1] and Ammi et al. [3].

3.1
3.1.1

Sample Preparation
Primary Target (Pt/C)

A primary target of Pt/C was prepared at the Material Science Group laboratory at iThemba LABS, by evaporating platinum onto a carbon substrate. Figure 3.1 shows the mechanism used for evaporating a solid. A substrate (in this experiment, carbon C) was xed on a holder, just above the source (in this case platinum Pt) inside the evapopration chamber. The evaporation chamber was then vacuumed and maintained at a pressure of less than 105 mb for the duration of the evaporation process, to avoid contamination of target. 10

CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

11

Figure 3.1: Schematic diagram of evaporation process.

High voltage was applied to the thermionic lament, which in turn emitted electrons. The electrons were accelerated by the accelerating electrodes and deecting magnets were used to bend the electron beam and focus it onto the source (Pt). The electron beam then melted the Pt which evaporated and deposited on the carbon substrate. The thickness of the Pt evaporant was monitored, and the process was stopped once the required thickness of about 200 angstroms was obtained.

3.1.2

Mylar Foil

The mylar foil of approximately 1.50 m was used as a stopper foil for the measurement of stopping power. Molecular formular for mylar is C10 H8 O4 with density of 1.40 g/cm3 . A split foil technique was used to mount the foil in front of the Si barrier detector. In split foil technique, the foil is mounted such that it covers half the detectors front, active surface or window, as shown in Figure 3.2.

CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

12

Figure 3.2: Front area of the Si barrier detector.

3.2
3.2.1

Irradiation And Measurement

Electronics

The Van de Graa accelerator at MRG, iThemba Labs, provides ve beam lines for various experiments(see Appendix A for general operation of Van de Graa accelerator). The experiment was performed at the B-Line (see Figure 3.3) using proton beam with energy from 500 keV to 1500 keV. The data collection and acquisition system comprised of the Si surface barrier detector, preamplier, amplier, Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC), CAMAC interface, and the data acquisition system (XSYS) running on VAX 4000/VLC computer (see gure 3.4). A cylindrical Si surface barrier detector (with FWHM 15 keV) was used to measure the energy of the backscattered protons. It was biased to 100 V to keep the depletion region as wide as possible. A preamplier, connected to the output of the detector, was placed within short distance from the detector, outside the scattering chamber. The distance between the detector and preamplier was kept as short as possible to minimise noise due to length of cable. The output of the preamplier was connected to the amplier for further signal amplication. The amplied signal was fed to the ADC, which is used to convert analog signal to digital signal, and then to the CAMAC interface which does the sorting of data using a special computer

CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

13

Figure 3.3: The Van de Graa accelerator with experiment beam.

code written in DCL language. The output of the CAMAC was sent to the data aquisition system, XSYS. The pressure in the scattering chamber was maintained at 105 mb for the duration of the experiment. Inside the B-Line scattering chamber (shown in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6), a ladder was mounted on the target holder at the center. The target holder could move up and down to bring the target of interest onto the beam axis, and also rotate about its vertical axis to allow variation of target tilt angle if necessary. The lower the tilt angle, the smaller the path length transversed by protons in the primary target Pt/C, and therefore the the lower the energy loss in the target material. Together with the proton number Z2 of Pt and incident energy E0 , the tilt angle has an eect on the backscattering yield and energy of backscattered protons. The target tilt angle was set to 0o with respect to the incident beam direction. A cyllindrical Si barrier detector was placed at a scattering angle of = 165o .

CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

14

Figure 3.4: The electronics setup for the experiment.

The primary target was irradiated with a beam of 1500 keV protons, 2 mm in diameter (see Table 3.1 for more beam characteristics and experimental parameters). First spectrum was recorded for E0 = 1500 MeV. The incident proton energy was reduce at 100 keV steps and the procedure was repeated for beam energies down to 500 keV. For each measurement, the charge collection was set to 333.33 s at a beam current of about 60 nA. Parameter Total Collected Charge Scattering Angle Tilt Angle (target) Beam Energy (keV) Gain Beam Current Beam Diameter Value 20000nC 165o 0o 500 - 1500 4 keV/Channel 60 nA 2 mm

Table 3.1: Beam experimental parameters and beam characteristics.

CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

15

Figure 3.5: Electronics. (1) - Scattering chamber, (2) - Si surface barrier detector, (3) - Preampliers, (4) - Beam line, (5) - Collimator (2mm diameter) and (6) Target holder.

Figure 3.6: Experimental setup.

3.2.2

Analysis Software

The XSYS program running on a VAX4000/VLC computer was used for data collection and to set the experimental parameters. SIMNRA, a computer program developed by Mayer [8], was used for the calculations of the

CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

16

scattering kinematics. SIMNRA is mainly used for the analysis of RBS, ERDA and PIXE spectra to extract information such as depth proling and elemental contents of materials. SRIM2008 and PSTAR were used to calculate the stopping power for comparison with current results [4; 7]. These two programs were developed based on theoretical models of ion beam interaction with matter and the available experimental data on stopping power. Origin 8 Pro, a plotting and data analysis program, was used to plot RBS spectrum [10].

3.2.3

Evaluation of Data

The XSYS program enabled the recording of the output spectrum as a binary le, named TINY000*.dat, for each proton beam incident energy E0 .

Figure 3.7: Determination of energy loss through mylar foil using Pt peak position on the energy spectrum.

CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

17

Each RBS spectrum le contains the channel number and counts per channel, which was used to plot a spectrum similar to Figure 3.7 using Origin 8 Pro. The centroids correspond to backscattered proton energies, E1 (MeV) and E2 (MeV), for a given incident proton energy E0 (MeV). E1 corresponds to protons that backscattered on Pt and do not pass through the mylar foil, while E2 corresponds to protons that pass through the mylar foil. Then the energy loss E was computed as the dierence between E1 and E2 . This energy loss is directly proportional to the stopping power of protons in mylar.

Chapter 4 Results And Discussion

The recorded RBS spectra, for dierent incident ion energies, were analysed. A typical RBS spectrum is shown in Figure 3.7. The spectrum depicts two prominent peaks, one peak corresponds to protons that backscattered on Pt and do not pass through the mylar foil, while the other peak corresponds to protons that pass through the mylar foil. The peaks broadened due to energy straggling of protons as they interact with the primary target, Pt/C. Otherwise sharp peaks were going to be observed if all backscattered protons were having the same types of interactions and therefore same energy. Comparing the peak separation for high incident (1500 keV) and low incident energy (700 keV)(see Figure 4.1), its is clear that peak separation at high energy is much smaller than at low energy. This shows that energy loss is a function of incident ion energy or velocity and increases with decrease in incident proton energy. Energy calibration was performed to convert channel numbers to energy values. Let C1 and C2 be peak centroids corresponding to backscattered proton energies, E1 (keV) and E2 (keV) respectively, for a given incident proton energy E0 (keV). There centroids of each the two peaks were determined by Gaussian t. Now, E1 was computed from rst principles using equations (2.1) and (2.2), for M1 = 1.007825 u, M2 = 194.964774 u, = 165o and incident energies, 500 keV E0 1500 keV . Then a graph of E1 versus

18

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

19

Figure 4.1: Comparison of energy loss for incident proton energies E0 = 700 keV and E0 = 1500 keV.

C1 was plotted, as shown in Figure 4.2. The relationship between proton energy and channel number was found to be linear, and expressed as a linear equation E1 = 0.00311C1 + 0.005155 (4.1)

To convert C2 to E2 , the energy of backscattered protons that pass through mylar, the equation become E2 = 0.00311C2 + 0.005155 (4.2)

After obtaining E1 and E2 , the energy loss E of protons in mylar was computed as the dierence between E1 and E2

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

20

Figure 4.2: Energy calibration E1 vs. C1 .

