text:
# Infinitely-fast diffusion in Single-File Systems

## I  Introduction

In one-dimensional systems such as zeolites or other porous structures, diffusion is a very important process. The pores of these structures that have the cross section somewhat larger than a benzene molecule, are modelled by Single-File Systems. In these systems particles move in a concerted fashion, as they are unable to cross each other. This process of Single-File diffusion has different characteristics from ordinary diffusion which affects the nature of both transport and conversion by chemical reactions. In S.V.Nedea et al. (2002a) and S.V.Nedea et al. (2002b) we have studied the steady-state and transient properties of this system. We have analysed different situations for diffusion rates and we have compared the results obtained from simulation and analytical techniques. Often diffusion is a very fast process compared to the other reactions in the system. We are thus interested to be able to model correctly infinitely-fast diffusion. For this purpose, we used DMC methods with high regular diffusion rates, assuming that these rates are high enough to model infinitely-fast diffusion.

Dynamic Monte Carlo methods for very high rates are not very efficient and the progress of the simulation is slow. Moreover, considering regular reactions rates it is always a problem to balance between making the diffusion rates high enough so that the infinitely-fast diffusion effects are correctly modelled and the performance of the simulation. We derive here a new method to simulate infinitely fast-diffusion in Single-File Systems, starting from the Master Equation.

The rate equations of some special limiting cases and an analytical description for the productivity of the system are also derived. We study also how the system behavior changes for different sets of kinetic parameters and different distributions of the reactive sites. We categorize also interesting results obtained for profile occupancies for different reactive system and different distribution of the reactive sites.

In section II we specify our mathematical model with the theoretical background for the analytical and simulation results. We introduce the Master Equation of the systems in section II.2 and then we simplify the Master Equation removing the fast reactions in section II.3. In section II.4.1 and II.4.2 we present the simulation methods and we present a DMC algorithm for infinitely-fast diffusion. Different analytical results are presented in III. In section IV.1 and IV.2 we analyze different simulation results for the case when all the sites are reactive and when only some of the sites are reactive. We pay special attention to the influence of the length of the pipe and reaction rate constant on the site occupancy of the system.

## II  Theory

In this section we will give the theoretical background for our analytical and simulation results. First we will specify our model and we will derive a finite set of exact rate equations starting from the Master Equation Kampen (1981). These rate equations are used in order to derive expressions for the productivity in the system for special cases. We show that we can simplify the Master Equation describing the evolution of the system over time removing fast reactions. We use Dynamic Monte Carlo method for our simulation results and we give the description of a Dynamic Monte Carlo-like algorithm for infinitely-fast diffusion.

### II.1 The Model

We model a Single-File System by a one-dimensional array of sites, each possibly occupied by an adsorbate. This is the model of diffusion and reaction in a one-dimensional arrangements of particles with hard-core interaction. The sites are numbered $`1,2,\mathrm{},S`$. A particle can only move to the right or to the left if an adjacent site is vacant. The sites could be reactive and unreactive and we note with $`N_{\mathrm{prot}}`$ the number of reactive sites. A reactive site is the only place where a conversion may take place.

We consider two types of adsorbates, $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}`$, in our model and we denote with $`\mathrm{Y}`$ the site occupation of a site, $`\mathrm{Y}`$=($``$, $`\mathrm{A}`$, $`\mathrm{B}`$), which stands for an vacant site, a site occupied by $`\mathrm{A}`$, or a site occupied by a $`\mathrm{B}`$, respectively. We restrict ourselves to the following mono and bi-molecular transitions.
a) Adsorption and desorption
Adsorption and desorption take place only at the two marginal sites i.e., the left and rightmost sites at the ends of the system.

$`\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{gas})`$ \+ $`_m`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{A}_m`$

$`\mathrm{A}_m`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{gas})`$ \+ $`_m`$

$`\mathrm{B}_m`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{gas})`$ \+ $`_m,`$

where subscripts $`m`$ denotes a marginal site. Note that there is no $`\mathrm{B}`$ adsorption. $`\mathrm{B}`$’s can only be formed by a conversion.
b) Diffusion
In the pipe, particles are allowed to diffuse via hopping to vacant nearest neighbor sites.

$`\mathrm{A}_n`$ \+ $`_{n+\mathit{1}}`$ $``$ $`_n`$ \+ $`\mathrm{A}_{n+\mathit{1}}`$

$`\mathrm{B}_n`$ \+ $`_{n+\mathit{1}}`$ $``$ $`_n`$ \+ $`\mathrm{B}_{n+\mathit{1}}`$

where the subscripts are site indices: $`n`$=1, 2, …, S-1.
c) Conversion
An $`\mathrm{A}`$ can transform into a $`\mathrm{B}`$ at a reactive site.

$`\mathrm{A}_r`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{B}_r`$.

In the initial state of the system all the sites are vacant (no particles in the pipe) as we are interested in the behavior of the system towards equilibrium.

### II.2  Master Equation

Reaction kinetics is described by a stochastic process. Every reaction has a microscopic rate constant associated with it that is the probability per unit time that the reaction occurs. Stochastic models of physical systems can be described by a Master Equation. Kampen (1981)

By $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, we will indicate a particular configuration of the system i.e., a particular way to distribute adsorbates over all the sites. $`P_\alpha (t)`$ will indicate the probability of finding the system in configuration $`\alpha `$ at time $`t`$ and $`W_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the rate constant of the reaction changing configuration $`\beta `$ to configuration $`\alpha `$.

The probability of the system being in configuration $`\alpha `$ at time $`t+dt`$ can be expressed as the sum of two terms. The first term is the probability to find the system already in configuration $`\alpha `$ at time $`t`$ multiplied by the probability to stay in this configuration during $`dt`$. The second term is the probability to find the system in some other configuration $`\beta `$ at time $`t`$ multiplied by the probability to go from $`\beta `$ to $`\alpha `$ during $`dt`$.

$$P_\alpha (t+dt)=(1dt\underset{\beta }{}W_{\beta \alpha })P_\alpha (t)+dt\underset{\beta }{}W_{\alpha \beta }P_\beta (t)$$
(1)
By taking the limit $`dt0`$ this equation reduces to a Master Equation:

$$\frac{dP_\alpha (t)}{dt}=\underset{\beta }{}\left[W_{\alpha \beta }P_\beta (t)W_{\beta \alpha }P_\alpha (t)\right].$$
(2)
Analytical results can be derived as follow. The value of a property $`X`$ is a weighted average over the values $`X_\alpha `$ which is the value of $`X`$ in configuration $`\alpha `$:

$$X=\underset{\alpha }{}P_\alpha X_\alpha .$$
(3)
From this follows the rate equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{dX}{dt}& =\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{dP_\alpha }{dt}X_\alpha \hfill \\ & =\underset{\alpha \beta }{}[W_{\alpha \beta }P_\beta W_{\beta \alpha }P_\alpha ]X_\alpha \hfill \\ & =\underset{\alpha \beta }{}W_{\alpha \beta }P_\beta (X_\alpha X_\beta ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
### II.3 Master Equation for infinitely-fast diffusion

We show that we can simplify the Master Equation removing the fast reactions. In order to remove fast reactions we stop distinguishing between configurations that can be transformed into each other by the fast reactions. We split all configurations into disjoint sets such that if $`C_i`$ is one such a set and $`\alpha ,\beta C_i`$, then $`\alpha `$ can be transformed into $`\beta `$, or vice versa by fast reactions. If we denote

$$\pi _i=\underset{\alpha C_i}{}P_\alpha ,$$

we can derive the Master Equation for $`\pi _i`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\pi _i}{dt}& =\underset{\alpha C_i}{}\frac{dP_\alpha }{dt}\hfill \\ & =\underset{\alpha C_i}{}\underset{\beta }{}\left[W_{\alpha \beta }P_\beta W_{\beta \alpha }P_\alpha \right]\hfill \\ & =\underset{\alpha C_i}{}\underset{j}{}\underset{\beta C_j}{}\left[W_{\alpha \beta }P_\beta W_{\beta \alpha }P_\alpha \right]\hfill \\ & =\underset{j}{}\left(\underset{\alpha C_i}{}\underset{\beta C_j}{}W_{\alpha \beta }\frac{P_\beta }{\pi _j}\right)\pi _j\hfill \\ & \underset{j}{}\left(\underset{\beta C_j}{}\underset{\alpha C_i}{}W_{\beta \alpha }\frac{P_\alpha }{\pi _i}\right)\pi _i\hfill \\ & =\underset{j}{}\left[\omega _{ij}\pi _j\omega _{ji}\pi _i\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
with $`\omega _{ij}=_{\alpha C_i}_{\beta C_j}W_{\alpha \beta }\frac{P_\beta }{\pi _j}.`$

We see that all fast reactions have disappeared; they only contribute to $`\omega _{ii}`$, which can be left out of the ME. In order to calculate $`\omega _{ij}`$, we need the conditional probabilities $`\frac{P_\beta }{\pi _j}`$. Because we have fast reactions connecting the $`\beta `$’s in $`C_j`$ we may assume that these $`\beta `$’s are in steady-state with respect to each other. Hence, the conditional probability $`\frac{P_\beta }{\pi _j}`$ is nothing but the probability of $`\beta `$ in steady-state if we restrict ourselves to the configurations in $`C_j`$.

