The production of long-lived IF(B3Π) emission in the 248 nm photolysis of a mixture of CF3I and F2

The Production of IF(B3Π) in the248 nm Laser Photolysis ofFluorine/Alkyl Iodide Mixtures

“…The major decay channels for I* that were also taken into account included quenching by F2, IF and RI. 6 Fatoms were also removed by the fast reaction F + RI --IF(X) + R…”

“…A preliminary account of this work for the system CF3I/F2/He has already been published. 6 We find that IF(B) is produced in differing yield over a period varying between 5 #s and 770/s following the photolysis laser pulse, depending on the identity of the alkyl iodide. IF(B) has also been observed 7 following the 248 nm laser photolysis of a mixture of 03, 02 and C3F7I.…”

<title>Potential IF chemical laser</title>

“…The 10 j.ts radiative lifetime and the acceptable value (0,1995) of the Franck Condon factor [1] for the transition IF B 311(0+), v'=O --> IF X1, y't5 &e favorable values, so that a laser effect can be expected if a population inversion can be achieved by chemical pumping. Davis [2] has already demonstrated a laser effect in the red band by optical pumping on electronic transitions between IF B H(O) and IF Raybone [3,4] proposed a method for producing IF B H(O) from excited atomic iodine I (2 P 1/2 and atomic fluorine in the ground state F (2 P 3/2) A three-body process (1) and a two-stage mechanism (2a) et (2b) are involved. I(2P1/2)+F(2P3/2)+He ---> IFB3H(O+)+He (1) …”

Rotational effects on the overtone-induced isomerization rate for CHD2NC .fwdarw. CHD2CN

“…These variations are somewhat smaller than those observed experimentally. The bandwidth of 0.01 cm"1 is the minimum spectroscopic bandwidth possible for a 6-Torr sample of this molecule on the basis of the pressure broadening of approximately 1 cm"1/atm observed in high-resolution fundamental spectra.31 At this narrow bandwidth, only [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] transitions contribute to the excited-state population. These calculations suggest that even significant variation of the excited distribution (major errors in the simulation) is unlikely to account for the discrepancy between calculations and experimental data.…”