E = E1 E2 = (0.00311C1 + 0.005155) (0.00311C2 + 0.005155) = 0.00311 (C1 C2 ) The energy loss E was found to be less than 20% of the backscattered energy E1 . Damache et al. [1], Ammi et al. [3] and Shiomi-Tsuda et al. [2] showed that if as S (E) = E x (4.4)
E E1

(4.3)

20%, the stopping power can be computated accurately

where x is the thickness of the mylar foil, assuming that the average path

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

21 S1.50m 66.98 57.97 52.66 48.37 45.13 42.45 40.26 36.43 37.72 35.30 32.51 S1.68m 59.80 51.76 47.02 43.19 40.30 37.91 35.94 32.53 33.68 31.51 29.02 SSRIM 2008 53.53 47.15 41.97 38.48 35.61 33.19 31.52 30.11 28.71 27.36 26.15

E0 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

E1 489.94 587.93 685.92 783.90 881.89 979.88 1077.87 1175.86 1273.84 1371.83 1469.82

E2 389.48 500.97 606.93 711.34 814.19 916.20 1017.48 1121.21 1217.26 1318.89 1421.06

E 100.46 86.96 78.99 72.56 67.70 63.68 60.39 54.64 56.58 52.95 48.76

E 439.71 544.45 646.42 747.62 848.04 948.04 1047.68 1148.53 1245.55 1345.36 1445.44

Table 4.1: Experimental results where the energies are in keV and stopping powers are in keV/m.

length of protons in mylar equals the thickness of mylar. Stopping power is calculated at average energy E1 + E2 (4.5) 2 The experimental stopping power is approximately equal to electronic E= stopping power for this energy range (500 keV E0 1500 keV ). The current experimental stopping powers were initially calculated mylar of thickness 1.50m, as provided by the manufacturer, and plotted against the average energy E. The results show a large deviation from calculations done by SRIM2008 (see Figure 4.3). Therefore due to these deviation the mylar foil thickness was measured through the energy loss of 5.48 MeV -particles from a
241

Am source, and found to be 1.68 m. The results at this thickness

241

show a better agreement with SRIM2008 calculations, as shown in Figure 4.3. However, since the SRIM2008 stopping power of are relative values. Am -particles was used in calculating the foil thickness, the stopping power values reported here

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

22

Figure 4.3: Deviation in stopping power from SRIM2008 calculations due to thickness of foil.

Energy resolution of the Si surface barrier detector used is 15 keV. Then uncertainty in the energy loss measurements was calculated to be 3.1%. The uncertainty in foil thickness measurement was calculated to be 4.4%. The combine to give a uncertainty in the measured stopping power S = (0.031)2 + (0.044)2 S = 5.4%

(4.6)

The stopping power is seen to decrease with energy increase over the whole 500 keV to 1500 keV energy range. Current data is, within experimental limits, in agreement with data from Damache et al. [1] and Shiomi-Tsuda et al. [2] (see Figure 4.4). SRIM2008 predictions underestimate stopping

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

23

power, especially at lower energies, close to the stopping power maximum. The step observed between 1200 keV and 1500keV and cannot be explained at this stage. However results by Ammi et al. [3] show a similar kink at about the same energy (see Figure 1.1)

Figure 4.4: Current stopping power results compared with previous results and calculations.