### II.4 Simulation methods

#### II.4.1 Dynamic Monte Carlo

DMC methods allow us to simulate the system governed by the Master Equation over time. We simplify the notation of the Master Equation by defining a matrix $`𝐖`$ containing the rate constants $`W_{\alpha \beta }`$, and a diagonal matrix $`𝐑`$ by $`R_{\alpha \beta }_\gamma W_{\gamma \beta }`$, if $`\alpha =\beta `$, and 0 otherwise. If we put the probabilities of the configurations $`P_\alpha `$ in a vector $`𝐏`$, we can write the Master Equation as

$$\frac{d𝐏}{dt}=(𝐑𝐖)𝐏.$$
(6)
where $`𝐑`$ and $`𝐖`$ are time independent. We also introduce a new matrix $`𝐐`$, $`𝐐(t)\mathrm{exp}[𝐑t].`$

This matrix is time dependent by definition and we can rewrite the Master Equation in the integral form

$$𝐏(t)=𝐐(t)𝐏(0)+_0^t𝑑t^{}𝐐(tt^{})\mathrm{𝐖𝐏}(t^{}).$$
(7)
By substitution we get from the right-hand-side for $`P(t^{})`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐏(t)& =[𝐐(t)\hfill \\ & +_0^t𝑑t^{}𝐐(tt^{})\mathrm{𝐖𝐐}(t^{})\hfill \\ & +_0^t𝑑t^{}_0^t^{}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }𝐐(tt^{})\mathrm{𝐖𝐐}(t^{}t^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{𝐖𝐐}(t^{\prime \prime })\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{}]𝐏(0).\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Suppose at $`t=0`$ the system is in configuration $`\alpha `$ with probability $`P_\alpha (0)`$. The probability that, at time $`t`$, the system is still in configuration $`\alpha `$ is given by $`Q_{\alpha \alpha }(t)P_\alpha (0)=\mathrm{exp}(R_{\alpha \alpha }t)P_\alpha (0)`$. This shows that the first term represents the contribution to the probabilities when no reaction takes place up to time $`t`$. The matrix $`𝐖`$ determines how the probabilities change when a reaction takes place. The second term represents the contribution to the probabilities when no reaction takes place between times $`0`$ and $`t^{}`$, some reaction takes place at time $`t^{}`$, and then no reaction takes place between $`t^{}`$ and $`t`$. The subsequent terms represent contributions when two, three, four, etc. reactions take place. The idea of the DMC method is not to compute probabilities $`P_\alpha (t)`$ explicitly, but to start with some particular configuration, representative for the initial state of the experiment one wants to simulate, and then generate a sequence of other configurations with the correct probability. The method generates a time $`t^{}`$ when the first reaction occurs according to the probability distribution $`1\mathrm{exp}[R_{\alpha \alpha }t]`$. At time $`t^{}`$ a reaction takes place such that a new configuration $`\alpha ^{}`$ is generated by picking it out of all possible new configurations $`\beta `$ with a probability proportional to $`W_{\alpha ^{}\alpha }`$. At this point we can proceed by repeating the previous steps, drawing again a time for a new reaction and a new configuration. Lukkien et al. (1998); R.J.Gelten et al. (1998a) One of the most popular DMC method in the literature is Random Selection Method(RSM) Lukkien et al. (1998). We use this method to simulate the Master Equation of our system.

#### II.4.2  A Dynamic Monte Carlo algorithm for infinitely-fast diffusion

In section C we have derived the ME distinguishing between configurations that can be transformed into each other by fast reactions. Starting from the ME(5) we give a DMC algorithm for simulating infinitely-fast diffusion. For our model, diffusion is much faster than adsorption and desorption, so the sets are all configurations that are connected by diffusion. These sets can be labeled only by the sequences of particles $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}`$, as only the number of $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}`$ particles and their order in the pipe is important to distinguish the configurations within a set. Moreover, all probabilities of configurations within a set are the same. This means that $`\frac{\pi _j}{P_\beta }`$ is the number of configurations in $`C_j`$. There are $`\left(\begin{array}{c}S\\ n\end{array}\right)`$ways to distribute $`n`$ particles over $`S`$ sites. We have then

$$\frac{P_\beta }{\pi _n}=\left(\begin{array}{c}S\\ n\end{array}\right)^1,$$

with $`P_\beta C_n.`$ The summation $`_{\beta C_n}`$ sums over $`\left(\begin{array}{c}S\\ n\end{array}\right)`$ configurations. However, for adsorption the left-most or the right-most site should be vacant.This gives us $`\left(\begin{array}{c}S1\\ n\end{array}\right)`$ possible configurations. Each of these gives just one configuration in the summation over $`\alpha `$. So we get

$$\omega _{ads}=2W_{ads}\frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}S1\\ n\end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{c}S\\ n\end{array}\right)}=2W_{ads}\frac{Sn}{S}=2W_{ads}(1\theta ),$$
(9)
where $`\omega _{ads}`$ is the transition probability for the transition from a configuration within the set with $`n`$ particles to a configuration within the set with $`n+1`$ particles. Similary we find that

$$\omega _{des}=2W_{des}\frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}S1\\ n1\end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{c}S\\ n\end{array}\right)}=\frac{2W_{des}n}{S}=2W_{des}\theta .$$
(10)
In both expressions $`\theta =\frac{n}{S}`$ is the coverage.

The Dynamic Monte Carlo (DMC) algorithm that we have used to simulate the system consists of the following steps:
1. Compute the time for the next adsorption or desorption. If the current time is $`t`$ then the time for that process is $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{\mathrm{ln}r}{2(1\theta )W_{\mathrm{ads}}+2\theta W_{\mathrm{des}}}$$
(11)
where $`r`$ is a random number picked from the uniform distribution on the interval $`0,1]`$ and $`\theta `$ is the probability that the marginal site is occupied. With infinitely fast diffusion this probability is given by $`\theta =(N_\mathrm{A}+N_\mathrm{B})/S`$ with $`N_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`N_\mathrm{B}`$ the number of $`\mathrm{A}`$’s respectively $`\mathrm{B}`$’s in the system.
2. Compute for each $`\mathrm{A}`$ in the system a time when it will transform into a $`\mathrm{B}`$. This time is given by $`t+\tau `$ with

$$\tau =\frac{\mathrm{ln}r}{PW_{\mathrm{rx}}}.$$
(12)
In this expression $`P`$ stands for the probability that the A is at a protonic site. If we number the particles in the system from left to right $`1,2,\mathrm{},N_\mathrm{A}+N_\mathrm{B}`$ and the sites also from left to right $`1,2,\mathrm{},S`$ then the probability that particle number $`n`$ is at site number $`s`$, $`P_n^s`$, is given by

$$P_n^s=\frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}s1\\ n1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}Ss\\ N_\mathrm{A}+N_\mathrm{B}n\end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{c}S\\ N_\mathrm{A}+N_\mathrm{B}\end{array}\right)}.$$
(13)
$`P`$ for particle $`n`$ is then the sum of this expression over all protonic sites

$$P=\underset{s=1}{\overset{S}{}}P_n^s\delta _s,$$
(14)
where $`\delta _s=1`$ if site $`s`$ is protonic.
3. Change those $`\mathrm{A}`$’s with $`\tau <\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ into $`\mathrm{B}`$’s.
4. Determine the next process at the marginal sites. It is an adsorption with probability proportional to $`(1\theta )W_{\mathrm{ads}}`$ and a desorption with probability proportional to $`\theta W_{\mathrm{des}}`$. The process is equally likely to occur on the left- or the right-hand-side.
5. Change the number of particles in the system according to the next process at the marginal sites.
6. Update the time.
7. Repeat steps 1 to 6.

## III Analytical results

In this section, for some special cases such as low loading limit and fast and slow reaction, we are able to derive some expressions for the productivity in the steady-state. For the case of low loading limit we can also derive the rate equations of the system.

### III.1 The low loading limit.

In this case we can assume that there is never more than one particle in the system. The following rate equations then hold.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\mathrm{A}}{dt}& =\frac{2W_{\mathrm{ads}}}{S}\frac{2W_{\mathrm{des}}}{S}\mathrm{A}\hfill \\ & \frac{W_{\mathrm{rx}}}{2N_{\mathrm{inert}}+1}\mathrm{A}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{d\mathrm{B}}{dt}& =\frac{2W_{\mathrm{des}}}{S}\mathrm{A}+\frac{W_{\mathrm{rx}}}{2N_{\mathrm{inert}}+1}\mathrm{A}\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Here $`\mathrm{X}`$ is the probability that there is an X at an arbitrary site. For steady state we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{A}& =\frac{2W_{\mathrm{ads}}W_{\mathrm{des}}}{(W_{\mathrm{ads}}+W_{\mathrm{des}})(2W_{\mathrm{des}}+N_{\mathrm{prot}}W_{\mathrm{rx}})}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{B}& =\frac{N_{\mathrm{prot}}W_{\mathrm{ads}}W_{\mathrm{rx}}}{(W_{\mathrm{ads}}+W_{\mathrm{des}})(2W_{\mathrm{des}}+N_{\mathrm{prot}}W_{\mathrm{rx}})}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
From this we immediately get the turnover frequency

$$\omega _{\mathrm{TOF}}=\frac{2W_{\mathrm{ads}}W_{\mathrm{des}}W_{\mathrm{rx}}}{(W_{\mathrm{ads}}+W_{\mathrm{des}})(2W_{\mathrm{des}}+N_{\mathrm{prot}}W_{\mathrm{rx}})}.$$
(17)
We see that in this limit the turnover frequency does not depend on the system size.

Comparing the number of $`\mathrm{B}`$’s produced from the analytical results with the DMC results for the case when $`W_{\mathrm{ads}}=0.0033`$, $`W_{\mathrm{des}}=0.9967`$, $`W_{\mathrm{rx}}=0.1`$ and different distributions of the reactive sites, we remark that we get similar results.

### III.2  Fast and slow $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{B}`$ reaction.

If the reaction is fast, and there are not too many particles in the system, then all particles in the system are Bs. This means

$$\mathrm{B}=\frac{W_{\mathrm{ads}}}{W_{\mathrm{ads}}+W_{\mathrm{des}}},$$
(18)
and

$$\omega _{\mathrm{TOF}}=\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{prot}}}\frac{2W_{\mathrm{ads}}W_{\mathrm{des}}}{W_{\mathrm{ads}}+W_{\mathrm{des}}}.$$
(19)
The restriction of not too many particles is necessary, because particles should all always be able to reach a protonic site. This means

$$\frac{W_{\mathrm{ads}}}{W_{\mathrm{ads}}+W_{\mathrm{des}}}\frac{N_{\mathrm{inert}}}{S}$$
(20)
must hold. This relation depends on the distribution of the reactive sites. When reaction is fast this means that it depends on the distance from the margins to the first protonic site.

Comparing the site occupancy with $`\mathrm{B}`$’s(20) with results from the DMC simulations, we find that for the reaction rate constants ($`W_{\mathrm{ads}}`$=0.03333, $`W_{\mathrm{des}}`$=0.96667, $`W_{\mathrm{rx}}`$=10 and all the sites reactive, the results are similar.

