Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Vibrational excitation and dissociation of deuterium molecule by electron impact

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Electron impacts on deuterium molecules are computed across three electronic states, giving vibrationally resolved cross sections for vibrational excitation, dissociative attachment, and dissociative excitation via the local complex…

desk verdict Useful new D2 resonant cross-section dataset with honest v=0 validation; the 15% uncertainty statement is broader than the evidence, but the paper is solid enough for serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09375 v1 pith:PUASLYY3 submitted 2024-11-14 physics.atom-ph physics.plasm-ph

V Laporta , R Agnello , G Fubiani , I Furno , C Hill , D Reiter , F Taccogna This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.plasm-ph PACS 34.80.Ht34.80.Gs
keywords electron-D2collisionsvibrationalexcitationdissociativeelectronattachmentlocalcomplexpotentialcrosssectionsdeuteriumplasmaisotopeeffect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to close a data gap: electron-impact cross sections specific to deuterium, rather than scaled hydrogen data, for the resonant processes that control molecular chemistry in fusion divertor plasmas and negative-ion sources. It computes vibrationally resolved cross sections for resonant vibrational excitation, dissociative electron attachment, and dissociative excitation of D2, covering the ground state X 1Σ+g and the first two excited states b 3Σ+u and B 1Σ+u, with electron capture through the three lowest resonances of D−2. The calculation extends the local complex potential method to transitions between different electronic states, not only vibrational levels of the ground state, and it reports agreement with available experiments to about 15%. A sympathetic reading is that the paper establishes that this method can now produce a complete, vibrationally resolved deuterium data set across electronic states, which plasma modelers can adopt directly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the local complex potential (LCP) nuclear equation for the D−2 resonances, $\left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\frac{d^2}{dR^2}+V^-_r(R)-\frac{i}{2}\Gamma_r(R)-E\right]\xi^r_{s,v}(R)=-V^s_r(R)\chi^s_v(R)$, with $\xi^r_{s,v}$ the resonance wavefunction and $\chi^s_v$ the initial molecular vibrational state. The coupling $|V^s_r|^2=\hbar\Gamma^s_r/(2\pi k)$ ties each resonance to each electronic state of D2, and the total width $\Gamma_r$ is the sum of partial widths $\Gamma^s_r$. This set of equations is what turns the input potentials and widths into all of the paper's vibrationally resolved cross sections, and it is what makes transitions between electronic states (not just vibrational levels) computable for the first time in this method.

