L shell fluorescence yields and coster—kronig transition probabilities for the elements with 25 ⩽ Z ⩽ 96

Abstract

The values of L, sub-shell fluorescence yields (a,) and Coster-Kronig transition probabilities (A,) were evaluated using radiative and non-radiative transition rates based on the relativistic Dirac-HartrMlater (RDHS) model for all the elements in the atomic number range 25 < 2 < 96. The values of the Coster-Kronig-corrected fluorescence (v3 and average L shell fluorescence (GL) yields were also evaluated and least-squares fitted to obtain the polynomials representing them as a function of atomic number.

Synchrotron radiation induced X‐ray production cross sections of 66Dy at energies across its Li (i = 1–3) subshell absorption edges

“…It may be recalled that the DHF model-based L i (i = 1-3) subshell photoionization cross sections σ P Li À Á for 66 Dy have been deduced from the total photoelectric mass attenuation coefficients (σ pe ) tabulated by Chantler [2] using the concept of absorption edge jump ratios (J Li ). Further, the DHS model-based [18] L 1 subshell fluorescence and CK yields (ω 1 , f 12 , and f 13 ) for 66 Dy differ from those tabulated by Campbell [17] by 14-22%, whereas values of the L 2 and L 3 subshell fluorescence yields (ω 2 and ω 3 ) recommended by Campbell [17] are the same as those based on the DHS model [18] except that the recommended value of f 23 CK yield by Campbell [17] differs by 6% from the respective DHS model-based [18] value.…”

“…It is worth noting that the DHS model, [18] nonrelativistic HFS model [3] and the self-consistent DHF model, [2] respectively, employed to calculate the theoretical values of the fluorescence and CK yields, and two sets of the photoionization cross sections are based on the IPA. These IPA models completely ignore the many-body effects [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] including electron correlations, core relaxation, inter channel coupling, and post collision interactions, which are expected to become important at incident photon energies in vicinity of the absorption edge energies of heavy elements.…”

“…Chantler [2] Chantler [2] Scofield [3] Scofield [3] Fluorescence and CK yields Campbell [17] Puri et al [18] Campbell [17] Puri et al [18] X-ray emission rates Campbell and Wang [15,16] Campbell and Wang [15,16] Campbell and Wang [15,16] Campbell and Wang [15,16] Note. CK = Coster-Kronig; XRP = X-ray production.…”

L-subshell Coster-Kronig yields measured with synchrotron radiation

“…It is produced (Werner and Jitschin, 1988, Bambynek et al, 1961and Purl et al, 1993 Mass attenuation coefficients were taken from McMaster et al (McMaster et al, 1969;Heinrich, 1987), photoelectric cross-section for L subshells were those reported by Scofield (Scofield, 1973) and calculated as in Jitschin et al (1987) and Stdtzel et al (1992), emission probabilities were obtained from the compilations of Scofield (Scofield, 1969(Scofield, , 1974 and Khan and Karimi (Khan and Karimi, 1980), fluorescence yields were taken from Bambynek et al (Bambynek et al, 1961) and Purl et al (Purl et al, 1993), and the energies of the emission lines were those compiled by Bearden (Bearden, 1969), Birks (Birks, 1974), and Bearden and Burr (Bearden and Burr, 1967). Table 1 shows the calculated Coster-Kronig probabilities compared with experimental and theoretical values reported in the literature (Werner and Jitschin, 1988;Bambynek et al, 1961;Purl et al, 1993). In general they agree very well with other data from the literature.…”

Synchrotron-radiation-based determination of XeL-subshell Coster-Kronig yields: A reexamination via high-resolution x-ray spectroscopy

“…Large discrepancies between the theoretical [2,3] and existing experimental results [4,5] point out the need for new accurate data. Experimental determination of the L-shell CK yields presents, however, considerable difficulties.…”