If the reaction is slow, then there are only occasionally $`\mathrm{B}`$’s in the system. This means

$$\mathrm{A}=\frac{W_{\mathrm{ads}}}{W_{\mathrm{ads}}+W_{\mathrm{des}}}.$$
(21)
All particles in the system will be renewed between two subsequent formations of a B. Therefore

$$\omega _{\mathrm{TOF}}=\frac{W_{\mathrm{ads}}W_{\mathrm{rx}}}{W_{\mathrm{ads}}+W_{\mathrm{des}}}.$$
(22)
Comparing the site occupancy with $`\mathrm{A}`$’s(23) with results from the DMC simulations, we find that for the reaction rates constants $`W_{\mathrm{ads}}`$=0.03333, $`W_{\mathrm{des}}`$=0.96667, $`W_{\mathrm{rx}}`$=0.001 and all the sites reactive, the results are similar.

## IV  Simulation Results and Discussion

### IV.1  All sites reactive

We remark that DMC methods with regular high rates for diffusion tend to give similar results as DMC method for infinitely-fast diffusion described in section II.4.2. The results of this comparisons are in figure 3. We conclude that the DMC method for infinitely-fast diffusion we have defined is a correct method to simulate the behavior of the system in the limit $`W_{\mathrm{diff}}\mathrm{}`$.

In S.V.Nedea et al. (2002a) we have seen that for the case when all the sites are reactive, the site occupancies of the system obtained from DMC simulations show that the system is not homogeneous even for very fast diffusion rates. We find the same effect also using DMC for infinitely-fast diffusion, for different loadings and for different reaction rate constants.

We study also the dependence of the occupancy profiles on the reaction rate constant at different loadings of the system.

The simulation results in figure 2 show how the shape of the profiles changes with reaction rate $`W_{\mathrm{rx}}`$ for high and low loading of the pipe, when all the sites are reactive. We find that for high loadings, as an effect of the blocking, the middle sites have the same probability to be occupied for both fast and slow reactive system. Only the occupancy of marginal sites is influenced by the reactivity, such that in fast reactive systems we have a higher probability to have a $`\mathrm{B}`$ near the marginal sites, and, in consequence, a better productivity. For slow reactive systems, the occupancy profiles are scaled with reaction rate constant. We notice that the productivity is growing increasing reaction rate in case of low loading systems almost as fast as in the case of the high loading systems because of the diminished effect of the blocking in the pipe. Comparing for instance the rate o growth for $`\mathrm{B}`$ production when reaction rate constant is increasing from $`W_{rx}=0.1`$ to $`W_{rx}=0.4`$ ($`B_{prod}^{W_{rx}=0.4}B_{prod}^{W_{rx}=0.1})/S`$), in case of low loading ($`\theta =0.2`$) and high loading ($`\theta =0.8`$), we find almost the same rate of growth in both the cases, and this is 0.5.

In figure 4 we have the logarithmic shape of the occupancy profiles for $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}`$. These profiles show that smaller systems are less reactive as less $`\mathrm{A}`$s are inside the pipe. This explains the faster decrease of $`\mathrm{A}_n`$ for small systems in figure 4. For infinitely-long systems we expect to have straight lines corresponding to an exponential decrease of $`\mathrm{A}_n`$.

### IV.2  Only some of the sites reactive

For all the sites reactive, in paper S.V.Nedea et al. (2002a), we have shown that even when $`W_{diff}\mathrm{}`$, DMC results with regular high diffusion rates indicate that the system doesn’t become homogeneous. Using DMC for infinitely-fast diffusion we find that also for different distribution of the reactive sites we find a non-homogeneous distribution of the particles in the system. In figure 5 we can see that for marginal sites reactive and for middle sites reactive as well, we have single-file effects also for infinitely-fast diffusion for different rates of reactions.

We notice that the profiles in case of high loadings are very slowly dependent on conversion, both for middle and for marginal sites reactive. Comparing with simulation results for occupancy profiles in S.V.Nedea et al. (2002a), where middle sites and marginal sites are reactive, and for regular diffusion rate constants in the domain $`(2\mathrm{}10)`$, we notice that the profiles are similar. We can conclude that as the effect of infinitely-fast diffusion is absent for Single-File Systems, the diffusion is not so important in these systems.

For low loading, when marginal sites are reactive, the occupancy profiles are scaled with $`W_{\mathrm{rx}}`$. We notice that conversion in figure 5 is the rate determining step. In this case, the middle sites doesn’t have the same occupancy for different reaction rate constants like in the case of all the sites reactive but are strongly dependent on $`W_{rx}`$.

We notice also that the productivity in case marginal sites are reactive is growing faster increasing the reaction rate constants at low loadings than at high loadings. Comparing, for instance, the rate o growth for $`\mathrm{B}`$ production $`B_{prod}`$ when reaction rate constant is increasing from $`W_{rx}=0.1`$ to $`W_{rx}=0.4`$, in case of low loading ($`\theta =0.2`$) and high loading ($`\theta =0.8`$), we find that the rate of growth of $`\mathrm{B}`$ productivity at low loadings ($`0.3`$) is larger than at high loadings ($`0.25`$).

When we have middle sites reactive we have higher probability to find $`\mathrm{A}`$’s near marginal sites. The productivity is smaller than in all the other cases. The profiles are again scaled with $`W_{\mathrm{rx}}`$ for low loadings. For high loadings and middle sites reactive, the profiles for different conversion rates are almost similar, so the productivity can only be increased in this case only increasing the number of reactive sites.

## V Summary

We have used DMC methods and analytical techniques to analyze Single-File Systems for which diffusion is infinitely-fast. We simplified the ME removing fast diffusion and we have presented a DMC algorithm for infinitely-fast diffusion that simulate this ME. We show that DMC with regular high rates gives the same results as DMC for infinitely-fast diffusion. The fundamental assumption considered for infinitely-fast diffusion in the analytical results is that all configurations related by diffusion have the same probability.

In the limiting cases such as low loading limit and slow and fast conversion, we are able to derive expressions for the $`\mathrm{B}`$ productivity. We notice that the number of $`\mathrm{B}`$s produced per unit time in these cases doesn’t depend on the system size. Comparisons between analytical and DMC results reveal similar results for the productivity.

DMC results show that when all the sites are reactive and when only some of the sites are reactive, diffusion has no influence on the single-file properties of the system. Different results for the dependencies of the occupancy profiles and productivity on the reaction rate constant and different distributions are categorized. The occupancy profiles show that smaller systems are less reactive as less $`\mathrm{A}`$s are inside the pipe.


format: text

text:
# Multi–frequency Analysis of the two CSS quasars 3C 43 & 3C 298

## 1 Introduction

Compact Steep–spectrum Sources (CSS) and GHz Peaked spectrum Sources (GPS) are powerful objects whose projected sizes are shown, statistically (Fanti et al. fan3 (1990)), to be physically small ($`<1520h^1`$ kpc)111$`H_{}1=100h`$ km/sec/Mpc, $`q_0=0.5`$. Their high–frequency spectrum is steep (and turns over at low frequencies in GPS) implying that these objects are not core dominated. When observed with the appropriate resolution they display a large variety of morphologies. Their nature has been a matter of debate for many years and several samples of CSSs and GPSs have been studied by numerous authors in an effort to understand their properties and their rôle in the radio source evolution. General discussions have been presented, for instance, by Fanti et al. (fan1 (1985)), Saikia (saik (1988)), Fanti et al. (fan3 (1990)), Spencer et al. (spen2 (1991)), Fanti et al. (fan5 (1995)), Readhead et al. (read (1996)), O’Dea & Baum (ode2 (1997)). An extensive review has been presented by O’Dea (ode (1998)).

It is now generally accepted that at least a large fraction of CSSs/GPSs are young radio sources in the early stage of their life ($`<10^6`$ years; see e.g. Fanti fan6 (2000) for a short review) and statistical studies of CSSs and GPSs are therefore important in order to refine the evolutionary scenario. Extensive studies of individual objects are also important, however, in order to understand the underlying physics. Moreover, due to their small physical sizes, these objects may give us an unique opportunity to probe the interstellar medium (ISM) of their host galaxy/quasar and, in the smallest of them, even the Narrow Line Region (NLR ) via jet–ambient gas interactions (see for instance de Vries, devr (1999), Conway & Schilizzi, con2 (2000), Axon et al. axon (2000) and references therein, Morganti et al. morg (2001)).

In this paper we present a detailed study of the CSS quasars 3C 43 and 3C 298 based on different resolution images we obtained using MERLIN and VLBI at 1.7 and 5 GHz and complemented by images at other frequencies. These quasars have similar redshift and radio power but very different radio morphologies: 3C 43 shows a very distorted structure; 3C 298, instead, has an almost linear morphology and appears to be a scaled down version of the large size quasars.

In the following sections we summarize the observations and the data reduction (Sect. 2), present the observational results (Sect. 3) and discuss the properties of both sources (Sect. 4). Finally, in Sect. 5 we provide a summary of the results and some conclusions.

## 2 Observations and Data reduction

The new observations presented in this paper were obtained with VLBI networks in different observing modes (MkII and MkIII) and with MERLIN, in the period 1991–1994 at the frequencies of 1.7 and 5 GHz (Table 1).

At 5 GHz the observations of 3C 43 were performed simultaneously with MERLIN and EVN while for 3C 298 we obtained EVN observations only. The EVN observing time was 12 hours for each source and included short scans on the calibration sources 0133+476, 0235+164 and OQ208, about every four hours.

At 1.7 GHz we performed for 3C 298 a global ($`EVN+US+VLBA`$) observation. The observing time was about 12 hours on both the European and the US networks with only four hours in common to the two networks due to the low source declination. For 3C 43 the EVN data by Spencer et al. (spen2 (1991)) were re-analyzed and a new image is presented here.

Given the complex structure of these sources the use of the combined VLBI and MERLIN data was necessary in order to obtain a good sampling of both the short and the long baselines. As said above, only for 3C 43 at 5 GHz we did manage to have simultaneous observations on the two arrays. The other MERLIN data were: for 3C 43 at 1.7 GHz from observations performed in 1993 with the extended array (i.e. including the 32-m telescope at Cambridge); for 3C 298 pre–existing data by Spencer at al. (spen (1989)) at 1.7 GHz and by Akujor et al. 1991b  at 5 GHz.