What would settle it

Measure the absolute D− yield from D2(X 1Σ+g, v=0) for electron energies from 4 to 15 eV with enough resolution to separate the predicted 10 eV structure from the 14 eV peak, and compare against the DA1+DA2 sums in this paper; a mismatch beyond the claimed ~15% in either peak would show the adopted resonance widths need revision. A second check would be a crossed-beam measurement of the D+D yield from the DE2 channel just above threshold, which would test the paper's claim that dissociation through the b 3Σ+u state dominates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the local complex potential formalism describes resonant electron–D2 collisions well enough to generate vibrationally resolved cross sections for all three main processes across three electronic states. For each resonance r, the nuclear wavefunction ξr_s,v solves a driven Schrödinger equation with a complex potential V−r(R) − iΓr(R)/2, and the discrete-to-continuum coupling V_s^r is fixed by the partial width Γ_s^r via |V_s^r|^2 = ℏ Γ_s^r/(2πk). All VE, DA, and DE cross sections are squares of overlaps of this wavefunction with vibrational or continuum states of the neutral molecule. The results show that the X 2Σ+u resonance controls low-energy vibrational excitation and attachment, the B 2Σ+g and C 2Σ+g resonances feed dissociation through the b 3Σ+u and B 1Σ+u states, and the C 2Σ+g Rydberg resonance produces the narrow structures seen near 11 eV and the 14 eV attachment peak. The paper validates the set against elastic, vibrational excitation, dissociative attachment, and dissociative excitation measurements, finding agreement around 15%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the resonance potentials and autoionization widths of D−2, taken from earlier hydrogen-based calculations, are accurate for deuterium; if those widths are wrong, every cross section in the paper inherits the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For low vibrational levels of the ground state, mono- and bi-quantic vibrational excitation dominates below about 1 eV, while dissociative excitation through the b 3Σ+u state becomes the leading molecular breakup channel at higher energies.
  • For medium vibrational levels such as v=10, DA1+DA2 overtakes dissociation and remains the dominant destruction path across the full electron-temperature range shown.
  • Transitions starting from the B 1Σ+u excited state are dominated by DE5 through the b 3Σ+u final state, while the X←B coupling is weak; VE2 from the ground state to B is inefficient except for narrow spikes near 11 eV.
  • The full vibrationally resolved cross section set is what plasma codes need to predict the vibrational distribution, dissociation degree, and negative-ion production in detached divertor and negative-ion-source conditions.
  • The validated agreement with experiment to about 15% supports using these data as a quantitative replacement for the previously available deuterium resonant cross sections.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the C 2Σ+g Rydberg resonance drives narrow structures near 11 eV and the 14 eV attachment peak, the same machinery can be applied to T2 and DT, for which comparable data do not yet exist, using credible widths as the main input.
  • The factor of about 200 isotope suppression in DA1 at v=0 means deuterium divertor models should not rescale hydrogen cross sections by reduced mass; the vibrational dynamics changes the near-threshold resonance shapes, not just energy scales.
  • A useful next test is to compare Maxwellian rate coefficients computed from these cross sections against measured plasma decay or D− production in low-pressure deuterium discharges, which would validate the data under conditions closer to divertor and ion-source operation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents local-complex-potential (LCP) calculations of vibrationally resolved resonant electron-collision cross sections for D2: vibrational excitation (VE), dissociative attachment (DA), and dissociative excitation (DE), including transitions among the ground X 1Σg+ state and the first two excited states b 3Σu+ and B 1Σu+, proceeding through the X-, B-, and C- resonances of D2-. The authors compare selected v=0 ground-state channels with experimental and theoretical data, report agreement of roughly 15%, discuss the H2/D2 isotopologue effect, and make the full dataset available through the IAEA HCDB and LXCat databases.

