Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Rotational-state-controlled dissociative ionization dynamics in $\mathrm{CF_2I_2}$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the initial rotational-state distribution of CF2I2, prepared by electrostatic deflection, controls the branching between stable ionic states and dissociative channels after strong-field ionization, with a threshold…

desk verdict Solid new observation of rotationally state-dependent branching in CF2I2 strong-field ionization, but the Coriolis-coupling mechanism is overinterpreted relative to the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04715 v1 pith:TSEL5CJF submitted 2026-08-05 physics.chem-ph

Nidin Vadassery , Ivo S. Vinklárek , Sebastian Trippel , Jochen Küpper This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords strong-fieldionizationdissociativerotational-stateselectionelectrostaticdeflectionbranchingratiosnon-adiabaticcouplingCoriolisCF2I2
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

This paper claims that the outcome of strong-field dissociative ionization of $\mathrm{CF_2I_2}$ can be steered by the molecule's initial rotation: ensembles carrying only a few micro-electronvolts more rotational energy fragment along different pathways than colder ensembles. Electrostatic deflection disperses the molecular beam so that different spatial positions select different mean rotational quantum numbers, from $\langle J \rangle \approx 3.94$ down to $\approx 2.70$. Measured branching ratios shift between low- and high-energy ion bands, with $\mathrm{CF_2I^+}$ becoming dominant and $\mathrm{I^+}$ suppressed for the colder ensembles, and the switch has a threshold near $54.5\,\mu$eV of mean rotational energy. The authors interpret this as competition between stabilization into bound ionic states and dissociative channels, driven by near-threshold non-adiabatic Coriolis-type coupling that mixes rotational and vibrational motion. The result matters because it suggests rotation, normally a tiny energy contribution, can serve as a practical control handle for reaction branching in halomethanes.

What carries the argument

The central objects are (i) the electrostatic deflector, which spatially disperses $\mathrm{CF_2I_2}$ according to its Stark shift and thereby prepares ensembles with different mean rotational quantum numbers; (ii) the intermediate resonant state $\mathrm{CF_2I_2^*}$, reached by three 800 nm photons and equivalent to one 266 nm photon, which lowers the effective ionization order by about three photons; and (iii) the near-threshold ionic-state manifold whose coupling through Coriolis-type rotation-vibration interactions is proposed to decide between bound and dissociative outcomes. The quantitative machinery is an empirical error-function model $R_H(E) = R_{H,\mathrm{min}} + \Delta R_H \cdot \frac{1}{2}\left[1 + \mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{E - E_0}{\sqrt{2}\,\sigma}\right)\right]$ for the high-energy-band branching ratio, used to extract the threshold energy $E_0 = 54.5(3)\,\mu$eV and width $\sigma = 4.31(3)\,\mu$eV. That narrow width is the key quantity: it localizes the rotational-energy window responsible for the redistribution.