In order to combine the VLBI and the MERLIN data sets properly, at least one common baseline is highly desirable to link the phases and the flux density scales. This was not possible for 3C 298 at 1.7 GHz. In this case the MERLIN and VLBI data were combined after carefully checking that the “a–priori” flux density scales of the two arrays were in agreement.

The whole data reduction was made in AIPS. The final combined images were obtained by initially mapping and phase self-calibrating the short baseline data and then by slowly adding increasingly longer baselines. For both sources we analyzed images made at different resolutions; they are referred to in the text as low, intermediate and high (see Tables 3 and 5).

## 3 Results

Some basic parameters for the two quasars 3C 43 and 3C 298 are given in Table 2.

The two sources have been analyzed in similar ways following this scheme:

* The source morphology was studied by comparing the images of the present paper with others available in the literature. For the individual components of each source we report in Tables 4 and 6 flux density and beam–deconvolved sizes (HPW), derived using the AIPS task IMFIT. When components cannot be reliably approximated by two–dimensional Gaussians, flux densities have been measured by integration over the emission region (AIPS task TVSTAT) and sizes may have been estimated from the lowest reliable contour in the image. Note that in this case sizes are roughly twice the conventional HPW. Parameters estimated in such a way are preceeded by “$``$”.
* On the assumption of minimum energy conditions, we computed for each source component the physical parameters, i.e.: equipartition magnetic field (Heq), minimum energy density (umin), minimum total energy (Ueq), turnover frequency ($`\nu _{\mathrm{to}}`$) expected from synchrotron self–absorption. We used standard formulae (e.g. Pacholczyk, pach (1970)), with filling factor 1, equal energy in electrons and protons and an ellipsoidal geometry for sub–components.
* Component radio spectra are derived by combining our own data with those from images in the literature at resolutions not too different from ours.

### 3.1 3C 43

#### 3.1.1 Source Morphology – Observed and Physical Parameters

At sub–arcsec resolution (Pearson et al. pear (1985); Akujor et al. 1991a , Spencer et al. spen (1989); Akujor & Garrington aku3 (1995)) the morphology is that of a very distorted triple source, with a very bright central component and two outer components, toward East and North–West, whose arms form an angle of $`95^{}`$. In the 18 cm image obtained with the extended MERLIN (Fig. 1a) the north–western component is clearly double and the component to East is elongated towards the central one and connected to it. At higher resolutions (van Breugel et al. vanb (1992), Lüdke et al. lud (1998)) the latter component appears as a faint jet which widens at the eastern end in a sort of lobe (see also Fig. 2). No compact features which could be interpreted as “hot–spots” are visible within the eastern or north–western lobes at either frequency, even in the high resolution EVN images.

In the discussion of the source properties we refer to the labelling of Figs. 1 and 2. In these figures: $`NW`$, “Eastern” and “Central” are the north-western, the eastern and the central components seen at MERLIN resolution (Fig. 1a); $`EAST`$ and faint jet are the easternmost lobe and the elongated weak structure which connects it to the “Central” component (Fig. 2); bright jet is the “Central” component as seen at VLBI resolutions (Figs. 1b and 4). Here components are labelled from $`A`$ (North) to $`F`$ (South–East).

The general parameters of our own high and low resolution VLBI images at 1.7 (Figs. 1b and 2) and at 5 GHz (Fig. 4) are given in Table 3.

The low resolution image at 1.7 GHz shown in Fig. 2 is the only one where the faint jet is clearly visible. Component $`NW`$ (out of figure) is instead just barely detected. This image accounts for $``$95% of the total MERLIN flux density. A global VLBI image at 327 MHz of the “Central” and “Eastern” components (component $`NW`$ is heavily resolved out), with a resolution of $`40\times 40`$ mas (Dallacasa et al. unpublished) is shown in Fig. 3 for comparison. Most of the structure visible in Fig. 2 can be recognized here.

In the high resolution images presented in Figs. 1b and 4a, only the “Central” component is visible. It appears as a bright jet running initially in the N–S direction, with small oscillations and then sharply bent towards East (see also the 610 MHz image by Nan et al. 1991b , resolution $`30\times 20`$ mas). Only $`55`$% of the flux density measured at 1.7 GHz with MERLIN and $`50`$% of that measured at 5 GHz with the VLA by Spencer et al. (spen (1989)) is present in these images. More flux density is detected in the combined EVN$`+`$MERLIN image at 5 GHz shown in Fig. 4b, thanks to the better coverage of the short baselines. Here $``$90% of the VLA flux density of the “Central” component (Spencer et al. spen (1989)) has been recovered.

The 5 GHz low resolution image (Fig. 4b) compares reasonably well with the image at 1.7 GHz (Fig. 1b), with a similar resolution, although the match is not completely satisfactory. In particular the extended structure $`C1`$ appears more “knotty” here and components $`E`$ and $`F`$ are now blended into a single blob. We note that component $`A`$ (Fig. 1b), brighter at high frequencies, is just barely visible at 327 MHz, heavily blended with component $`B`$. We estimate that its flux density is not greater than $``$20 mJy at this frequency. This provides evidence that it has an inverted spectrum (Sect. 3.1.2) and that it is therefore likely to harbor the source core, as suggested already by Nan et al. (1991b )

The EVN observations at 1.7 GHz were performed in September 1986 and those at 5 GHz in September 1991: this represents a time lag long enough to impose the exercise of checking if the source structure has somehow changed. To do this, we have convolved the 6 cm low resolution image to the resolution of the 18 cm (25$`\times `$20 mas; not shown). We find that all components from $`B`$ to $`D`$ appear to have systematically moved away from $`A`$ (assumed stationary) along PA$`140^{}`$, the positional shifts being in the range 3.8–12.5 mas. These displacements are significant and, taken at face value, would imply an apparent outward speed $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}22c`$.

Such displacements may be explained as a sort of “reflex motion” due to spectral index and resolution effects within component $`A`$. In effect $`B`$ and $`D`$, the two strongest and most reliable components, have not moved appreciably with respect to each other. If we then take as coordinate origin the position of $`B`$ instead of $`A`$, we find that the displacement of $`A`$ with respect to $`B`$ increases systematically when we use the 18 cm high resolution, the 6 cm low resolution and the 6 cm high resolution images. This systematic behaviour is consistent with the assumption that $`A`$ be actually composed by an inverted spectrum compact “true core” (dominating at 6 cm high resolution) at the eastern end of a mini–jet with a normal spectrum, pointing towards $`B`$ (dominating at 18 cm). Due to the different spectral indices, the relative weight of these two components changes depending on the observing frequency and resolution, and the position of $`A`$ shifts with respect to $`B`$ in a way consistent with what observed. Such a sub–structure, confirmed by a recent unpublished VLBA image at 8.4 GHz by Mantovani (private communication), could help in explaining some of the points discussed in Sect. 4.3.

Finally, by comparing the VLA polarization information at 5 GHz (Akujor et al. 1991a ), 8.4 GHz (Akujor & Garrington, aku3 (1995)) and 15 GHz (van Breugel et al. vanb (1992)) we find that both the “Eastern” and the “Central” components show a fair amount of depolarization between 15 and 5 GHz, while the $`NW`$ component is not depolarized between 8.4 and 5 GHz. Faraday rotation does not seem to be important. The high resolution polarization images by Lüdke et al. (lud (1998)) and by van Breugel et al. (vanb (1992)) show that the magnetic field is well aligned parallel to the bright and the faint jet and follows the bend at $`D`$.

Observed component parameters are given in Table 4. At 1.7 GHz no sizes are given for components $`A`$ to $`F`$ since they are not significantly different from the old ones by Spencer et al. (spen2 (1991)). At 5 GHz we give flux densities and sizes from both the low and the high resolution images, except for the $`NW`$ and “Eastern” components, whose data are from Spencer et al. (spen (1989)). The derived physical parameters are also reported in Table 4, except for $`A`$ which is unresolved with an inverted spectrum (Sect. 3.1.2).

#### 3.1.2 Spectral Analysis

The overall spectrum of 3C 43 derived from low resolution data (Kuhr et al. kuh (1981); Steppe et al. step (1995)) is straight with $`\alpha =`$0.71 from $``$30 MHz to 230 GHz.

The addition to the present data of the measurements at 610 MHz (Nan et al. 1991b ) and 327 MHz (Dallacasa et al. unpublished) shows that the spectrum of the “Central” component, or bright jet, is straight ($`\alpha 0.6\pm 0.05`$) at least down to $``$ 0.3 GHz. Here some flattening might be occurring since its flux density is $`14\%`$ lower than that extrapolated from the higher frequencies. For the $`NW`$ and “Eastern” ($`EAST`$ plus faint jet) components, data at sub–arcsec resolution are available at four frequencies (1.7 from Spencer et al. spen (1989) and from this paper, 5 and 15 GHz from Spencer et al. spen (1989), 15 GHz from van Breugel et al. 1992, and 8.4 GHz from Akujor & Garrington, aku3 (1995)). The spectrum of the “Eastern” component is straight and steep ($`\alpha 1.3`$). The spectrum of component $`NW`$ is more uncertain, but very likely has $`\alpha 1.1`$. In any case the combined spectrum of \[“Eastern” $`+NW`$\] has to flatten, at $``$ 100 MHz, otherwise the extrapolated flux density would exceed the overall source flux density at low frequencies.

In order to analyze over a broader frequency range the spectrum of the extended features (including low surface brightness ones possibly missed by the present observations) and search for a frequency break, we have subtracted the spectrum of the “Central” component from the source total spectrum. The assumption that the spectrum of the “Central” component is straight and that the flux density missing at 327 MHz is caused by a poor $`uv`$ coverage at this frequency, sets a frequency break at $``$ 300 MHz in the subtracted spectrum. If, on the contrary, the spectrum of the “Central” component turns over at $`300`$ MHz the subtracted spectrum is well fitted by a power law with $`\alpha =1.15`$ down to $`100`$ MHz.

