1987
DOI: 10.1103/physreva.35.4085
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact excitation of then=2fine-structure levels in hydrogenlike ions by protons and electrons

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
2

Year Published

1988
1988
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
18
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results of Ω for "elastic" transitions may be underestimated by (over) a factor of two, as can be seen by a comparison with the earlier results of Zygelman & Dalgarno (1987) for the 2−3 and 2−4 transitions. Since the top-up according to the sum rules of Burgess & Tully (1992) results in the overestimation of the contribution of higher neglected partial waves for a majority of allowed (and intercombination) transitions, such as 3−7 transition for which Ω has converged within the partial waves range of the calculations as shown in Fig.…”
Section: Collision Strengthsmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…Our results of Ω for "elastic" transitions may be underestimated by (over) a factor of two, as can be seen by a comparison with the earlier results of Zygelman & Dalgarno (1987) for the 2−3 and 2−4 transitions. Since the top-up according to the sum rules of Burgess & Tully (1992) results in the overestimation of the contribution of higher neglected partial waves for a majority of allowed (and intercombination) transitions, such as 3−7 transition for which Ω has converged within the partial waves range of the calculations as shown in Fig.…”
Section: Collision Strengthsmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…We scaled their rates for n = 4 by the absorption oscillator strength to get impact excitation rates going up to np states, and by 1/n 3 for ns and nd states. Proton excitation rates among the n = 2 levels are taken from Zygelman & Dalgarno (1987), and these results are scaled for proton rates among n = 3 and higher levels. Radiative decay rates for E1 transitions were calculated from the expression in terms of hypergeometric functions given in Bethe & Salpeter (1957), and those for the 2E1 transition are taken from Drake & Goldman (1981).…”
Section: Atomic Physics Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have also assumed that only excitations from the ground state of He + are important. Proton collisions effectively transfer population in the metastable 2s level to the 2p (Zygelman & Dalgarno 1987), and for the optical depths likely in the He II 1s − 2p transition, insufficient population will be present in the 2p levels to affect the populations of higher lying levels (Laming & Feldman 1992). We have neglected proton collisions among the various levels corresponding to n = 7, and have calculated the branching ratio for the Balmer transition in the cases of the optically thick and thin Lyman transition from formulae for + is optically thin or thick.…”
Section: Spectroscopic Diagnostics With Sumermentioning
confidence: 99%