so that a AI becomes comparable to a DI at relatively low energies. The estimated cross sections are plotted in Fig. 2. It shows the dominance of a AI for the incident kinetic energy of approximately 12 keV and higher, pa 0 >30. The energy parameters used in the evaluation of (3) and (5) are generated by the single-particle model 5 ; A 35 = 96.5 Ry and A 3^= 92.1 Ry for the DI, and A 2s = 180 Ry = A 2/> for the AI excitations. From the extrapolation fit of a discussed earlier, one obtains a L = 0.90, as compared with a L (Z r =Q) = 0.91. The AI contribution comes mainly from the 2p excitation followed by the Auger emission, while the 2s excitation contributes about 4% to the total AI. The contribution of the 3s electrons to the AI by excitations to states just below the ionization threshold is also estimated to be about 3% and less. For the DI cross section, the 3p ionization dominates over the 3s electrons by approximately 5 to 1.In summary, I have shown that, for reactions involving highly stripped ions, a DI alone can often lead to a gross underestimate of the impact ionization cross section. The relative magnitude of M c (outer shell) and M D (inner shell) is important, but not sufficient to make the AI process dominant, and the branching ratio a { plays an important role which warrants much further study. AsIn an earlier Letter 1 exact transmission coefficients were calculated for intense light incident on a plasma slab in which ions were frozen. In this paper a steady-state model of a plasma slab, accelerated by its interaction with laser radiation, is treated by one-dimensional (ID) steady-flow hydrodynamic equations in an accelerated frame of reference. The cold unablated fluid, the ablation layer, both classical and flux-limited hot conduction regions, the critical surface, and the underdense blowoff are all considered. A global description determines the temperature, density, Z c increases, we expect that the dominance of the AI process will be more prevalent even at fairly low Z r .The calculation presented here is only approximate and requires more extensive studies, but its qualitative conclusions are not expected to be seriously affected by the details, which will be reported elsewhere. 9 Phys. Rev. A 7, 491 (1973). 2 Y. Hahn, Phys. Rev. A (to be published). 3 H. A 0 Bethe and R. W. Jackiw, Intermediate Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin, New York, 1968). 4 Y. Hahn and K. M. Watson, Phys 0 Rev. A 6, 548 (1972); Y. Hahn, Phys, Rev. A 13, 1326 (1976). 5 P. P. Szydlik and A. E. S. Green, Phys. Rev. A 9, 1885 (1974). 6 W. Bambynek et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 44, 716 (1972). 7 M. H. Chen and B. Crasemann, Phys. Rev. A 12, 959 (1975). 8 C. P. Bhalla, Phys. Rev. A JL2, 122 (1975), and J. Phys. B 8, 2792 (1975). 9 Y. Hahn, to be published. 10 U. Fano and M. Inokuti, ANL Report No. ANL-76-80, 1976 (unpublished).velocity, and boundaries as well. Approximate analytic solutions are given in each of the plasma regions.The ablation layer, containing a steep density gradient separating cold dense fluid from hot lowdensity p...