The knots in the bright jet compare reasonably well with each other in the VLBI images at the four available frequencies of 0.3, 0.6, 1.7 and 5 GHz and it is possible to derive their individual spectral indices in this frequency range. They are given in Table 4 ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{thin}}`$). All components but $`A`$ are transparent down to 327 MHz and their spectra are perhaps mildly steepening downstream the jet, except at $`D`$, where the jet sharply bends. Their synchrotron self-absorption frequencies, $`\nu _{\mathrm{to}}`$, computed under equipartition assumptions (see Table 4), are consistent with this finding.

The spectrum of $`A`$ is instead markedly inverted between 0.3 and 5 GHz, with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{thick}}0.4`$; this is a strong indication of the core location. This spectrum must however have a maximum below 15 GHz, since at this frequency the datapoints of the total spectrum (Kuhr et al. kuh (1981); Steppe et al. step (1995)) follow a power law with no indication of flattening or bending. Unpublished VLBA data at 8.4 GHz (Mantovani private communication) indicate indeed that the spectral peak occurs between 5 and 8.4 GHz.

### 3.2 3C 298

#### 3.2.1 Source Morphology – Observed and Physical Parameters

There is a considerable amount of data in the literature on this source at many frequencies and resolutions. Images at sub–arcsec resolution, many of which also have polarization measurements, have been presented e.g. by Pearson et al. (pear (1985)); Spencer et al. (spen (1989)), van Breugel et al. (vanb (1992)), Akujor & Garrington (aku3 (1995)), Lüdke et al. (lud (1998)).

The basic morphology is that of a slightly bent ($`20^{}`$) “triple” source (Fig. 6) with a compact component dominating at 6 cm which contains the source core, and two extended lobes on either side of it. These are asymmetric in “hot–spot” luminosity (1.9:1 at 1.7 GHz), arm ratio (2.7:1 as measured from the “hot–spots”) and polarization, the Western lobe having the brighter “hot–spot”, being closer to the core and unpolarized. The Eastern lobe is connected to the “Central” component by a narrow wiggling jet.

The polarization images at 5 GHz (Akujor et al. 1991a ), 8.4 GHz (Akujor & Garrington, aku3 (1995)) and 15 GHz (van Breugel et al. vanb (1992)) indicate that there is little Faraday rotation and depolarization on the East side. The magnetic field in the jet runs parallel to its axis and is circumferential in the lobe. On the western side of the source no significant polarization is present at any frequency,

VLBI images of the whole structure have been produced by Graham & Matveyenko (grah (1984)) at 1.7 GHz, Nan et al. (1991b ) at 610 MHz and Dallacasa et al. (dalla (1994)) at 327 MHz. The core region has been observed with the VLBA by Fey & Charlot (fey (1997)) at 2.3 and 8.5 GHz.

The 327 MHz VLBI image (100$`\times `$ 35 mas), reproduced from Dallacasa et al. (dalla (1994)), is shown in Fig. 5 and displays two wide tails or “plumes” emerging from the extremities of each lobe; the source has then an “S–shaped” appearance. In this image $`30\%`$ of the total flux density is missing, very likely in the extended components.

In Figs. 6 to 9 we present a set of images at 1.7 GHz and 5 GHz made with different resolutions, in order to highlight the various features (Table 5). Images in each pair have been reconstructed with the same restoring beam in order to make the comparison of the morphologies and the calculation of the component spectra easier (Sect. 3.2.3).

In the discussion of the source morphology we refer to the labelling of Fig. 6a and Fig. 5, where $`B`$ is the “nucleus”, $`C+D`$ the bright portion of the Eastern jet closest to the nucleus, referred to as intermediate jet, $`E`$ is the easternmost portion of the Eastern jet, $`A`$ and $`F`$ are the brightest regions within the two lobes, or “hot–spots”, $`EAST`$ and $`WEST`$ refer to the extended emission underlying them.

At the low resolution of 88$`\times `$39 mas the structure seen in the EVN+MERLIN image at 18 cm (Fig. 6a) closely resembles the 5 GHz MERLIN image by Lüdke et al. lud (1998). Remnants of the “plumes” seen in the 327 MHz image are clearly visible especially in the Western lobe. They mostly disappear at 6 cm (Fig. 6b), where the two lobes are dominated by the “hot–spots”. The jet to the East is clearly visible and well collimated, although the intermediate jet ($`C+D`$) is shorter at 6 cm. It is initially aligned with $`B`$ and $`A`$, then it changes direction by $`20^{}`$ to North at about 0.35 arcsec from the nucleus, where it also becomes very faint. It brightens again at $`E`$, where it meets the Eastern lobe. On the Western side the presence of a jet is not obvious. It may be the narrow feature on the East of $`A`$, which however is not visible at 6 cm. We note that the “jetted side” of the source corresponds to the lobe which is farther from the core and more polarized (Lüdke et al. lud (1998)).

Component $`B`$ is brighter at 6 cm, indicating an inverted spectrum, and hence the location of the source core (Nan et al. 1991b ; van Breugel et al. vanb (1992)). In both images the measured total flux density coincides, within the errors, with the lower resolution measurements at these frequencies.

At the intermediate resolution of 26$`\times `$15 mas (Fig. 7) further extended structure disappears into the noise. A number of features are better delineated and component $`B`$ begins to show hints of extension. At 18 cm (Fig. 7a) the Eastern lobe is very fragmented and the jet at $`E`$, now well collimated, can be traced, on colour images (not shown), within the lobe. The intermediate jet ($`C+D`$) is still present, quite collimated but shorter. A ridge of emission seems to run from the “hot–spot” $`F`$ to South–West. Of the Western lobe only the bright component $`A`$, now well resolved, and hints of the plume are still visible. The elongated feature East of $`A`$, that in Fig. 6a could have been interpreted as the Western jet end, appears now quite wide. Note that $`A`$ is elongated roughly perpendicular to the jet overall direction. At 6 cm (Fig. 7b) only components $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`E`$ and $`F`$ are still clearly visible.

Images of the entire source, restored with a circular Gaussian beam of $`8\times 8`$ mas, are shown in Fig. 8. Here we see the “nucleus” and the start at $`B`$ of the Eastern jet (near jet), the intermediate jet at $`C`$ and, at 18 cm only, lobes $`WEST`$ and $`EAST`$, although much fragmented. It is interesting to note that the intermediate jet has a sharp edge on its western side at both frequencies (although not easy to see in Fig. 8) roughly perpendicular to the jet axis. This feature could be the result of a transverse shock.

At full resolution ($`11\times 5`$ mas, images not shown) only the region $`B`$ to $`C`$ can be well imaged at both frequencies. The two lobes are almost completely resolved out. In the Western one a quite compact bright “true” hot–spot ($`A1`$ in Table 6), accounting for $``$ 10% of component $`A`$ flux density, stands out at both frequencies clearly distinct from the surrounding low brightness emission. This hot–spot is barely distinguishable from the rest of the lobe in Fig. 8 due to the compressed angular scale. The “hot–spot” $`F`$ in the Eastern lobe is completely resolved out at both frequencies.

The nuclear region ($`B`$) is shown in Fig. 9 at the highest available resolution. At least 3 components, labelled $`B1,B2,B3`$ from West to East, are visible. The VLBA image by Fey & Charlot (fey (1997)) at 2.3 GHz, is in reasonable agreement with ours at 1.7 GHz, which has a similar resolution. From the images in the 1.7–8.4 GHz range we conclude that $`B1`$ is most likely the “true” core in the source, since it is the most compact feature and has a convex spectrum peaking between 2.3 and 5 GHz (Sect. 3.2.3). Components $`B2`$ and $`B3`$ represent the near jet.

Component parameters are given in Table 6 at both 1.7 (first line) and 5 GHz (second line). Observed parameters of all components (but $`B`$) are measured on the low resolution images (Fig. 6); parameters of $`B1,B2,B3`$ and of the hot–spot $`A1`$ are from the high resolution data. The flux density of the extended structure in the two lobes has been determined by measuring the whole lobe flux density with task TVSTAT (Sect. 3) and by then subtracting the contribution of the bright components $`A`$ and $`F`$ respectively. Their sizes have been estimated from the contour plots. For all the other components flux density and beam–deconvolved size were obtained using IMFIT.

Derived physical parameters for all components but $`B1`$ (which is unresolved and with a convex spectrum) have been computed assuming equipartition conditions and are reported in Table 6. They are computed from the 1.7 GHz data, except for $`B2`$ where we used the 5 GHz data.

#### 3.2.2 Jet brightness distribution

In the Eastern jet (near and intermediate portions) we have analyzed the surface brightness $`B(\varphi )`$ at 1.7 GHz as a function of the (beam–deconvolved) jet transverse size ($`\varphi `$) measuring the HPW of the jet perpendicular to its direction at several positions spaced by about one beam, in such a way as to have independent measurements.

The average jet opening angle is $`17^{}`$. The deconvolved brightness decreases as $`B(\varphi )\varphi ^m`$ with $`m`$ in the range $`0.52`$. In spite of the uncertainties, we conclude that the jet appears highly sub–adiabatic.

#### 3.2.3  Spectral Analysis

The overall spectrum of 3C 298, derived from low resolution measurements (Kuhr et al. kuh (1981); Kameno et al. kame (1995); Steppe et al. step (1995), Murgia et al. mur (1999)) is straight and steep ($`\alpha =`$1.15) from $``$90 GHz (or possibly 230 GHz) down to $``$80 MHz, where it turns over.

An attempt to analyze the multi–frequency spectra (from 0.3 to 22 GHz) of the individual components has been carried out adopting a “low–resolution approach” (except for $`A1`$ and subcomponents of $`B`$ for which we used the data at the maximum available resolution). A complication is that some components are blended at some frequencies and well separated at others, so that the spectral indices, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{thin}}`$ in Table 6, do not always make use of all the six available frequencies (0.3, 0.6, 1.7, 5, 15, 22 GHz, Sect. 3.2.1). In addition, in order to fully exploit the whole frequency range, we have also fitted the spectra of the blends $`E+F`$ and $`B+C+D`$. For components $`A1,B1,B2,B3`$ two to four frequencies, from this paper and from Fey & Charlot (fey (1997)), are available. All components (and blends), except $`B1`$, have straight spectra in the available frequency range (often down to 0.3 GHz). Component $`B1`$, instead, has an inverted spectrum with a maximum around 3 GHz and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{thick}}`$ close to 2.5 between 1.7 and 2.3 GHz.