Significance. If the claimed completeness and accuracy hold, the paper would supply a useful and previously missing dataset for fusion divertor and negative-ion-source modeling, since it extends the LCP method to vibrational transitions between electronic excited states for the first time. The availability of the results in HCDB and LXCat is a concrete strength for downstream plasma-kinetics use. However, the central accuracy assertion rests on an extrapolation from a small set of v=0 ground-state validation cases to the full dataset, and the input resonance data are taken from H2 calculations without isotope-specific recomputation, so the significance hinges on these unvalidated assumptions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (4)-(6) and Figure 1] The resonance potentials and autoionization widths for D2- are all taken from H2-based calculations (refs. [49,50] for X- and B-, [51] for C-); only the nuclear reduced mass is changed to that of D2. Since V_s^r in Eq. (5) is proportional to the square root of the partial width, any isotope dependence of the widths propagates directly into every cross section defined by Eqs. (1)-(3). The paper should either provide evidence that these widths are isotope-independent for the present purposes or estimate the sensitivity of the final cross sections to plausible isotopic changes in the widths. At minimum, this transfer of input data should be stated as an explicit uncertainty source rather than only as a modeling choice.
  2. [Section III.A, Figure 5] All validation comparisons are for v=0 initial states of the X state: elastic scattering, VE1(0→1, 0→2, 0→3), DA1/DA2, and DE1/DE2. No comparison or independent benchmark is shown for any v≥1 initial level or for any B-state-initiated process (VE3, DA3, DE4-DE6), although these unvalidated channels are the novel content of the dataset and dominate the rate behavior shown in Figures 3 and 4. The statement that 'we can assume for the presented cross sections an uncertainty of the same order of magnitude' is therefore an extrapolation across vibrational quantum number, electronic state, and process type. The authors should provide at least spot checks for a few high-v or excited-state channels, or alternatively reformulate the uncertainty claim as applying only to the validated v=0 channels.
  3. [Section II, Eqs. (1)-(3)] Equations (1)-(3) sum incoherently over the three resonances r. Two of these, B- and C-, have the same 2Σg+ symmetry, and the paper treats them as independent local resonances. For overlapping resonances of the same symmetry, interference effects can be significant, particularly for the narrow C- Rydberg resonance that produces the sharp structures near 11-12 eV in Figure 2. The incoherent-sum approximation should be justified or tested, for example by comparing with a two-resonance nonlocal model or by examining whether the local-width treatment is valid for the Rydberg resonance. Without such a test, the accuracy of the high-energy structures in the VE and DE channels remains uncontrolled.
  4. [Section III.A and Table I] The paper presents the dataset as 'full sets of cross sections' for fusion plasma applications, but the calculations include only resonant channels. For elastic scattering and DE, the paper itself states that non-resonant contributions dominate at higher energies and that the LCP results underestimate the cross sections there. For VE through the B/C- states, the non-resonant direct excitation contribution is also not quantified. The completeness claim should be qualified in the abstract and conclusions by specifying the energy range in which the resonant cross sections are intended to be used and by stating that the dataset must be supplemented with non-resonant cross sections outside that range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III (text near Figure 2)] The text refers to 'Frank-Condon factors'; the correct spelling is 'Franck-Condon factors'.
  2. [Section IV, Conclusions] There are several typographical errors in the closing paragraph: 'improuve' should be 'improve', and 'intent to' should be 'intend to'.
  3. [Section II, paragraph after Eq. (6)] The sentence 'integration over internuclear distances carrier out over the interval R ∈ [0.4, 15] a.u.' should read 'is carried out'.
  4. [Section III.A, Figure 5 discussion] The references cited for the VE1 comparisons are listed as 'Phelps et al.' in one place and 'Buckman and Phelps' in another; the names should be used consistently throughout the text and figure caption.
  5. [Section III.B] The sentence 'the thresholds for DA and DE processes for H2 decrease compared with those for D2' is grammatically confusing; it should be rephrased to clarify that the threshold electron energies are lower for H2 than for D2 at the same vibrational quantum number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: cross sections follow from fixed LCP inputs; comparisons with experiment are post hoc validation, not parameter fitting.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: fixed molecular input data (D2 potentials, D2- resonance potentials and widths) are inserted into the local-complex-potential nuclear equations (Eqs. 4-6), and the cross sections of Eqs. (1)-(3) are computed by solving those equations. No measured cross section is used to adjust any parameter; the only isotopic modification is the reduced mass, stated explicitly as mu = 1835.741 a.u. The resonance data taken from refs. [49,50] include a prior paper co-authored by Laporta (ref. [50]), but that self-citation supplies potential-energy and autoionization-width curves from independent R-matrix/ab initio calculations, not the D2 cross sections that the present paper predicts. Per the review rules, such input data is real evidence and does not constitute circularity. The validation in Section III.A compares the computed v=0 cross sections with experiments and other theories, which is a post hoc check, not a fit. The statement that the same uncertainty applies to all presented cross sections is an extrapolation beyond the benchmarked v=0 channels, but that is a validation-gap or correctness-risk concern, not a case where a prediction reduces to its inputs by construction. No equation defines its output in terms of the quantity it claims to predict, and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation that is itself unverified. Therefore the paper shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation is not parameter-free in a strict sense: it relies on prior molecular data (potentials and widths), a finite numerical grid, a cutoff for continuum integration, and the j=0 restriction. No new physical entities are introduced. The central cross sections are derived from these inputs via standard LCP equations, not fitted to the final results.

