The Diffusion of Electrons in Dry, Carbon Dioxide Free Air

Rees, J A; Jory, RL

doi:10.1071/ph640307

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 4 shows such a comparison between Buchel'nikova's data and the data from our experiments where the data have been analysed on the basis of a Maxwellian distribution, using the values of kl given in Table 1 * The values of c1a computed from data for aa/P for dry air and carbon dioxide by Rees (1964) and Rees and Jory (1964) are in error by 7%, the correct values being 7% higher than those quoted. This systematic error does not in any way affect the conclusions drawn from the compari- from a recalculation of these data using the newer data for kl and W is also shown.…”

Section: (4)mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Prasad and Craggs 1961;Rees 1964;Rees and Jory 1964) have shown discrepancies no greater than might be expected as a result of imprecise knowledge of the appropriate energy distributions, the comparisons for water vapour (Prasad and Craggs 1960) were a notable exception. For this gas, values of ua calculated from swarm experiments exceeded the corresponding values calculated from Buchel'nikova's data by a factor of 5 in some instances.…”

Section: Comparison Of Attachment Data From Beam and Swarm Experimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Frequently, however, comparisons have been made (e.g. Craggs, Thorburn, and Tozer 1957;Bhalla and Craggs 1960;Prasad and Craggs 1960;Chanin, Phelps, and Biondi 1962;Rees 1964;Rees and Jory 1964) by comparing a "mean attachment cross section" ua, derived from the swarm data, with values of the same quantity calculated by averaging the monoenergetic attachment cross section over the energy distribution of the swarm. This procedure is perhaps less satisfactory because of the difficulty in assigning a physical significance to ua (see equation (6)).…”

Section: Comparison Of Attachment Data From Beam and Swarm Experimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Diffusion and Attachment of Electrons in Water Vapour

Crompton¹,

Rees²,

Jory³

1965

Aust. J. Phys.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe energy ratio and attachment coefficient for electrons in water vapour have been determined in the range 20 < Elp < 60 V cm-l torr-l. The results for the attachment coefficient are in general agreement with other recent determina· tions, but those for the energy ratio differ significantly from the results of Bailey and Duncanson. The use of these new data, in conjunction with values of the drift velocity determined by Pack, Voshall, and Phelps, is shown to remove the serious discrepancy which previously existed between the results of single-collision and swarm experiments. r. INTRODUCTIONWhen electrons having energies of the order of 5 e V pass through water vapour at a pressure of a few torr, an appreciable fraction of the electrons form negative ions by electron attachment. According to Laidler (1954), Craggs and McDowell (1955), and others, the dominant attachment process for energies up to about lO e V is the following resonance capture process:(1)Laidler states that the water molecule is first raised to a repulsive 2Al or 2A2 state of H 2 0-which at once dissociates into H -(IS) and OH(27T). The appearance potential is of the order of 5·5 e V, and the cross section is a maximum for electrons having energies of about 6·5 eV.The curve showing the variation with electron energy of the rate of production of H -ions from H 2 0 shows a second, smaller peak which has a maximum value at an energy of about 8·5 eV (Mann, Hustrulid, and Tate 1940; Buchel'nikova 1959). For electrons of energy greater than about 7·5 eV, 0-ions may also be produced, the reaction being (2) It is widely believed (see, for example, Cottin 1959) that the H-ions formed as above are rapidly converted to negative hydroxyl ions by the following process:At gas pressures of the order of 1 torr, Branscomb and Smith (1955) and Muschlitz and Bailey (1956) observed that the OH-ions so formed were considerably more abundant than either H -or 0-ions.

show abstract

Section: (4)mentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Comparison Of Attachment Data From Beam and Swarm Experimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Attachment Data From Beam and Swarm Experimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Diffusion and Attachment of Electrons in Water Vapour

Crompton¹,

Rees²,

Jory³

1965

Aust. J. Phys.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When comparisons are made between the results of swarm and beam experiments, values of Townsend's energy factor kl and of the drift velocity Ware employed as auxiliary data, and the accuracy of the comparisons depends markedly on the accuracy of the values used for kl (Rees and Jory 1964) and to a lesser extent on those used for W. The sensitivity of the comparisons to the accuracy of the data used for kl' arises from the fact that, particularly if kl increases slowly with E/p, a small error in kl can lead to a large error in the value of E/p (and hence also in lXa/P) attributed to a given mean energy E. It was thought to be worth while in the present work Table 1 and W data of Table 3. Curve C, swarm data of Schlumbohm (1962) using data of Tables 1 and 3.…”

Section: -mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurements of Townsend's Energy Factor k1 for Electrons in Carbon Dioxide

Rees¹

1964

Aust. J. Phys.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryValues of Townsend's energy factor kl for electrons in carbon dioxide have been determined as a function of the parameter E/p for 0·1 .;;; E/p .;;; 50 at a temperature of 293°K. The results are compared with those of other investigators and are used in a recomparison of the cross sections for electron attachment deduced from swarm and beam types of experiments for swarms of electrons having mean energies of up to 5 eV.

show abstract

“…Hake and Phelps (1967) compared the transport coefficients of electrons in air measured by Townsend and Tizard (1913), Nielsen and Bradbury (1937), Riemann (1944), Crompton et al (1953), and Rees and Jory (1964) with coefficients deduced from the cross sections that they had shown to be compatible with measured transport coefficients for pure oxygen and nitrogen. They found the agreement for air to be significantly poorer than in the case of either oxygen or nitrogen on its own and concluded that a possible explanation was that the experimental data used in their analyses for one or more of the gases were in error.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%