What would settle it

Measure the total $\mathrm{CF_2I_2^+}$ yield, or the overall ionization probability, as a function of deflection-selected mean rotational energy at fixed laser intensity and pulse duration: if the total ion count changes in step with the branching-ratio switch near $E_0 \approx 54.5\,\mu$eV, the rotation-independence assumption fails and the branching change could originate in the ionization step rather than in post-ionization dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the initial rotational-state distribution controls the branching between the stable parent ion $\mathrm{CF_2I_2^+}$ and fragment channels after strong-field ionization of $\mathrm{CF_2I_2}$, with a threshold-like dependence on mean rotational energy at $E_0 = 54.5(3)\,\mu$eV and a crossover width $\sigma = 4.31(3)\,\mu$eV. Rotationally colder ensembles favor the low-energy band ($\mathrm{CF_2I_2^+}$, $\mathrm{CF_2I^+}$, $\mathrm{I_2^+}$), while warmer ensembles increasingly populate the high-energy band ($\mathrm{I^+}$, $\mathrm{CF_2^+}$, $\mathrm{CF^+}$). The laser-power dependence identifies resonance-enhanced multiphoton ionization through the intermediate state $\mathrm{CF_2I_2^*}$, and the branching redistribution is attributed to non-adiabatic Coriolis-type coupling in the laser-field-dressed ionic manifold, where a narrow rotational-energy window near $E_0$ enhances excitation to the high-energy band. The paper's conclusion is that rotation acts as a finely tunable parameter selecting among post-ionization reaction pathways.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the total ionization cross-section is independent of the initial rotational-state distribution, so the observed branching changes must arise from post-ionization dissociation dynamics rather than from the ionization step itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rotational-state selection by electrostatic deflection can steer product branching in strong-field ionization of halomethanes without coherent control schemes.
  • The fragmentation of $\mathrm{CF_2I_2}$ is not set solely by total excitation energy; the initial rotational phase space matters even on a micro-electronvolt scale.
  • The measured ionization orders for $\mathrm{I^+}$ and $\mathrm{CF_2^+}$ drop by roughly one 800 nm photon for colder ensembles, indicating that the branching change is tied to field-dressed coupled states rather than simple energetic thresholds.
  • The sharp threshold at $E_0 = 54.5\,\mu$eV implies that only molecules in a narrow rotational-energy window are switched to the high-energy band, linking the effect to the time a dissociating molecule spends near a critical bond distance during the laser pulse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's mechanism implies that if the rotation-independence of the ionization cross-section holds, the same deflection-prepared ensembles could test whether the threshold energy $E_0$ tracks the rotational constant or the field-dressed resonance spacing, and whether similar few-$\mu$eV control appears in other polyhalomethanes.
  • The fitted width $\sigma \approx 4\,\mu$eV is far smaller than the roughly $50\,\mu$eV spread of the rotational-state distributions, so the paper's mechanism suggests that only a sub-ensemble of molecules near $E_0$ drives the branching switch; this could be checked with electron-ion coincidence or fragment-momentum measurements correlated with selected $J$ states.
  • A direct testable extension would be to vary the laser pulse duration or intensity and ask whether $E_0$ and $\sigma$ shift; a strong shift would confirm that the coupled states are laser-field-dressed rather than a purely field-free curve crossing.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports strong-field (800 nm, 45 fs, 20–50 TW/cm²) dissociative ionization of CF2I2 prepared with different rotational-state distributions by electrostatic deflection. Branching ratios of fragment ions measured at six transverse positions in the deflected beam vary systematically: the CF2I+ channel grows and the I+ channel shrinks as the ensemble is made rotationally colder (more deflected). Power-dependence measurements yield effective ionization orders; values for I+ and CF2+ change between non-deflected and deflected positions. The authors identify resonance-enhanced multiphoton ionization through an intermediate CF2I2* state and propose that near-threshold non-adiabatic Coriolis-type coupling in the cation, controlled by initial rotational energy, governs the competition between low- and high-energy ion channels. A heuristic error-function fit to the high-energy band branching ratio gives a threshold E0 = 54.5(3) μeV and width σ = 4.31(3) μeV. The central mechanistic claim is that a few μeV of rotational energy controls post-ionization fragmentation dynamics.

