1978
DOI: 10.1088/0022-3700/11/24/019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the Bethe approximation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
95
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(95 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
95
0
Order By: Relevance
“…7 of Aggarwal & Keenan (2008). For this reason we have calculated values of Ω up to an energy of 260 Ryd, as discussed in section 5 and hence in our work there is no need to invoke the high energy formulations of Burgess & Tully (1992), as undertaken by Liang et al (2010).…”
Section: Effective Collision Strengthsmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…7 of Aggarwal & Keenan (2008). For this reason we have calculated values of Ω up to an energy of 260 Ryd, as discussed in section 5 and hence in our work there is no need to invoke the high energy formulations of Burgess & Tully (1992), as undertaken by Liang et al (2010).…”
Section: Effective Collision Strengthsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…For example, they included electron exchange only up to J = 12, and for J 13 adopted a coarse mesh of energy of ∼ 0.34 Ryd. More importantly, they performed calculations of Ω in a limited range of energy (∼ 90 Ryd), insufficient for the accurate determination of Υ up to Te = 4 × 10 8 K (∼ 2533 Ryd), although they did take into account the high energy expansion of Ω, based on the formulations suggested by Burgess & Tully (1992). Such compromises in the calculations may explain the large discrepancies in Υ noted by them with previous work.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This leads to significantly different behaviour of the cross-sections with energy, at least at high energy (e.g. Bransden & Joachain 2003;Burgess & Tully 1992). (21)), and g i is the statistical weight of the initial state i.…”
Section: Electronsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These are obtained by considering appropriate total multiplicity and orbital angular momentum partial waves. However, in order to converge transitions at higher energies, we explicitly calculate partial waves up to J = 38 and use top-up procedures outlined in Burgess & Tully (1992) to account for further contribution to the total cross-section…”
Section: Electron-impact Excitationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the long range nature of the Coulomb potential further contributions to the collision strengths arise from the higher partial waves, particularly for the dipole allowed lines. We compute these additional contributions using the Burgess & Tully (1992) sum rule as well as a geomteric series for the long-range nondipole transitions. Hence converged total collision strengths were accurately generated for all 42,486 transitions among the 292 fine-structure levels included in the collision calculation.…”
Section: Electron-impact Excitationmentioning
confidence: 99%