free parameters (3)
  • Nuclear coordinate integration range = R = 0.4 to 15 a.u.
    The resonant wave equation (Eq. 4) is solved on a finite interval; boundaries are chosen by hand to cover the Franck-Condon region and are not derived from data.
  • DE continuum energy cutoff = epsilon_max = epsilon_th + 50 eV
    The dissociative excitation cross section (Eq. 3) integrates continuum final states only up to this limit; higher-energy continuum contributions are neglected.
  • Rotational temperature = TR = 0 K (j = j' = 0)
    All cross sections are computed for the rotational ground state only; rotational effects, including near-threshold behavior, are not included.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer approximation allows H2 potential curves to be used for D2 with only the reduced mass changed.
    Section II states the H2 curves are used with mu = 1835.741 a.u. for D2; non-adiabatic isotope corrections are neglected.
  • domain assumption The resonance width is local and independent of nuclear momentum, as required by the LCP model.
    Eq. (4) uses Gamma_r(R) as a local function; this is known to be approximate for narrow resonances, especially the Rydberg C2Sigma_g+ state.
  • domain assumption The three neutral states (X, b, B) and three resonances (X-, B-, C-) are sufficient for the listed processes; other electronic states are neglected.
    The partial widths in Eq. (6) sum only over S={X,b,B}; the conclusions state that 1,3Pi states are left for future work.
  • domain assumption Resonant scattering dominates the energy ranges considered, so non-resonant contributions can be omitted for VE, DA, and DE.
    The paper compares elastic scattering with experiment but notes non-resonant contributions dominate at high energies; the computed VE and DE are resonant-only.
  • domain assumption The prior molecular data (potentials and widths from refs. [45-51]) are accurate for D2.
    These data are taken as fixed inputs; no uncertainty is propagated from them into the final cross sections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vibrational excitation and dissociation of deuterium molecule by electron impact." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUASLYY3

@misc{pith2026241109375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vibrational excitation and dissociation of deuterium molecule by electron impact},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUASLYY3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09375}
}
read the original abstract

A theoretical investigation of electron-D2 resonant collisions - via the low lying and the Rydberg states of D2- - is presented for vibrational excitation, dissociative electron attachment and dissociative excitation processes by using the local-complex-potential approach. Full sets of vibrationally resolved cross sections, involving the ground electronic state - X 1{\Sigma}+g - and the first two electronic excited states - b 3{\Sigma}+u and B 1{\Sigma}+ u - of the D2 molecule, are given for fusion plasma applications in their technologically relevant partially dissociated, detached divertor regimes. In particular, transitions between electronic excited states are also considered. Comparisons are made with cross sections present in the literature, where available

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Plot on the left) Potential energy curves of D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Overview of vibrationally resolved resonant cross sections by electron impact for the ground state X [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Same as in Figure 2 but for the B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Selected vibrationally resolved Maxwellian rate coefficients for initial vibrational states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison of cross sections obtained in the LCP approach with data present in the literature by Golden [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Isotopologue effect on cross sections of D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [51]

    D. T. Stibbe and J. Tennyson, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 31, 815 (1998), URL http: //stacks.iop.org/0953-4075/31/i=4/a=027

    work page 1998

  2. [1]

    Krishnakumar, V

    E. Krishnakumar, V. S. Prabhudesai, and N. J. Mason, Nature Physics 14, 149 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ nphys4289

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Dalgarno, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 4, 10 (2005), URL http://stacks.iop.org/1742-6596/4/i=1/a=002

    A. Dalgarno, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 4, 10 (2005), URL http://stacks.iop.org/1742-6596/4/i=1/a=002

    work page 2005

  4. [3]

    Galli and F

    D. Galli and F. Palla, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 51, 163 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- astro-082812-141029, URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141029

    doi:10.1146/annurev- 2013

  5. [4]

    Lecluse, F

    C. Lecluse, F. Robert, D. Gautier, and M. Guiraud, Planetary and Space Science 44, 1579 (1996), ISSN 0032-0633, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063396000700

    work page 1996

  6. [5]

    Y. H. Kim, J. L. Fox, J. H. Black, and J. I. Moses, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 119, 384 (2014), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2013JA019022, URL https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/2013JA019022

    work page doi:10.1002/2013ja019022 2014

  7. [6]