Significance. If the central interpretation holds, this is a significant result: it would demonstrate rotational-state control of strong-field dissociation branching on a ~μeV energy scale, with implications for non-adiabatic dynamics in halomethanes and for state-selective control of chemical reactions. The experimental approach is a strength: electrostatic deflection with trajectory-simulated rotational distributions, position-resolved branching ratios, and power-dependence analysis are combined to connect initial-state preparation to product branching. The authors are honest in labeling the Coriolis-coupling mechanism and the error-function model as heuristic, and they explicitly call for complementary theory. However, the load-bearing assumption that the initial rotational distribution does not affect the ionization step itself is not established and is actually challenged by the measured deflection-dependent changes in effective ionization order; the 'few μeV' claim also goes beyond what the ensemble-averaged data can support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV] The central mechanistic claim that the branching changes arise from post-ionization non-adiabatic dynamics rests on the assumption, stated in Section IV, that 'the total ionization cross-section is assumed to be independent of the initial rotational-state distribution.' This assumption is load-bearing and is not demonstrated. Table I shows that the effective ionization order of I+ changes from 5.74(16) for the non-deflected ensemble to 4.92(10) for the deflected ensemble, and that of CF2+ changes from 5.48(17) to 4.78(9); these changes indicate that the strong-field ionization/excitation step itself depends on the initial rotational ensemble. The justifications offered (excitation energy exceeds the ionization threshold by ~0.7 eV and several tens of rotational states are field-dressed) do not establish that the partial ionization probabilities into the low- and high-energy ionic bands are J-independent. Please either provide a direct test of the J-independence assumption, for example by measuring total ion yields as a function of deflection under identical focal conditions, or reinterpret the results as demonstrating rotational-state-dependent strong-field ionization without assigning the control to a specific post-ionization step.
  2. [Section IV and Fig. 5] The abstract's statement that 'tuning the rotational energy by only a few μeV is sufficient' overstates what the data can show. The rotational-state distributions at each beam position have an energy-sample standard deviation of about 50 μeV, as the authors note, so the mean rotational energy used as the horizontal axis in Fig. 5 is a coarse ensemble average; the branching-ratio curve is a convolution of the true state-dependent response with these broad distributions. The fitted width σ = 4.31(3) μeV, which is smaller than the spread of any individual distribution, is therefore not directly interpretable as the width of a single-state energy window. In addition, E0 and σ are fitted to the same branching-ratio data that are then used to infer that a 'narrow energy range ΔE = 54.5 ± 4.31 μeV' is relevant to the effect; this is an interpretation of the fit, not independent evidence. Please either obtain state-resolved data or rephrase the conclusions to describe an ensemble-averaged correlation between mean rotational energy and branching ratio rather than a few-μeV single-state threshold.
  3. [Section IV, error-function model] The empirical error-function model for RH(E) contains five adjustable quantities (E0, σ, RH,min, ΔRH, and the rotational temperature underlying the mean-energy mapping), and the fit is presented at a single laser intensity. With this many free parameters, the good agreement in Fig. 5 does not by itself discriminate between a threshold-like mechanism and, for example, a smooth J-dependent change in the ionization probability. The authors should state explicitly which parameters are constrained independently and discuss how the model could be falsified, for instance by predicting branching ratios at intermediate positions not used in the fit or by measurements at other laser intensities.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1 and Section III.A] The caption of Fig. 1 and the text in Section III.A contain unresolved reference placeholders '[?]' for metastable fragmentation channels; please complete these citations.
  2. [Throughout] The notation for the intermediate state is inconsistent (CF2I*2, CF2I2*, CF2I*2); please use a single, clearly defined symbol throughout.
  3. [Table I] In Table I, clarify how the appearance energies are converted into the expected number of 800 nm photons, and add a footnote explaining the labels '2nd fragmentation' and 'Ionization' in the reaction-pathway column.
  4. [Fig. 4] Panel B of Fig. 4 is not explained in the caption; the correspondence between the colored bands and the ion channels is hard to follow. Please add a sentence describing what panel B shows.
  5. [Section III.A] The phrase 'The ion signal out of the dashed cyan line' should read 'The ion signal away from the dashed cyan line' or 'off the dashed cyan line'.
  6. [Section IV] In Section IV, 'the energy-sample standard deviation is in the order of 50 μeV' should read 'on the order of 50 μeV'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central branching observation is independent, and the fitted threshold model is explicitly heuristic rather than used as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an experimental observation: the CF2I+ and I+ branching ratios change systematically across an electrostatically dispersed molecular beam, with rotational-state distributions obtained from independent Stark-trajectory simulations (Fig. 2). The REMPI interpretation is benchmarked against literature appearance energies and measured effective ionization orders (Table I), i.e., against external data rather than against the fitted branching curve. The error-function fit of the high/low-energy band ratio versus mean rotational energy (Fig. 5, Section IV) is explicitly labeled an empirical model, yielding descriptive parameters E0 and sigma; the text states that a rigorous theoretical treatment remains beyond the scope of the manuscript. The subsequent statement that a narrow energy range is 'relevant for the observed effects' is a restatement of the fitted width, but the authors do not use that fitted width to predict or confirm the same data, so it is descriptive rather than circular. The untested assumption that the total ionization cross-section is independent of the initial rotational-state distribution is a genuine correctness risk, but it is not a circularity: the branching data are not defined in terms of that assumption, and the assumption is stated openly. Self-citations concern apparatus, simulation software, and methods and are not load-bearing for the mechanistic claim. Under the required standard of exhibiting a specific reduction by definition, fit, or self-citation chain, no circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The proposed 'non-adiabatic Coriolis-type coupling' is a mechanism, not an entity. The free parameters are the fitted threshold and width of the heuristic branching model plus the rotational temperature from simulation. The key axioms are the accuracy of the trajectory simulation, the rotational-independence of the ionization cross-section, and the validity of the power-law analysis.