Chapter 5 Conclusion
Very few data is currently available on stopping power of protons for mylar in the energy range from 500 keV to 1500 keV. In this experiment, we successfully measured the stopping power of protons in mylar foil, in this energy range. The results show a slight deviation from the semi-empirical calculations and previous experimental results. This deviation is largely due to uncertainty in measurement of the thickness of mylar foil. However, Paul and Schinner [11] showed that the uncertainty in stopping power data obtained from computer codes such as SRIM is about 7-8% accurate. Therefore current results, with a 5.4% experimental uncertainty, show a good agreement with with SRIM2008 and PSTAR predictions and previous experimental results, and therefore it can be taken as reliable. Among other observations of stopping power in this results is the sudden increase in stopping power in the 1200 keV - 1500 keV region. This is also been observed in the results of Ammi et al. [3]. The presence of this kink could not be explained at the moment, and must be investigated more extensively in future experiments. The determination of stopping power for thin polymer foils requires a special, dedicated experimental setup and techniques. Since new type of technical materials are being produced in the nanotechnology, the knowledge and availability of extensive and accurate database is required for charac-

24

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION

25

terisation of these materials. This can be done using, in particular, Ion Beam Analysis techniques, especially RBS and ERDA techniques with light nuclides (protons and -particles) and heavier nuclides (Z 3).

Appendix A The Van De Graa Accelerator

Charged particle beams or ion beams are produced from a suitable ion source and accelerated using particle accelerator, such as the Van de Graa accelerator. A Van de Graa accelerator, named after R.J. Van de Graa, can

Figure A.1: Generalized schematic diagram of a Van de Graa accelerator.

26

APPENDIX A. THE VAN DE GRAAFF ACCELERATOR

27

provide 1 H + , 2 H + , 3 He+ and 4 He+ beams. The accelerator can be of vertical or horizontal alignment (most tandem accelerators). Figure A.1 shows the generalised schematic diagram of a vertically aligned Van de Graa accelerator. The Van de Graa accelerator used at iThemba Labs, is vertically aligned and produces 1 H + , 2 H + , and 4 He+ ion beams with energies up to about 3.50M eV (see Figure 3.3). The ion source is located inside the conducting sphere which is maintained at a high voltage using the high-voltage supply. The ions produced through ionization of the ion source are accelerated through the high potential dierence towards the target. Bending magnet is used to bend the ion beam 90o towards the target , and to align the beam. Collimators are used to shape the beam. The beam current can be determined and varied.

Bibliography
[1] Damache, S., Ouichiaoui, S., Belhout, A., Medouni, A. and Toumert, I.: Stopping of 236 kev - 3.019 kev protons in mylar and polypropylene lms. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B, vol. 225, pp. 449463, 2004. [2] Shiomi-Tsuda, N., Sakamoto, N., Ogawa, H., Tanaka, M., Saito, M. and Kitobo, U.: Stooping power for mylar for protons from 0.40 to 3.25 mev. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B, vol. 129, pp. 14, 1997. [3] Ammi, H., Chekirine, M. and Adjerad, A.: Stopping power of 1.0 - 2.6 mev protons in mylar, makrofol and cellulose nitrate foils. Rad. Meas., vol. 28, pp. 1518, 1997. [4] [5] Ziegler, J.F., Ziegler, M.D. and Biersack, J.P.: Srim2008 computer code, 2008. Tesmer, J.R. and Nastasi, M.A.: Handbook of Modern Ion Beam Materials Analysis. Materials Research Society, 1995. [6] Ziegler, J.F., Biersack, J.P. and Littmark, U.: The Stopping and Range of Ions in Solids, vol. 1. Pergamon Press, 1985. [7] Berger, M.: ESTAR, PSTAR and ASTAR Documentation. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1993. [8] Mayer, M.: SIMNRA Users Guide. Max-Planck-Institut fr Plasmaphysik, Boltzmannstr. 2, Garching, Germany, 2008. [9] Yacobi, B.G., Holt, D.B. and Kazmerski, L.L.: Microanalysis of Solids. Plenum Press, 1994.

28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

29

[10] OriginLab-Corporation: OriginPro 8 computer program. Origin Lab, 1 Roadhouse Plaza, Northhampton, MA 010206, USA, 2008. [11] Paul, H. and Schinner, A.: Judging the reliability of stopping power tables and programs for protons and alpha particles using statistical methods. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B, vol. 227, pp. 461470, 2005.