The two lobes $`EAST`$ and $`WEST`$ are heavily resolved in the 15 and 22 GHz images of van Breugel et al. (vanb (1992)) as well as at the low frequencies of 0.6 and 0.3 GHz. Therefore the spectral indices in Table 6 are computed using only the present flux densities at 1.7 and 5 GHz.

As done in Sect. 3.1.2 we computed the source subtracted spectrum by subtraction of the (core $`+`$ jet) flux densities (components $`B+C\&D`$) from the overall spectrum. This is a good estimate of the global spectrum of the two lobes (“hot–spots” included) and of the eventually missed low surface brightness features. This spectrum shows a break at $``$ 1 GHz, with spectral indices $`\alpha _{\mathrm{low}}1`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{high}}1.6`$ respectively below and above it.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Sources’ Morphology

In spite of the similarity in radio power the two sources are very dissimilar in radio morphology. 3C 298 has the typical FRII characteristics of a quasar: well separated lobes with “hot–spots”, a one sided jet and a bright core. Most of the radio emission at $`\nu 2`$ GHz is from the lobes and the “hot–spots”.

On the other hand, 3C 43 has its radio emission dominated by a one-sided jet with sharp bends. Morphologies like these are seen among CSSs (see Mantovani et al. manto (1998) for a collection of similar objects), although they are not the majority. No bright features such as hot–spots are seen in the outer broad components. The overall structure is then far from an FRII type.

### 4.2 Relativistic Effects and Source Orientation

The presence of relativistic effects in the core and jets of the sources are evaluated by analyzing the core dominance and the jet asymmetry.

The core dominance at 5 GHz is the ratio $`R_\mathrm{c}=S_\mathrm{c}/S_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ of the $`k`$corrected flux density in the core to that in the extended features. We assume that what we call “core” is actually the sum of the advancing and of the receding bases of the jet, moving on both sides of the true core at the same speed ($`\pm \beta _\mathrm{c}`$) and at the same angle ($`\theta _\mathrm{c}`$) to the line of sight. The value found for $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ is then compared with the median value $`R_\mathrm{c}=`$0.05$`\pm `$0.03 (error is 2$`\sigma `$) found at 5 GHz by Fanti et al. (fan3 (1990)) for CSS quasars of similar radio luminosity. $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ is related to the median angle that quasars make to the line of sight ($`\theta 30^{}`$ in the unified scheme, Urry & Padovani, urry (1995)). From the “normalized core power” defined as $`P_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}=R_\mathrm{c}/R_\mathrm{c}\left[(1\beta {}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta )/(1\beta _\mathrm{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c})\right]^{(2+\alpha _\mathrm{c})}`$ (Giovannini et al. giov (1994)) one can estimate222To be more precise, the adopted value of $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ refers to steep spectrum quasars, which are likely oriented at angles slightly larger than average. Since however $`P_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ depends on $`\theta `$ via a cosine we did not consider this a serious bias. ($`\beta _\mathrm{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c}`$). Note that in the calculations we have ignored the contribution of the receding jet, since it is negligible, and have used $`\alpha _\mathrm{c}=0`$ to be consistent with Fanti et al. (fan3 (1990)).

The jet/counter–jet brightness ratio is given by:

$`R_\mathrm{j}=\left(\frac{1+\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{j}}{1\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{j}}\right)^{2+\alpha _\mathrm{j}}`$

where $`\beta _\mathrm{j}`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{j}`$ are the jet and counter–jet speed and the angle to the line of sight (both assumed to be identical for the two sides of the source) and $`\alpha _\mathrm{j}`$ the jet average spectral index. The most appropriate images for this purpose would be those at 1.7 GHz, which however do not show any obvious counter–jet.

Core Dominance

The two sources are quite different in core dominance, since we find:

$`R_\mathrm{c}=0.012P_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}=0.24_{0.9}^{+0.35}\mathrm{for}3\mathrm{C}43`$

$`R_\mathrm{c}=0.103P_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}=2.1_{0.8}^{+3.1}\mathrm{for}3\mathrm{C}298`$

(errors are 2 $`\sigma `$ and are mainly due to the uncertainty in $`R_\mathrm{c}`$).

If we assume, according to the unified scheme, that quasar jets are oriented closer than $`45^{}`$ to the line of sight, the ranges of the possible angles and $`\beta _\mathrm{c}`$ become:

$`35^{}<\theta _\mathrm{c}<45^{}\beta _\mathrm{c}>0.75`$ for 3C 43

$`\theta _\mathrm{c}<30^{}\beta _\mathrm{c}>0.7`$ for 3C 298

Jet/counter–jet ratio

In neither source do we detect the counter-jet, so that we can only set upper limits. To be conservative and to minimize the effects of individual bright knots, we used the average surface brightness on the jet side and twice the local average r.m.s. noise, as upper limit, for the undetected counter–jet. We find:

$`R_\mathrm{j}>15`$ for 3C 43 —–$`>\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{j}>0.46`$

$`>5`$ for 3C 298 —–$`>\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{j}>0.3`$

The above limits do not constrain the jet orientation and speed any better than the core dominance. We note however that for the jet of 3C 43 lower speeds and smaller angles to the line of sight than derived from the core dominance would be permitted, but this would imply a change in the jet direction out of the core $`A`$ (see also Sect. 4.3).

### 4.3 Distortions

3C 43 appears as a very distorted radio source, with sharp bends: $`40^{}`$ at $`C2,60^{}`$ at $`D`$ ($``$200 mas, i.e. $``$850 pc$`h^1`$), $`30^{}`$ at $`F`$ (see Figs. 1b and 2). Note that all these sharp bends appear to occur where a bright knot of emission is seen, suggestive of jet–ISM interactions.

On the basis of the present knowledge of NLR properties, Mantovani et al. (manto (1998)) estimated that in up to 10% of CSSs the jets are likely to hit a dense cloud which deflects them without disruption. The physics of jet-cloud interaction has been investigated by de Young (dey (1991)) and Norman & Balsara (norm (1993)) in 3-D hydrodynamical simulations. They show that a jet may maintain its collimation for deflections up to 90. So the distortions we see may well be due to jet interactions with inhomogeneities of the ambient medium.

Sharp deflections might also be due to projection effects on a moderately distorted jet seen close to the line of sight. But this does not seem to be the case for 3C 43. According to Eq. (1) in the Appendix, the large bends we see could only be produced by projection effects if the bright jet is oriented at a very small angle to the line of sight (see also the extended discussion in Conway & Murphy con (1993)). This however is somewhat in contradiction with the discussion of Sect. 4.2, where, from the relative weakness of the core, angles larger than $`30^{}`$ were suggested which are too large to produce large apparent deflections. For instance, for $`\theta 30^{}`$, an observed bend $`\zeta ^{}95^{}`$ is obtained only with an intrinsic bend $`\zeta >40^{}`$. Of course we cannot exclude that the mini-jet within $`A`$ (Sect. 3.1.1) be at large angles to the line of sight (as deduced from the core dominance), and that it changes its orientation at component $`B`$. The bright and faint jet (Fig. 2) would then be an intrinsically almost straight jet, oriented close to the line of sight (in agreement with the lack of a counter–jet, Sect. 4.2), whose visible bend is due solely to projection effects. But this would represent again a large intrinsic distortion occurring between $`A`$ and $`B`$. So it seems to us not very plausible that all the large bends we see are amplifications of small ones.

We note, finally, that all the bends are always in the same sense, as, e.g., in 3C 119 (Nan et al. 1991a ) and in 3C 287 (Fanti et al. fan2 (1989)). Therefore it appears unlikely that they are just due to random strikes of the jet against several dense NL clouds. A mechanism which governs on which side the jet has to turn around seems to be required (see discussion in Nan et al. 1991a ). An alternative possibility is that we are seeing a helical jet in projection (Conway & Murphy con (1993)), but this seems implausible since this model applies to high $`\gamma `$ core dominated objects, while 3C 43 it is not.

3C 298 has a much more linear structure, compared to 3C 43. Figs. 6 to 8 show a gentle regular bending. “Hot–spot” $`A`$ is in p.a.$``$$`73^{}`$ with respect to $`B`$. The Eastern jet starts with p.a.$``$$`120^{}`$ and is roughly aligned with the intermediate jet (Fig. 8) then it deviates northward by $``$$`20^{}`$ at about 350 mas (or 1.5 kpc $`h^1`$). Since in this case the jet is plausibly oriented at small angles to the line of sight, it is likely that a small intrinsic bending is amplified to the observed value by projection effects.

### 4.4 Source Ages

A conventional way to estimate a source age, with all the necessary caveats, is via its radiative age. To do so we estimated for both sources the radiation loss frequency break, $`\nu _{\mathrm{break}}`$, in the subtracted spectrum (Sect. 3.1.2 and 3.2.3), which we consider a good approximation of the overall spectrum of the more extended, and hence plausibly older, components, visible or not in the present observations. As pointed out by Murgia et al. (mur (1999)), radiative ages are likely to represent the source age only when the lobes, which have accumulated the electrons produced over the source lifetime, dominate the source spectrum, as it is the case for 3C 43 and 3C 298.

Both subtracted spectra may be fitted by a Continuum Injection model. From $`\nu _{\mathrm{break}}`$ the spectral age has been estimated adopting the equipartition magnetic field (Heq). Such ages have been compared, whenever possible, with estimates obtained with different methods.

In 3C 43 the $`\nu _{\mathrm{break}}`$ in the subtracted spectrum falls in the range $`0.3`$ GHz to $`<0.1`$ GHz, depending on the low frequency behaviour of spectrum of the “Central” component. For an estimated equipartition magnetic field H$`{}_{\mathrm{eq}}{}^{}0.5`$ mG, the radiative age of the extended components is in the range 2 to 3 $`\times 10^5`$ years.

In the case of 3C 298 the subtracted spectrum has $`\nu _{\mathrm{break}}1`$ GHz. This implies, for the estimated equipartition magnetic field H$`{}_{\mathrm{eq}}{}^{}0.6`$ mG, a radiative age $`\tau _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{7\; 10}^4`$y for the extended components.

The age estimates for both sources disagree somewhat with those derived by Murgia et al. (mur (1999)). This is just due to the different frequency breaks adopted by those authors for the total spectrum, which is affected by the presence of the compact structures, and to the equipartition magnetic fields, poorly estimated due to the lack, at that time, of high resolution images.