free parameters (5)
  • E0 (central threshold rotational energy) = 54.5(3) micro-eV
    Fitted from the error-function model for the high-energy band branching ratio versus mean rotational energy (Fig. 5).
  • sigma (width of crossover region) = 4.31(3) micro-eV
    Fitted from the same error-function model; the narrow width is interpreted as a physical 'narrow energy range' despite the sample standard deviation of rotational energies being about 50 micro-eV.
  • RH,min (asymptotic low-energy limit of high-energy band) = 0.26(1)
    Fitted baseline for the high-energy band branching ratio.
  • Delta RH (branching amplitude) = 0.29(2) (from RH,max - RH,min = 0.55 - 0.26)
    Fitted amplitude of the error-function transition.
  • Trot (rotational temperature of the molecular beam) = 0.51(10) K
    Estimated by matching measured and simulated deflection profiles using CMI Stark trajectory simulations (Section IIIB).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Stark-effect trajectory simulation (CMI Stark) accurately predicts the deflection profile and the rotational-state distribution at each beam position.
    The entire mapping from beam position to mean rotational energy, and hence the micro-electronvolt energy scale, rests on this simulation (Section IIIB, Fig. 2).
  • domain assumption The total ionization cross-section is independent of the initial rotational-state distribution.
    Stated explicitly in Section IV. If false, the observed branching changes could arise from state-dependent ionization rather than post-ionization dynamics.
  • domain assumption The power-law yield relation Y_ion(I) proportional to I^n is valid over the 20-50 TW/cm2 range used to extract ionization orders.
    Ionization orders are obtained from linear fits to log-log plots assuming this power law (Section II).
  • domain assumption Appearance energies from prior literature (refs [14-16]) correctly determine the expected photon orders for each reaction pathway.
    Table I uses these appearance energies to compute expected photon counts, which are then compared with measured ionization orders.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rotational-state-controlled dissociative ionization dynamics in $\mathrm{CF_2I_2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSEL5CJF

@misc{pith2026260804715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rotational-state-controlled dissociative ionization dynamics in $\mathrmCF_2I_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSEL5CJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04715}
}
abstract

We investigated strong-field dissociative ionization of $\mathrm{CF_2I_2}$ ensembles prepared in different initial rotational-state distributions using an electrostatic deflector. Pronounced changes in ion-channel branching ratios revealed a strong dependence of the fragmentation dynamics on the initial rotational excitation. Analysis of fragment yields and their laser-power dependences identifies resonance-enhanced multiphoton ionization through an intermediate excited state, $\mathrm{CF_2I_2^{\ast}}$. The measured branching behavior indicates competition between stabilization into bound ionic states and dissociative channels, driven by near-threshold non-adiabatic Coriolis-type coupling. Tuning the rotational energy by only a few $\mu$eV is sufficient to significantly alter the ionization dynamics and to redistribute the reaction products. These findings demonstrate the key role of rotational excitation in controlling non-adiabatic dynamics following strong-field ionization of $\mathrm{CF_2I_2}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04715 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (right half) shows the energy-level diagram with the reaction pathways and their respective AE according to Table I. An individual red arrow indicates absorption of a single 800 nm photon. The REMPI is indicated as a two-step process. The first step of 3-photon absorption into the intermediate CF2I ∗ 2 state is marked by dashed red arrows and the second step of multiphoton absorption into the respective ionic channe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Branching ratios of the low-energy and high-energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. K. Koenig, R. Volkamer, E. C. Apel, J. F. Bresch, C. A. Cuevas, B. Dix, E. W. Eloranta, R. P. Fernandez, S. R. Hall, R. S. Hornbrook, R. B. Pierce, J. M. Reeves, A. Saiz-Lopez, and K. Ullmann, Ozone depletion due to dust release of iodine in the free troposphere, Sci. Adv.7, eabj6544 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Tuning the rotational energy by only a fewµeV is sufficient to significantly alter the ionization dynamics and to redistribute the reaction products

    The measured branchingbehaviorindicatescompetitionbetweenstabilizationintoboundionicstatesanddissociative channels, driven by near-threshold non-adiabatic Coriolis-type coupling. Tuning the rotational energy by only a fewµeV is sufficient to significantly alter the ionization dynamics and to redistribute the reaction products. These findings demonstrate t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    CUI: Ad- vanced Imaging of Matter

    5 CF 2I 2.CF 2I+ CF 2I 2 ·H 2O + CF 2I ·H 2O + I 2+ I 3+ CF 2I 2.I + I 2.I + 0 100 200 300 400 500 Mass over c harge (u / e) 0 50 100 150 200P osition of arriv al (pixels) metastable CF2I2 + 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 Coun ts B C A metastable CF2I+ Vmol. beam FIG. 1.A: Background-subtracted correlation map of fragment ions recorded in VMI mode as a fun...

