Réponse de P. Faucher aux courriers de E. Aubény, P. Lefebvre et P. Cesbron

Recommended data on proton-ion collision rate coefficients for Fe X–Fe XXIII ions

“…Collision rate coefficients for the transition 2s 2 2p 2 3 P 0 − 3 P 2 in C-like Fe XXI: solid thick line -Eq. (3) for protons, solid thin lineelectrons (Butler & Zeippen 2000), triangles -data of Faucher (1977), squares -data of Ryans et al (1999b). energies. However, for the heavy ions the polarization potential is dominated by the 2s2p 3 terms, because the excitation energies of the 2s 2 2p3l, 2s2p 2 3l and higher configurations are much higher than the excitation energies of 2s2p 3 .…”

“…6 the proton excitation cross-sections between the fine structure levels of 3s 2 3p 2 3 P J are shown as a function of the incident proton energy. In this figure quantum results of Faucher (1975Faucher ( , 1977 and Faucher & Landman (1977) (square) are compared with semi-classical results of Landman (1975) (solid line) and of Masnou-Seeuws & McCarroll (1972) (dotted line). It can be seen from this figure that the semi-classical cross-sections obtained in Landman (1975) by directly solving Schrodinger's equation are very similar to those obtained by Faucher (1975) with a quantum method in the low and intermediate energy range.…”

“…Cross sections and rate coefficients for these transitions have been obtained by using the semiclassical close-coupling theory (Masnou-Seeuws & McCarroll 1972;Landman 1975), a firstorder semiclassical method (Sahal-Breshot 1974;Kastner 1977;Kastner & Bhatia 1979) and a quantal approach to the closecoupling method (Faucher 1977;Faucher & Landman 1977). The quantal approach is based on the work of Faucher (1975) which adapts the electron-ion quantum collision theory (Bely et al 1963) to the proton-ion case.…”

“…The quantal approach is based on the work of Faucher (1975) which adapts the electron-ion quantum collision theory (Bely et al 1963) to the proton-ion case. While such quantal calculations can model the short-range interaction more accurately, it is possible to expect that the accuracy of the data of Faucher (1977) and Faucher & Landman (1977) is higher than others (3), × -data for the 3s 2 3p 3 2 D 3/2 − 2 D 5/2 transition, • -data for the 3s 2 3p 3 2 D 3/2 − 2 P 3/2 transition, -data for the 3s 2 3p 3 2 D 3/2 − 2 P 1/2 transition; thin solid lines with ×, •, -electron rate coefficients of Binello et al (1998) for the 2 D 3/2 − 2 D 5/2 , 2 D 3/2 − 2 P 3/2 , and 2 D 3/2 − 2 P 1/2 transitions, respectively. (3), × -data for the 3s 2 3p 3 2 D 5/2 − 2 P 1/2 transition, • -data for the 3s 2 3p 3 2 P 1/2 − 2 P 3/2 transition, -data for the 3s 2 3p 3 2 D 5/2 − 2 P 3/2 transition; solid thin lines with ×, •, -electron rate coefficients of Binello et al (1998) for the 2 D 5/2 − 2 P 1/2 , 2 P 1/2 − 2 P 3/2 , and 2 D 5/2 − 2 P 3/2 transitions, respectively.…”

“…Among the two available calculations of Masnou-Seeuws & McCarroll (1972) and Landman (1975) we choose the data of Landman (1975) because these data agree better with the quantum calculations of Faucher (1977) and Faucher & Landman (1977) and are presented for a wider range of transitions. In Landman (1975) data are given for all transitions between the individual magnetic sublevels of the 3 P 0,1,2 , 1 D 2 , and 1 S 0 levels (1977), solid line -semiclassical results of Landman (1975), dotted line -semi-classical results of Masnou-Seeuws & McCarroll (1972); for (1) the 3 P 0 − 3 P 1 transition, (2) the 3 P 1 − 3 P 2 transition, and (3) the 3 P 0 − 3 P 2 transition.…”