For 3C 43, which is very twisted and with no visible “hot–spots” (Sect. 4.1), we have no other way to estimate its age. For 3C 298 instead, we have two alternative approaches.

(a) – We noticed earlier that the “jetted lobe” is significantly farther from the core than the “un-jetted” one. This is expected if the heads of the lobes advance at a velocity ($`\beta _\mathrm{h}`$) high enough that there are different travel time delays for the radiation from them. The more distant lobe would be the one advancing towards the observer. This is confirmed by the asymmetry in the polarization of the two lobes (Akujor & Garrington, aku3 (1995)), if the latter is interpreted in terms of the “Laing–Garrington” effect (Laing, lai (1988); Garrington et al. garr (1988)). The observed arm ratio is $`R_{\mathrm{arm}}2.7:1`$. On the assumption that the arm asymmetry is solely due to travel time delays, one obtains a $`\beta _\mathrm{h}\mathrm{cos}\theta 0.45`$. For any $`\theta <30^{}`$ (as in the core, Sect. 4.2) we have $`\beta _\mathrm{h}0.450.5`$. The above value of $`\beta _\mathrm{h}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ would imply a luminosity ratio of the two “hot–spot” $`R_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{sp}.}=R_{\mathrm{arm}}^{3+\alpha }40`$, while the observed $`R_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{sp}}.`$ is $`2.4`$ only, and reversed, the supposedly receding “hot–spot” being more luminous than the approaching one. Part of the discrepancy may be attributed to the fact that the receding “hot–spot” $`A`$ is seen at an earlier stage of evolution compared to the advancing one $`F`$, which may have suffered radiative/adiabatic losses, but this is not sufficient. We could also speculate that the western arm is shortened by projection if the source structure is not linear but more bent toward the line of sight on the Western side, or that the “hot–spot” luminosities are dominated by relativistic back–flows. However, if we ignore these contradictions and assume that the lobe arm asymmetry is due to travel time delay, we deduce a lower limit for the “kinematic age” of the advancing and of the receding lobes of $`3.2\times 10^4\times (\mathrm{tan}\theta )^1`$ years and $`1.1\times 10^4\times (\mathrm{tan}\theta )^1`$ years respectively, which, for $`\theta 30^{}`$, are very close to the radiative age estimate.

(b) – We can estimate of the source age from energy budget arguments. The equipartition pressure in the “hot–spots” ($`p_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{sp}.}`$) allows us to compute the jet thrust defined as $`\mathrm{\Pi }p_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{sp}.}\times 𝒜`$, where $`𝒜`$ is the jet impact area (estimated from the “hot–spot” diameters), and the jet energy flux is defined as $`F_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{j}}=c\mathrm{\Pi }`$. The time required to feed the lobes (feeding age) is then derived from the ratio $`2\times U_{\mathrm{lobe}}/F_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{j}}`$, where $`U_{\mathrm{lobe}}`$ is the lobe ($`EAST`$ or $`WEST`$) minimum total energy and the factor 2 roughly accounts for the work spent to expand the lobe. We obtain feeding ages $`\tau _\mathrm{f}25\times 10^4`$ years for $`WEST`$ and $`EAST`$ respectively, in fair agreement with the previous estimates.

### 4.5 The external medium

Some inferences on the properties of the medium surrounding the two sources can be obtained from their physical parameters. In the case of 3C 298, taking the source growth velocity derived from the arm ratio in Sect. 4.4, the balance between the ram pressure and the “hot–spot” pressure allows us to estimate the external medium density. We obtain $`n_\mathrm{e}1\times 10^3`$ cm-3 for “hot–spot” $`A`$ and a value two times lower for “hot–spot” $`F`$. Such a density estimate is quite low with respect to others found in the literature (see e.g. O’Dea, ode (1998) and references therein).

Taken at face value, these figures would indicate a decrease of the density with the distance $`r`$ from the core as $`n_\mathrm{e}r^{0.7}`$, suggesting, from the value of the exponent of $`r`$, that the lobes are just crossing the gas core radius. The internal pressure of the lobes, coupled to the above density estimate, is incompatible with a static confinement even for very high gas temperatures. It is therefore very likely that the lobes are over-pressured and therefore that they are expanding supersonically.

As pointed out in Sect. 4.1, 3C 43 lacks “hot–spots”. We remark, however, that its broad components have internal pressures not too far from those of the lobes of 3C 298. We are tempted to assume that the external medium properties and dynamics of expansion of the broad components are similar in the two sources. However the medium has to be very clumpy in this source, if the bends are caused by jet-cloud interaction. Furthermore a special space distribution of the clouds is required, in order to act as the wall of a cavity (see Nan et al. 1991a ) and to cause the jet to bend always in the same sense.

## 5 Summary and conclusions

In this paper we have presented multi–frequency and multi–resolution observations of two CSS quasars from the 3CR catalogue: 3C 43 and 3C 298.

The two sources have similar redshift and radio power, but appear very different in their properties. 3C 298 has all the characteristics of a small FRII radio source. It shows a moderately bright radio core, a one-sided jet and lobes with “hot–spots”. It is likely oriented at $`20^{}30^{}`$ to the line of sight but its deprojected linear size is still $`20`$ kpc$`h^1`$. Its radio luminosity at $`\nu 2`$ GHz is largely provided by lobes and “hot–spots”.

3C 43 is an object hard to interpret. It is dominated by a knotty jet showing several large bends which cannot be explained by projection effects if the overall source orientation is $`>30^{}`$, as deduced from the weakness of its core. In order to bring the core weakness in agreement with the large distortions being due to projection, one should assume that the jet changes its orientation just out of the core. This would also explain, via Doppler de–boosting, the fact that no counter-jet is seen, in spite of the core weakness. But again, if the jet turns toward the observer just outside the core, this may represent a large intrinsic deflection. We are led to interpret 3C 43 as a radio source intrinsically distorted by jet–cloud interactions. The external medium has to be clumpier than average, in order to cause several large bends, and has to have a very special space distribution to produce the overall clock-wise distortion of the source.

The equipartition magnetic fields are in the range 2–5 mG in most components, reaching several tens of mG in the cores and sub–mG values in the lobes, in agreement with Fanti et al. (fan5 (1995)).

The estimated radiative ages of the extended components of $``$2 105 years for 3C 43 and of $`7\times 10^4`$ years for 3C 298 suggest that these two quasars are moderately young. The radiative age of 3C298 is supported by other arguments based on energy budget considerations and on the arm ratio of the two lobes. The growth velocity of 3C 298 is probably $`0.5c`$. The density of the external medium is estimated to be $`10^3`$ cm-3.

We have no such additional arguments for 3C 43.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the referee G. Taylor for the many useful comments. The European VLBI Network is a joint facility of European and Chinese Radio Astronomy Institutes funded by their National Research Councils. MERLIN is the Multi–Element Radio Linked Interferometer Network and is a national facility operated by the University of Manchester on behalf of PPARC. The VLBA and (US network) is (was) operated by the U.S. National Radio Astronomy Observatory which is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under a cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This work has been partially supported by the Italian MURST under grant COFIN-2001-02-8773.

## Appendix A Effect of projection on jet bends

For convenience of the reader we summarize here the geometry of jet projection (see also Moore et al. moor (1981), Conway & Murphy con (1993)). Consider the right–handed coordinate system of Fig. 10 with $`Z`$ along the line of sight and $`XY`$ in the plane of the sky. Suppose for simplicity that the jet is made of just two straight segments: $`Jet_1`$ in the plane $`ZX`$ and at an angle $`\theta `$ to the line of sight ($`Z`$), $`Jet_2`$ at an angle $`\zeta `$ with respect to $`Jet_1`$ ($`\zeta =0^{}`$ no bending, $`\zeta =180^{}`$ the jet turns completely backward). The locus of the possible positions in space of $`Jet_2`$ is the surface of a cone with axis $`Jet_1`$ and half opening angle $`\zeta `$. The position of $`Jet_2`$ on the conical surface is then identified by the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ such that for $`\varphi =0^{}`$ or $`\varphi =180^{}`$ $`Jet_2`$ lies in the plane $`ZX`$ and for $`\varphi =\pm 90^{}`$ $`Jet_2`$ is parallel to $`Y`$.

The relation between the apparent ($`\zeta ^{}`$) and the intrinsic ($`\zeta `$) bending angle is:

$$\mathrm{tan}\zeta ^{}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\zeta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\mathrm{cos}\zeta \mathrm{sin}\theta +\mathrm{sin}\zeta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }$$
(1)
It is clear from this equation that certain combinations of $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ could produce $`\zeta ^{}90^{}`$, even for small $`\zeta `$. For instance for $`\varphi =90^{}`$ $`\zeta ^{}90^{}`$ when $`\theta 0^{}`$, independent of $`\zeta 0`$.


text:
# Extraction of the static magnetic form factor and the structure function of the neutron from inclusive scattering data on light nuclei

## Abstract

We show that quasi-elastic inclusive electron scattering data on light nuclei for medium $`Q^2`$ furnish information on $`G_M^n(Q^2)`$, whereas the deep- inelastic region for large $`Q^2`$, provides the Structure Function $`F_2^n(x,Q^2)`$. Common to the two extractions is the possibility to de-convolute medium effects, which is most accurately done for light targets. Results are independent of the target.

preprint: WIS-02/39 Sept-DPP

Introduction. Most neutron observables can only indirectly be extracted from experiments on a nuclear medium, in which the $`n`$ is embedded. We discuss below the

neutron static magnetic form factor and its Structure Function (SF).