    work page

  4. [4]

    T. J. Gravestock, M. A. Blitz, W. J. Bloss, and D. E. Heard, A multidimensional study of the reac- tion CH2I + O2: Products and atmospheric implications, Chem. Phys. Chem.11, 3928 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    C. D. O’Dowd, J. L. Jimenez, R. Bahreini, R. C. Fla- gan, J. H. Seinfeld, K. Hämeri, L. Pirjola, M. Kulmala, S. G. Jennings, and T. Hoffmann, Marine aerosol forma- tion from biogenic iodine emissions, Nature417, 632–636 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Saiz-Lopez, J

    A. Saiz-Lopez, J. M. C. Plane, A. R. Baker, L. J. Carpen- ter, R. von Glasow, J. C. Gómez Martín, G. McFiggans, and R. W. Saunders, Atmospheric chemistry of Iodine, Chem. Rev.112, 1773 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    B. Liu, Z. Li, H. Sun, Z. Sun, and Y. Yang, Dissociative ionization of molecular CF2Br2 under 800 and 400 nm in- tense femtosecond laser fields, Appl. Sci.11, 1704 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Suchan, D

    J. Suchan, D. Hollas, B. F. E. Curchod, and P. Slavíček, On the importance of initial conditions for excited-state dynamics, Faraday Disc.212, 307 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    P. Z. El-Khoury, A. N. Tarnovsky, I. Schapiro, M. N. Ryazantsev, and M. Olivucci, Structure of the photo- chemical reaction path populated via promotion ofCF2I2 into its first excited state, J. Phys. Chem. A113, 10767 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    E. A. J. Wannenmacher, P. Felder, and J. R. Huber, The simultaneous three-body dissociation ofCF2I2, J. Chem. Phys.95, 986 (1991)

    1991

  3. [11]

    S. L. Horton, Y. Liu, R. Forbes, V. Makhija, R. Lausten, A. Stolow, P. Hockett, P. Marquetand, T. Rozgonyi, and T. Weinacht, Excited state dynamics ofCH2I2 and CH2BrI studied with UV pump VUV probe photoelectron spectroscopy, J. Chem. Phys.150, 174201 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Recio, J

    P. Recio, J. Cachón, L. Rubio-Lago, D. V. Chicharro, A. Zanchet, P. Limão-Vieira, N. de Oliveira, P. C. Samartzis, S. Marggi Poullain, and L. Bañares, Imaging the photodissociation dynamics and fragment alignment of CH2BrI at 193 nm, J. Phys. Chem. A126, 8404 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Bergmann, R

    K. Bergmann, R. T. Carter, G. E. Hall, and J. R. Huber, Resonance enhanced multiphoton ionization time-of-flight study of CF2I2 photodissociation, J. Chem. Phys.109, 474 (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    B. W. Toulson, J. P. Alaniz, J. G. Hill, and C. Mur- ray, Near-UV photodissociation dynamics ofCH2I2, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.18, 11091 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    G. Baum, P. Felder, and J. R. Huber, Photofragmentation of CF2I2. Competition between radical and three-body dissociation, J. Chem. Phys.98, 1999 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    W. G. Roeterdink and M. H. M. Janssen, Femtosecond ve- locity map imaging of concerted photodynamics inCF2I2, J. Chem. Phys.117, 6500 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Radloff, P

    W. Radloff, P. Farmanara, V. Stert, E. Schreiber, and J. Huber, Ultrafast photodissociation dynamics of elec- tronically excited CF2I2 molecules, Chem. Phys. Lett. 291, 173 (1998)

    1998

  10. [18]

    Farmanara, V

    P. Farmanara, V. Stert, H.-H. Ritze, and W. Radloff, Analysis of the ultrafast photodissociation of electronically excited CF2I2 molecules by femtosecond time-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy, J. Chem. Phys.113, 1705 (2000)

    2000

  11. [19]

    C. P. Anderson, K. G. Spears, K. R. Wilson, and R. J. Sension, Solvent dependent branching betweenC−I and C−Br bond cleavage following 266 nm excitation of CH2BrI, J. Chem. Phys.139, 194307 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Townsend, S

