Absolute differential cross sections for 100 eV electrons elastically scattered by helium, neon, and argon

e± Ar scattering in the energy range 1 eV ≤ E i ≤ 0.5 GeV

“…A similar behavior is also noticed in figure 13(f), where the DCS is much lower at 38.21 eV than at E i =36.0 and 40.0 eV. Table 1 gives a comparison of our computed positions of the deepest minima in the DCS with those of six experimental [15,59,81,84,102,104] and eight other theoretical [15,22,32,34,88,101,103,105] predictions. It is evident from this table that the angular positions of the deepest DCS minima reported here produce an overall good agreement with the experimental data.…”

Quantification of surface-sensitive electron spectroscopies

“…We see a considerable difference between DCSs for Ar and Xe calculated for the TFD potential and the DHF potential. However, the published experimental DCSs [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] seem to be closer to the DCSs calculated for the latter potential. Thus, the DHF potential should be recommended for use in calculations of DCSs.…”

“…A parameter that can be conveniently used for that purpose is the stopping power (SP). It is defined as the energy change, dE, per increment of distance, dx, along the trajectory, [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] and those for xenon from Refs. [76][77][78][79].…”

On the Mordell-Weil and Shafarevich-Tate Groups for Weil Elliptic Curves

“…While the static-exchange approximation yields reasonable agreement with experiment at larger angles, because of its neglect of a long-range (polarisation) potential and also of an account of absorptive effects into inelastic channels, it fails at small angle's, producing a cross section value three times smaller than the MBTHF model which does allow for polarisation and absorption. The situation is similar in figure l ( b ) where at 40 eV there is good agreement with the experimental measurements of Register et a1 (1979) and of McConkey and Preston (1975) Jansen et a1 (1976); 0, Kurepa and VuSkoviC (1975); a, Chamberlain et al (1970); 0, Gupta and Rees (1975) l ( a ) -( c ) together, we see that the MBTO results approach those of the MBTHF model for angles less than 90" but fall below at larger angles. Our results at 40 and 50 eV generally agree favourably with the absolute values of Register et a1 (1979) and of McConkey and Preston (1975) except at small angles where for scattering at 5" in figure l ( c ) our data are more in accord with the absolute experimental point due to Chamberlain et a1 (1970).…”

“…Above this energy there is a wealth of experimental data ranging up to 500 eV (e.g. Vriens et a1 1968, Chamberlain et a1 1970, Oda et a1 1972, Bromberg 1974, Sethuraman et a1 1974, Gupta and Rees 1975, Kurepa and VuSkovii: 1975, Jansen et a1 1976. On the theoretical side, only Callaway and collaborators publish differential cross section data at impact energies throughout this region; at higher energies a number of other theoretical models have also been used with differing degrees of success (see preceding paper (Scott and Taylor 1979), to be referred to as I).…”