Hyperfine structure measurements of Co I and Co II with Fourier transform spectroscopy

Fu, Hui; Xu, Yixin; Fang, Die; Ma, Huiting; Liu, Meina; Xu, Qiumei; Wang, Rong; Dai, Zhenwen

doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107590

Cited by 11 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The spectrum transformation dates were likely listed instead of the dates at which the spectra were recorded. This is evident from the spectrum with index 7 on table 1 of Fu et al [1] -it was dated 1994, but its transformation date, serial number and parameters match exactly with a spectrum listed on table 2 of Lawler et al (2018) [3], which was in fact measured in 1983 and also used by Lawler et al [3] for Co II HFS analysis.…”

Section: Cobalt Fourier Transform Spectramentioning

confidence: 57%

“…In this comment, discrepancies of the other 17 A constants are discussed from the point of view of the authors of Ding & Pickering [2]. The single new A constant published by Fu et al [1] for 3d 6 4s 2 a 5 D 4 is found to agree with corresponding line profiles from the visible spectra analysed by Ding & Pickering [2], using the A constants of connecting levels published by both papers.…”

Section: Fu Et Al (2021)mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…This paper was published in May 2021 apparently without the authors and reviewers being aware of the prior existing literature at the time, specifically, the substantial work of Ding & Pickering (2020) [2] published in December 2020, which reported A constants for 292 Co II energy levels. These include values for all Co II A constants published by Fu et al [1], which were incorrectly claimed to have been measured for the first time, except for the energy level 3d 6 4s 2 a 5 D 4 .…”

Section: Fu Et Al (2021)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fu et al [1] reported using 9 cobalt spectra from the National Solar Observatory (Kitt Peak, USA) historical archive (http://diglib.nso.edu/). However, these could not be found in the archive using the dates and serial numbers stated on table 1 of Fu et al [1]. The spectrum transformation dates were likely listed instead of the dates at which the spectra were recorded.…”

Section: Cobalt Fourier Transform Spectramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The parameters of spectra listed on table 1 of Fu et al [1] indicate no spectrum in common between the set of spectra used by Fu et al [1] and the set of spectra used by Ding & Pickering [2] for HFS analysis. Moreover, the UV spectra analysed by Fu et al [1] were expected to have higher noise compared to those analysed by Ding & Pickering [2], due to their much wider spectral ranges and fewer interferogram co-adds.…”

Section: Cobalt Fourier Transform Spectramentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comment on: "Hyperfine structure measurements of Co I and Co II with Fourier transform spectroscopy" by Fu et al. [JQSRT 2021, 107590]

Ding,

Pickering

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This comment points out errors in the analysis of 61 magnetic hyperfine structure (A) constants of Co II energy levels by Fu et al. [JQSRT 2021, 107590]. The paper was published without full awareness of the extensive literature already available for Co II hyperfine A constants at the time; 57 of 58 A constants that were claimed to have been measured for the first time had already been measured by the prior work of Ding & Pickering [ApJS 2020, 251:24], who had published A constants for 292 levels of Co II. The A constant of 3d 6 4s 2 a 5 D 4 has been determined by Fu et al. [JQSRT 2021, 107590] for the first time to be 12.0±1.8 mK (1 mK = 0.001 cm −1 ), which was found to agree with line profiles observed by Ding & Pickering [ApJS 2020, 251:24]. Discrepancies in 17 A constants of Fu et al. [JQSRT 2021, 107590] were found, which are likely due to the analysis of weak, experimentally unclassified transitions with Ritz wavenumbers 25453.966 cm −1 and 25149.948 cm −1 by Fu et al. [JQSRT 2021, 107590] for the A constants of the energy levels 3d 7 ( 2 G)4s a 3 G 5 and 3d 7 ( 2 P)4s c 3 P 2 respectively. Fewer transitions and poorer quality spectra analysed by Fu et al. [JQSRT 2021, 107590] are also concluded to have contributed to disagreements in the 17 A constants.

show abstract