    C. Sang, P. Stangeby, H. Guo, and D. Wang, Nuclear Fusion 61, 016022 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/abc356

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Verhaegh, B

    K. Verhaegh, B. Lipschultz, C. Bowman, B. P. Duval, U. Fantz, A. Fil, J. R. Harrison, D. Moulton, O. Myatra, D. W¨ underlich, et al., Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63, 035018 (2021), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6587/abd4c0

    work page 2021

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Pitts, X

    R. Pitts, X. Bonnin, F. Escourbiac, H. Frerichs, J. Gunn, T. Hirai, A. Kukushkin, E. Kaveeva, M. Miller, D. Moulton, et al., Nuclear Materials and Energy 20, 100696 (2019), ISSN 2352-1791, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2352179119300237

    2019

  2. [9]

    Sawada and M

    K. Sawada and M. Goto, Atoms 4, 29 (2016), ISSN 2218-2004, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2218-2004/4/4/29

    2016

  3. [10]

    Hor´ aˇ cek, M.ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, K

    J. Hor´ aˇ cek, M.ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, K. Houfek, P. Kolorenˇ c, and W. Domcke, Phys. Rev. A73, 022701 (2006), URL http://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022701

    2006 doi

  4. [11]

    Taccogna and P

    F. Taccogna and P. Minelli, New Journal of Physics 19, 015012 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1367-2630% 2Faa5305

    2017

  5. [12]

    Bacal and M

    M. Bacal and M. Wada, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29, 033001 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6595/ab6881. 11

    2020

  6. [13]

    Krishnakumar, S

    E. Krishnakumar, S. Denifl, I. ˇCadeˇ z, S. Markelj, and N. J. Mason, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 243201 (2011), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.243201

    2011 doi

  7. [14]

    Serianni, V

    G. Serianni, V. Toigo, M. Bigi, M. Boldrin, G. Chitarin, S. Dal Bello, L. Grando, A. Luchetta, D. Marcuzzi, R. Pasqualotto, et al., Review of Scientific Instruments 91, 023510 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5133076, URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.5133076

    2020 doi

  8. [15]

    157, 03014 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/ 201715703014

    Furno, Ivo, Agnello, Riccardo, Fantz, U., Howling, Alan, Jacquier, Remy, Marini, Claudio, Plyushchev, Gennady, Gui- ttienne, Philippe, and Simonin, Alain, EPJ Web Conf. 157, 03014 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/ 201715703014

    2017 doi

  9. [16]

    Fubiani, R

    G. Fubiani, R. Agnello, I. Furno, L. Garriugues, P. Guittienne, G. Hagelaar, A. Howling, R. Jacquier, B. reman, A. Simonin, et al., in preparation (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Taccogna, P

    F. Taccogna, P. Minelli, D. Bruno, S. Longo, and R. Schneider, Chemical Physics 398, 27 (2012), ISSN 0301-0104, chemical Physics of Low-Temperature Plasmas (in honour of Prof Mario Capitelli), URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S030101041100111X

    2012

  11. [18]

    Celiberto, M

    R. Celiberto, M. Capitelli, G. Colonna, G. D’Ammando, F. Esposito, R. K. Janev, V. Laporta, A. Laricchiuta, L. D. Pietanza, M. Rutigliano, et al., Atoms 5, 18 (2017), ISSN 2218-2004, URL http://www.mdpi.com/2218-2004/5/2/18

    2017

  12. [19]

    W¨ underlich and U

    D. W¨ underlich and U. Fantz, Atoms4, 26 (2016), URL http://www.mdpi.com/2218-2004/4/4/26

    2016

  13. [20]

    Meltzer and J

    T. Meltzer and J. Tennyson, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 53, 245203 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/abc3d1

    2020 doi

  14. [21]

    L. H. Scarlett, D. V. Fursa, M. C. Zammit, I. Bray, Y. Ralchenko, and K. D. Davie, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 137, 101361 (2021), ISSN 0092-640X, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092640X20300292