Consider the reduced cross section for inclusive scattering of unpolarized electron of energy $`E`$ from non-oriented targets $`A`$ over een angle $`\theta `$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^1d^2\sigma _{eA}(E;\theta ,\nu )/d\mathrm{\Omega }d\nu }{\sigma _M(E;\theta ,\nu )}}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2xM}{Q^2}}F_2^A(x,Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{M}}\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta /2)F_1^A(x,Q^2)\right]`$ (1)
$`F_k^A(x,Q^2)`$ are two nuclear structure functions (SF), functions of $`Q^2=𝒒^2\nu ^2`$ ($`\nu ,𝒒`$ are the energy-momentum transfer) and the Bjorken variable $`x=Q^2/2M\nu `$, with range $`0xA`$ ($`M`$ is the nucleon mass). Of crucial importance is a relation between the SF of nuclei and of nucleons. For instance (for $`Z=N`$)

$`F_k^A(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^A}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z^{2k}}}[f^{PN,A}(z,Q^2)[F_k^p({\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}},Q^2)+F_k^n({\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}},Q^2)]/2`$ (2)
The two SF are related by $`f^{PN,A}`$, the SF of a nucleus, composed of point-nucleons. A standard calculation of $`F_k^A`$ thus requires data on $`F_k^p`$, an assumed form for $`F_k^n`$ and in addition, a computed, unphysical $`f^{PN,A}`$.

We separate $`F_k^N`$ in NE ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+NN`$) and NI parts ($`\gamma ^{}+N`$ hadrons, partons), leading to the corresponding components $`F_k^{A,NE}`$  ($`\eta =Q^2/4M^2`$)

$`F_1^{A,NE}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{PN,A}(x)}{4}}G_d^2[(\alpha _p\mu _p)^2+(\alpha _n\mu _n)^2]`$ (4)
$`F_2^{A,NE}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{xf^{PN,A}(x)G_d^2}{2(1+\eta )}}\left[(\alpha _p\gamma )^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n\eta }{1+5.6\eta }}\right)^2+\eta [(\alpha _p\mu _p)^2+(\alpha _n\mu _n)^2]\right],`$ (5)
where reference to $`Q^2`$ has been dropped. Instead of the actual static electromagnetic form factors $`G_{M,E}^N(Q^2)`$, we use in Eq. (Extraction of the static magnetic form factor and the structure function of the neutron from inclusive scattering data on light nuclei) their deviations from the standard dipole form .

$`\alpha _NG_M^N/\mu _NG_d`$ $`;N=p,n`$ (7)
$`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mu _pG_E^p}{G_M^p}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_E^p}{\alpha _pG_d}}`$ (8)
$`\gamma =1+\theta (Q^20.3)`$ $`[10.14(Q^20.3)];Q^25.5`$ (9)
For $`G_E^n`$ we use the Galster parametrization . Nuclear NI components completely dominate cross sections on the inelastic side $`x1`$ of the QEP, while for $`x1`$ NE$`>`$NI. Those regions will be treated separately.

Quasi-elastic region $`x1`$: $`G_M^n`$. Consider first the $`x,Q^2`$ dependence of $`F_k^{A,NE}(x,Q^2)`$. The latter is primarily due to the form factors in Eqs. (Extraction of the static magnetic form factor and the structure function of the neutron from inclusive scattering data on light nuclei), which decrease with growing $`Q^2`$. The $`x`$-dependence resides in $`f^{PN,A}(x,Q^2)`$, which sharply decreases with growing $`|1x|`$ away from the QEP at $`x1`$. From the above one concludes that ln\[$`\sigma ^{A,NE}/A]`$ grows with increasing $`\nu `$ (decreasing $`x`$ for fixed $`Q^2`$), while in general for $`A12`$ there is a mere break in the slope in the QE region $`|1x|1`$ for $`A12`$ (Fig. 1a) .

The unusual structure of the lightest nuclei, causes $`f^{PN,A}(x,Q^2)`$ to be narrow and sharply peaked. With no interference of NI, the above change in slope may develop into a QE peak, as observed for D  and 4He  (Fig. 1b). For the same targets one can compute with great precision ground states  and non-diagonal target density matrices in the expression for $`f^{PN,A}`$ .

Under the above circumstances one tends to ascribe the total cross sections on the elastic side $`x1`$ to NE. With $`G_{E,M}^p`$ known and small $`G_E^n`$, this enables the extraction of $`G_M^n`$ from NE. Tests for the above allocations are: i) Around $`x1`$, $`\sigma ^A/\sigma _Mf(x,Q^2)`$, i.e. of a bell shape in $`1x`$. ii) $`G_M^n(Q^2)`$ should be independent of the value of the individual $`x`$ from which the one extracts $`G_M^n`$. iii) Idem for the chosen target.

Our analysis comprises older $`D`$ data, where separation into transverse and longitudinal SF, with the former $`_T[G_M^p]{}_{}{}^{2}+[G_M^n]^2`$ . Although direct and simple, it requires high-quality data in order to allow an accurate Rosenbluth separation and to obtain a precise $`G_M^n`$. Table I summarizes all our findings for $`\alpha _n(Q^2)`$ while Fig. 2 shows all $`\alpha _n(Q^2)`$, extracted thus far. Our values follow the trend of previously measured values and adds points for intermittent $`Q^2`$. Hardly any target dependence has been detected.

The deep-inelastic region, $`x1`$: extraction of $`F_2^n(x,Q^2)`$. That region is dominated by NI. We focus on $`F_2^n(x,Q^2)`$, commonly estimated from the primitive ansatz $`F_2^n2F_2^DF_2^p`$, which is only reliably for $`x0.3`$. Instead of a vehicle to compute $`F_k^A`$, we now consider Eq. (2) in the inverse sense: Can one, with data on $`\sigma ^A`$, Eq. (1), known $`F_2^p`$ and computed $`f^{PN,A}`$ extract $`F_2^n(x,Q^2)`$?

Virtually all previous methods addressed a D target (e.g. ). We outline and apply a method , which with sufficient kinematics available , is applicable to all targets.(see Refs.  for treatments of isobar pairs). Again a test is an outcome, independent of $`A`$. As to $`F_2^A`$, in order to separate it from $`F_1^A`$, one needs in addition to cross sections, an assumption on $`R^1(x,Q^2)+12xF_1^A(x,Q^2)/F_2^A(x,Q^2)`$. Alternatively, one may for every data point determine a relative deviation of theory and data, and ascribe it in equal measure to the two SF. The procedure produces quasi-data for $`F_2^{A;qd}`$.

All modern data thus far  appear to yield $`F_2^A`$ in disjoint $`x,Q^2`$ regions, whereas the inversion of Eq. (2) requires data over a large $`x`$-range for the same $`Q^2`$. Even with careful binning and/or interpolation, we could only construct a single set for $`Q^2`$ 3.5 GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2},x0.55`$, which $`x`$-range misses a crucial part of the DI region. Fortunately, one can use the fact, that, independent on $`Q^2`$, $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)0.32`$ for $`x0.16`$. Eq. (2) then proves the same for $`F_2^A(x,Q^2)`$, permitting extrapolation into the vital DI region.

We have used several inversion methods, all based on a parametrization

$`F_2^n(x,Q^2)=F_2^n(x,Q^2;d_k)`$ $`=`$ $`C(x,Q^2;d_k)F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ (10)
$`C(x,Q^2;d_k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}d_k(Q^2)(1x)^k,`$ (11)
with mildly constrained parameters. First we take $`C(0)=1`$, ensuring a finite outcome for the Gottfried sumrule $`S_G(Q^2)=_0^1\frac{dx}{x}[F_2^p(x,Q^2)F_2^n(x,Q^2)]`$. Next we exploit the above primitive ansatz for, say, $`x=0.2`$. For the simplest choice $`k_{max}=2`$ only one parameter is left, e.g. $`d_0=C(1)`$. It moreover proved useful to parametrize $`F_2^p`$ as follows

$`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ $`=x^{a^2}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m1}{}}c_m(1x)^m;x0.02`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`0.42;x0.02`$ (14)
In the region $`0.02x0.9`$, the above practically coincides with the standard parametrization . Fig. 3 shows our results for $`C,F_2^n`$ for fixed $`Q^2=3.5`$ GeV2 and given $`F_2^p`$. The band in $`C`$ reflects results from several inversion methods and from different targets D,C,Fe. The value of $`C`$ at the elastic point $`x=1`$ has been the subject of several estimates with results, marked by small horizontal lines. All those, as well as our $`C`$, assumed smooth, i.e. resonance-averaged behaviour of $`F_2^N`$ (cf. lower part of Fig. 3).

The above is an undesired feature of averaging: the lowest inelastic threshold of $`F_2^N(x,Q^2)`$, occurs at a mass $`M+m_\pi `$, or equivalently, at $`x_{thr}(Q^2)=[1+2Mm_\pi /Q^2]^1`$. In particular $`x_{thr}(3.5)0.93`$, which is marked in Fig. 3 by a vertical line. For $`x_{th}<x<1,F^N(x,Q^2)`$ is strictly 0. In particular the mention prediction of $`C`$ out to the elastic border, merely reflects the different approach to 0 of the $`p,n`$ SF. As a consequence $`C(x1)`$ is due to purely NE parts of $`F_2^N`$, and equals (cf. Eq. (5))

$`\underset{x1}{lim}C(x,Q^2)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n\alpha _n(Q^2)}{\mu _p\alpha _p(Q^2)}}\right]\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{Q^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (Q^2)}{\mu _p}}\right)^2\right]^1,`$ (15)
From Eqs. (Extraction of the static magnetic form factor and the structure function of the neutron from inclusive scattering data on light nuclei), (15) one then $`computes`$

$`C(x=1,3.5)0.61,`$ (16)
surprisingly close to the $`extracted`$ value as the ratio of the two $`F_2^N`$, which tend to 0 in a different way for $`x1`$. More extensive reports can be found in Refs. .

Acknowledgements; Part of this work has been done in collaboration with M.F. Taragin and M. Viviani.

Figure captions

Fig. 1a,b. Partial data and predictions for inclusive cross sections ($`E=4.045`$ GeV, $`\theta =15^{},23^{},30^{}`$) on D,Fe.

Fig. 2. $`\alpha _n=G_M^n/\mu _nG_d`$ as function of $`Q^2`$. Shown are some previous representative results. Filled squares, diamonds, triangles and stars are our results.

Fig. 3. The ratio $`C(x,3.5)=F_2^n(x,3.5)/F_2^p(x,3.5)`$ for $`Q=3.5`$ GeV2 from data on D, C, Fe. The drawn line corresponds to $`C(1)=0.54`$ and the band represents the spread from averages over different targets and methods. The numbers on the right abscissa are standard quark model and QCD predictions for $`C(1)`$ with 0.61, the $`NE`$ limit (15).