Stark Profile Calculations for the Hβ Line of Hydrogen.

Measurement of Stark parameters of HeII P\alpha, P\betaand P\gammaspectral lines

“…Although these theories are conceptually different, some of them certainly provide very similar results. In fact, our measurements agree surprisingly well with Stehlé's predictions and differ no more than 15% with calculations by Griem et al (1962) and by Kepple (1972). These three theoretical models differ essentially in the ionic perturber treatment.…”

“…Firstly, it is important to remark that for both theoretical models, predicted fractional widths depend very slightly on temperature, that is to say, P α profiles remain very insensitive to temperature changes in the range from 1.7 to 3.4 eV. In fact, variations with temperature in calculations by Griem et al (1962) or by Kepple (1972) are in all cases lower than 8%. Second, differences between Kepple's theoretical data and our experimental results increase continuously from 3% in α 2 -values to 20% in α 8 -values and the measured fractional widths being usually lower than predicted ones.…”

“…These conditions were selected because they provided the best signal-to-noise spectra. Theoretical data by Griem et al (1962) and by Kepple (1972) Several conclusions arise from the analysis of results in Table 3. Firstly, it is important to remark that for both theoretical models, predicted fractional widths depend very slightly on temperature, that is to say, P α profiles remain very insensitive to temperature changes in the range from 1.7 to 3.4 eV.…”

“…Figure 6 also contains several theoretical approximations. Calculations by Griem et al (1962), Kepple (1972) and Greene (1976) were performed at 3.4 eV, those by Godbert et al (1994) were made at 8 eV while Stehlé (1994) did theirs at 8.6 eV. Although these theories are conceptually different, some of them certainly provide very similar results.…”

Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), Part I: Review of Basic Diagnostics and Plasma—Particle Interactions: Still-Challenging Issues within the Analytical Plasma Community

“…The theoretical treatment either ignores ion dynamic effects, e.g., in the Kepple-Griem theory (KG), or takes them into account, e.g., in the Model Microfield Method (MMM) and the l-ion model. [136][137][138][139][140] Starting from the l-ion model, Gigosos line is the most intense, but it is also the one that is most affected by neglecting the ion dynamics. In addition, the transition has an absorption oscillator strength that is a factor of~4 higher than that of H b , which may explain the self-absorption problems with the use of the former.…”