Electron impact excitation of the 4¹P₁state of calcium

Abstract

We have used both non-relativistic and relativistic distorted-wave approximation methods to study the excitation of the 41P1 state of calcium from the ground 41S0 state. Calculations have been performed for the differential and integrated cross sections and Stokes parameters. The results are presented for electron impact energies in the range of 10–100 eV. We compare our results with the recently reported experimental measurements of Milisavljevic et al (2004 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 37 3571) and discuss the sensitivity of these results to the choice of wavefunctions and approximation method used.

Superelastic Electron Scattering within a Magnetic Angle Changer: Determination of the Angular Momentum Transferred during Electron Excitation over All Scattering Angles

“…The results at 45eV are compared to the superelastic data of Law and Teubner [9] and to the coincidence data from Kleinpoppen and co-workers [10]. The theoretical calculations of Stauffer and colleagues [12] are also shown. For details, see text.…”

“…The calculations of Stauffer and colleagues [12] are also shown for comparison with the experimental data, convoluted with the experimental angular response. It is clear that this model is in very good agreement with all super-elastic data that has been taken, apart from the minimum at θ e ≈°60 which is underestimated at both energies, and the minima at the higher energies that are overestimated.…”

Electron-impact excitation of the 3s3p 1P1 state of magnesium: Electron scattering at small angles

“…However, our recent calculations on calcium (Chauhan et al [18]) indicated the importance of having good quality target wave functions in order to obtain accurate DCSs. Thus we have performed an elaborate configuration interaction Dirac Fock calculation using the GRASP92 program of Parpia et al [19].…”

Super-elastic scattering from calcium over the complete angular range using a magnetic angle changing device

“…The calculations of Stauffer and colleagues 10 are shown for comparison, convoluted with the experimental angular response. The model is in very good agreement over the complete angular range, apart from at θ e ≈°60 where the minimum is underestimated, and at θ e ≈°100 where the minima are overestimated.…”