    2021

  15. [22]

    M. C. Zammit, D. V. Fursa, and I. Bray, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022711 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.90.022711

    2014

  16. [23]

    J. K. Tapley, L. H. Scarlett, J. S. Savage, M. C. Zammit, D. V. Fursa, and I. Bray, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 144007 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6455%2Faac8fa

    2018

  17. [24]

    Allan, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 18, L451 (1985), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0022-3700/18/13/009

    M. Allan, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 18, L451 (1985), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0022-3700/18/13/009

    1985

  18. [25]

    van Wingerden, F

    B. van Wingerden, F. J. de Heer, E. Weigold, and K. J. Nygaard, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 10, 1345 (1977), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/10/7/023

    1977 doi

  19. [26]

    S. J. B. Corrigan, The Journal of Chemical Physics 43, 4381 (1965), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1696701, URL https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.1696701

    1965 doi

  20. [27]

    Wrkich, D

    J. Wrkich, D. Mathews, I. Kanik, S. Trajmar, and M. A. Khakoo, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 35, 4695 (2002), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/35/22/311

    2002 doi

  21. [28]

    Tawara, Y

    H. Tawara, Y. Itikawa, H. Nishimura, and M. Yoshino, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 19, 617 (1990), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.555856, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.555856

    1990 doi

  22. [29]

    M. C. Zammit, D. V. Fursa, and I. Bray, Phys. Rev. A 88, 062709 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.88.062709

    2013

  23. [30]

    Iacob, N

    F. Iacob, N. Pop, J. Z. Mezei, M. D. E. Ep´ ee, O. Motapon, S. Niyonzima, V. Laporta, and I. F. Schneider, AIP Conference Proceedings 2071, 020007 (2019), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5090054, URL https://aip.scitation. org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5090054

    2019 doi

  24. [31]

    DJUISSI, R

    E. DJUISSI, R. BOGDAN, A. ABDOULANZIZ, N. POP, F. IACOB, C. ARGENTIN, M. D. E. EPEE, O. MOTAPON, V. LAPORTA, J. Z. MEZEI, et al., Romanian Astron. J. 30, 101 (2020)

    2020

  25. [32]

    F. F. Chen, Kinetic Theory (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016), pp. 211–266, ISBN 978-3-319-22309-4, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22309-4_7

    2016 doi

  26. [33]

    B. M. Smirnov, Collisions Involving Electrons (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2007), chap. 4, pp. 99–125, ISBN 9783527619078, URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9783527619078.ch4

    2007 doi

  27. [34]

    Capitelli, C

    M. Capitelli, C. M. Ferreira, B. F. Gordiets, and A. I. Osipov, Plasma Kinetics in Atmospheric Gases , Springer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics (Springer, 2000), ISBN 978-3-540-67416-0, URL http://www.ebook.de/de/product/ 6700937/m_capitelli_c_m_ferreira_b_f_gord...

    2000

  28. [35]

    J. N. Bardsley and F. Mandl, Reports on Progress in Physics 31, 471 (1968), URL http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/ 31/i=2/a=302

    1968

  29. [36]

    Domcke, Physics Reports 208, 97 (1991), ISSN 0370-1573, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0370157391901256

    W. Domcke, Physics Reports 208, 97 (1991), ISSN 0370-1573, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0370157391901256

    1991

  30. [37]

    Dub´ e and A

    L. Dub´ e and A. Herzenberg, Phys. Rev. A20, 194 (1979)

    1979

  31. [38]

    Houfek, T

    K. Houfek, T. N. Rescigno, and C. W. McCurdy, Phys. Rev. A 73, 032721 (2006), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.73.032721

    2006

  32. [39]

    Laporta, I

    V. Laporta, I. F. Schneider, and J. Tennyson, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29, 10LT01 (2020), URL https: //doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6595%2Fabbae3

    2020

  33. [40]

    Laporta, J

    V. Laporta, J. Tennyson, and I. F. Schneider, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 29, 05LT02 (2020), URL https: //doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6595%2Fab86d8

