L. On the spectra of X-rays and the theory of atomic structure

An iterative method for obtaining accurate atomic inner shell binding energies

“…These considerations lead us to believe that there has occured an unsuspected error in Sakellaridis' measurement of the wavelengths of [7] compilation while for E (theory) the values of Huang et al [15] have been used the¸ and¸l lines of 68 Er. A scrutiny of the wavelengths given by Bearden and Burr [9] also shows that such is probably the case in as much as there is a close agreement between the wavelengths of Sakellaridis [14] with those of Coster [12] for all the¸-series lines of 68 Er except for the lines¸ and¸l where the values of the two authors differ respectively by as much as 1.63 and 4.36 xu. We, therefore, conclude that our calculated values of the energy of the M level of Z"61 and 68 are quite reliable.…”

“…This has resulted in the large difference between the M level energies as reported by Bearden and Burr [7,8] and Sevier [11]. In this connection, it is worth mentioning that Coster [12] used calcite as the analysing crystal and an X-ray tube with a body made of brass so that there are hardly any chances of his having mistaken the 26 Fe K line for 68 Er¸ . If, therefore, the wavelengths reported by Coster [12] are accepted both for the¸ (1754.8 xu) anḑ l (2015.1 xu) lines of 68 Er then the average energy of the M level would be 2215.9 eV which is very close to the value reported by Sevier (2216.7$1.5 ev) as well as to the value (2218.0 eV) obtained by us in the present calculations.…”

“…In this connection, it is worth mentioning that Coster [12] used calcite as the analysing crystal and an X-ray tube with a body made of brass so that there are hardly any chances of his having mistaken the 26 Fe K line for 68 Er¸ . If, therefore, the wavelengths reported by Coster [12] are accepted both for the¸ (1754.8 xu) anḑ l (2015.1 xu) lines of 68 Er then the average energy of the M level would be 2215.9 eV which is very close to the value reported by Sevier (2216.7$1.5 ev) as well as to the value (2218.0 eV) obtained by us in the present calculations. If, on the other hand, the wavelengths reported by Sakellaridis [14] for the¸ (1753.17 xu) and¸l (2010.74 xu) lines are used, the energy of the M level comes out to be 2205.9 eV which differs considerably from the value reported by Sevier [11].…”

“…A glance at the wavelength values in Table 2 which have been taken from the tables of Bearden [9] shows that in the case of Z"68, apart from Coster [12], all the authors [13,14] appear to have mistaken the 26 Fe K line for the 68 Er¸ line. Coster [12] In the case of these latter authors, the Fe K , line could have, depending upon the case, arisen due to fluorescence from the iron contained in the body of the X-ray tube, the crystal holder, or the analysing mica crystal.…”

Comparison of the Characteristic Energy Losses of Electrons with the Fine Structure of the X-Ray Absorption Spectra

“…In order to explain this fine structure, Wentzel 18 and Coster 19 suggested that each x-ray quantum could cause a double or even multiple ionization of the atom, thus removing simultaneously a K-as well as an L-or Melectron from the atom. However, experimental results 20 on the isolated atoms which make up the solid show that the fine structure of the iT-absorption edge extends only 10-20 electron volts from the edge whereas in the solid the fine structure can extend as much as 300 electron volts from the edge.…”