2017
DOI: 10.3390/atoms5040037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discrepancies in Atomic Data and Suggestions for Their Resolutions

Abstract: Abstract:The analysis and modelling of a range of plasmas (for example, astrophysical, laserproduced and fusion) require atomic data for a number of parameters, such as energy levels, radiative rates and electron impact excitation rates, or equivalently, the effective collision strengths. Such data are desired for a wide range of elements and their many ions, although all elements are not useful for all types of plasmas. Since measurements of atomic data are mostly confined to only a few energy levels of some … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
25
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
(180 reference statements)
9
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Combined with our earlier results [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]18], along with those of Si et al [9] and Li et al [10], the present work completes data for all F-like ions with Z ≤ 74. These works include a larger number of levels than generally available in the literature, are comparatively more accurate, and hence can be confidently and reliably applied in the diagnostics and modelling of a variety of plasmas, including astrophysical and fusion.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Combined with our earlier results [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]18], along with those of Si et al [9] and Li et al [10], the present work completes data for all F-like ions with Z ≤ 74. These works include a larger number of levels than generally available in the literature, are comparatively more accurate, and hence can be confidently and reliably applied in the diagnostics and modelling of a variety of plasmas, including astrophysical and fusion.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Also included in these tables are the results from the MCHF calculations of Froese Fischer and Tachiev [16], but only for the lowest 60 levels. It may be noted that the results for Sc XIII are not included here (or in subsequent tables), because these have already been discussed in a separate paper [18]. Finally, as already stated and demonstrated in earlier works, with the inclusion of same CI there are no appreciable discrepancies in energies (for most of the levels) obtained from the GRASP and FAC codes.…”
Section: Energy Levelsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…If a code is incorrectly and/or non-judicially applied then large discrepancies may occur, as demonstrated in this paper. A number of large discrepancies, for several atomic parameters, have been noted earlier for many ions, and these have been highlighted in our recent paper [5], along with suggestions for their resolutions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…We adopted Υ ij from Anderson et al (2002) when the orbital quantum number of the bound states are specified, and from Przybilla & Butler (2004) otherwise. For collisions between degenerate states 2p 2 P * 1/2 −2s 2 S 1/2 and 2s 2 S 1/2 −2p 2 P * 3/2 , we adopted the Υ ij reported by Aggarwal et al (2018).…”
Section: Collisional Processesmentioning
confidence: 99%