    2020

  34. [41]

    Laporta, C

    V. Laporta, C. M. Cassidy, J. Tennyson, and R. Celiberto, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 21, 045005 (2012), URL http://stacks.iop.org/0963-0252/21/i=4/a=045005

    2012

  35. [42]

    Laporta, R

    V. Laporta, R. Celiberto, and J. Tennyson, Plasma Sources Science and Technology 22, 025001 (2013), URL http: //stacks.iop.org/0963-0252/22/i=2/a=025001

    2013

  36. [43]

    Laporta, R

    V. Laporta, R. Celiberto, and J. Tennyson, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012701 (2015), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ 12 PhysRevA.91.012701

    2015

  37. [44]

    Laporta, K

    V. Laporta, K. Heritier, and M. Panesi, Chemical Physics 472, 44 (2016), ISSN 0301-0104, URL http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030101041630026X

    2016

  38. [45]

    Kol/os and L

    W. Kol/os and L. Wolniewicz, The Journal of Chemical Physics 41, 3663 (1964), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1725796, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1725796

    1964 doi

  39. [46]

    Sharp, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 2, 119 (1970), ISSN 0092-640X, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0092640X70800079

    T. Sharp, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 2, 119 (1970), ISSN 0092-640X, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0092640X70800079

    1970

  40. [47]

    Kol/os and L

    W. Kol/os and L. Wolniewicz, The Journal of Chemical Physics 43, 2429 (1965), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1697142, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1697142

    1965 doi

  41. [48]

    Wolniewicz and K

    L. Wolniewicz and K. Dressler, The Journal of Chemical Physics 88, 3861 (1988), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.453888, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.453888

    1988 doi

  42. [49]

    J. N. Bardsley and J. M. Wadehra, Phys. Rev. A 20, 1398 (1979), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 20.1398

    1979 doi

  43. [50]

    Celiberto, R

    R. Celiberto, R. K. Janev, V. Laporta, J. Tennyson, and J. M. Wadehra, Phys. Rev. A 88, 062701 (2013), URL http: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.062701

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    D. E. Golden, H. W. Bandel, and J. A. Salerno, Phys. Rev. 146, 40 (1966), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.146.40

    1966

  45. [53]

    Cooper, A

    G. Cooper, A. P. Hitchcock, and C. A. Chatzidimitriou-Dreismann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 043204 (2008), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.043204

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    S. J. Buckman and A. V. Phelps, The Journal of Chemical Physics 82, 4999 (1985), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.448673, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.448673

    1985 doi

  47. [55]

    L. C. Pitchford, L. L. Alves, K. Bartschat, S. F. Biagi, M.-C. Bordage, I. Bray, C. E. Brion, M. J. Brunger, L. Campbell, A. Chachereau, et al., Plasma Processes and Polymers 14, 1600098 (2017), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ppap.201600098, URL https://online...

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    G. J. Schulz and R. K. Asundi, Phys. Rev. 158, 25 (1967), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.158.25

    1967 doi

  49. [57]

    D. Rapp, T. E. Sharp, and D. D. Briglia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 533 (1965), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.14.533

    1965

  50. [58]

    L. H. Scarlett, J. K. Tapley, D. V. Fursa, M. C. Zammit, J. S. Savage, and I. Bray, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062708 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.062708

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    C. S. Trevisan and J. Tennyson, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 44, 1263 (2002), URL https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F0741-3335%2F44%2F7%2F315

    2002

  52. [60]

    Yoon, Y.-W

    J.-S. Yoon, Y.-W. Kim, D.-C. Kwon, M.-Y. Song, W.-S. Chang, C.-G. Kim, V. Kumar, and B. Lee, Reports on Progress in Physics 73, 116401 (2010), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0034-4885%2F73%2F11%2F116401

    2010

  53. [61]

    IAEA, Atomic and molecular data for fusion energy research (2021), URL https://db-amdis.org/hcdb/t/65

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.