Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:17:45.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Cluster Impacts on Metallic Targets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2011

Mark H. Shapiro  and
T. A. Tombrello
Mark H. Shapiro
Affiliation:
Physics Department, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634-9480
T. A. Tombrello
Affiliation:
Mail Code 200-36, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 [Supported in part by NSF grant DMR86-15641]
Get access

Abstract

A modified version of the multiple-interaction code SPUT2 has been used to simulate impacts of 63-atom Cu clusters on six–layer Cu targets. Simulations were carried out with cutoff times of 100 and 500 fs for an incident cluster energy of 63 keV (1 keV/atom). Significant enhancements were observed in the maximum potential and kinetic energies achieved in the early phase of the collision cascade. Some hard collisions yielded atoms with potential energies as high as 925 eV (in the CM frame). This is almost twice the energy allowed in an isolated two-body collision. The number of hard collisions per time-step vs potential energy is well-fitted with a decaying exponential, allowing extrapolation to higher energies. These results together with similar results for Al clusters impacting Au targets suggest that non-linear collisional effects cannot explain the high D–D fusion rates seen in Beuhler, Friedlander, and Friedman's recent experiment [l].

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 193: Symposium Q – Atomic Scale Calculations of Structure in Materials , 1990 , 319
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Beuhler, R.J., Friedlander, G., and Friedman, L., Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1292 (1989).Google Scholar
2. Beuhler, R. and Friedman, L., Chem. Rev. 86, 521 (1986).Google Scholar
3. Sigmund, P., J. de Physique C2, 175 (1989).Google Scholar
4. Matthew, M.W., Beuhler, R.J., Ledbetter, M., and Friedman, L., J. Phys. Chem. 90, 251 (1986).Google Scholar
5. Matthew, M.W., Beuhler, R.J., Ledbetter, M., and Friedman, L., Nucl. Inst. and Methods B14, 448 (1986).Google Scholar
6. Henkes, P.R.W. and Klingelhofer, R., J. de Physique C2, 159 (1989).Google Scholar
7. Shapiro, M.H. and Tombrello, T.A., Caltech preprint BB-94, (1990), submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.Google Scholar
8. Echenique, P.M., Manson, J.R., and Ritchie, R.H., Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1413 (1990).Google Scholar
9. Harrison, D.E. Jr., Crit. Rev. in Solid State and Mat. Sci. 14, S1 (1988).Google Scholar
10. Berisch, R., ed., Sputtering by Particle Bombardment. Vol.1, (Springer-Verlag, Basel, 1981).Google Scholar
11. Shapiro, M.H., Tombrello, T.A., and Harrison, D.E. Jr., Nucl. Inst. and Meth. B30, 152 (1988).Google Scholar
12. Shapiro, M.H., Lo, D.Y., Haff, P.K., and Tombrello, T.A., Nucl. Inst. and Meth. B13, 348 (1986).Google Scholar
13. Brizzolara, R.A., Cooper, C.B., and Olson, T.K., Nucl. Inst. and Meth. B35, 36 (1988).Google Scholar