    D. Townsend, S. A. Lahankar, S. K. Lee, S. D. Chambreau, A. G. Suits, X. Zhang, J. Rheinecker, L. B. Harding, and J. M. Bowman, The roaming atom: Straying from the reaction path in formaldehyde decomposition, Science 306, 1158 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    V. A. Borin, S. M. Matveev, D. S. Budkina, P. Z. El- Khoury, and A. N. Tarnovsky, Direct photoisomerization of CH2I2 vs. CHBr3 in the gas phase: a joint 50 fs exper- imental and multireference resonance-theoretical study, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.18, 28883 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    F. F. Crim, Vibrationally mediated photodissociation: Exploring excited-state surfaces and controlling decompo- sition pathways, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.44, 397 (1993)

    1993

  15. [23]

    P. Z. El-Khoury, L. George, A. Kalume, S. A. Reid, B. S. Ault, andA.N.Tarnovsky,Characterizationof iso−CF2I2 in frequency and ultrafast time domains, J. Chem. Phys. 132, 124501 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    B. J. Pearson, S. R. Nichols, and T. Weinacht, Molecular fragmentation driven by ultrafast dynamic ionic reso- nances, J. Chem. Phys.127, 131101 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    D. Xie, H. Guo, Y. Amatatsu, and R. Kosloff, Three- dimensional photodissociation dynamics of rotational state selected methyl iodide, J. Phys. Chem. A104, 1009 (2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    A. Prlj, D. Hollas, and B. F. E. Curchod, Deciphering the influence of ground-state distributions on the calculation of photolysis observables, J. Phys. Chem. A127, 7400 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    D. J. Bamford, S. V. Filseth, M. F. Foltz, J. W. Hep- burn, and C. B. Moore, Photofragmentation dynamics of formaldehyde: CO(ν, J) distributions as a function of initial rovibronic state and isotopic substitution, J. Chem. Phys.82, 3032–3041 (1985)

    1985

  20. [28]

    M. L. Murillo-Sánchez, S. Marggi Poullain, J. J. Bajo, M. E. Corrales, J. González-Vázquez, I. R. Solá, and L. Bañares, Halogen-atom effect on the ultrafast pho- todissociation dynamics of the dihalomethanesCH2ICl 10 and CH2BrI, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.20, 20766–20778 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Janoš, P

    J. Janoš, P. Slavíček, and B. F. E. Curchod, Selecting Initial Conditions for Trajectory-Based Nonadiabatic Sim- ulations, Acc. Chem. Res.58, 261 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    I. S. Vinklárek, J. Suchan, J. Rakovsk` y, K. Moriová, V. Poterya, P. Slavíček, and M. Fárník, Energy parti- tioning and spin–orbit effects in the photodissociation of higher chloroalkanes, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.23, 14340 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Jiang, L

    P. Jiang, L. Lu, and H. Gao, Observation of rotationally dependent fine-structure branching ratios near the predis- sociation threshold N (2D5/2,3/2)+ N (2D5/2,3/2) of 14N2, J. Phys. Chem.156, 191101 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Trost, S

    F. Trost, S. Díaz-Tendero, H. Lindenblatt, S. Meister, K. Schnorr, S. Augustin, G. Schmid, Y. Liu, P. Schoch, F. Hosseini, M. Zmerli, R. Guillemin, M.-N. Piancastelli, M. Braune, C. D. Schröter, T. Pfeifer, F. Martín, M. Si- mon, and R. Moshammer, Dynamics of highly-ionized di...

    2025

  25. [33]

    K. Guo, X. Hu, M. Li, C.-C. Jia, S. Zhang, C. Cao, W. Xie, W. Cao, K. Liu, Y. Zhou, Y. Wu, J. Wang, and P. Lu, Probing coupled rotational and electronic dynamics during laser-induced molecular fragmentation, Ultrafast Sci.4, 0073 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Chang, D

    Y.-P. Chang, D. A. Horke, S. Trippel, and J. Küp- per, Spatially-controlled complex molecules and their applications, Int. Rev. Phys. Chem.34, 557 (2015), arXiv:1505.05632 [physics]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Liu, C.-C

    Y. Liu, C.-C. Jia, P. Ge, M. Li, X. Hu, K. Guo, W. Cao, Y. Wu, J. Wang, and P. Lu, Radial coupling at conical intersection governs competing fragmentation pathways in halomethane cations, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 053201 (2026)

    2026

  28. [36]

    S. Y. T. van de Meerakker, H. L. Bethlem, N. Vanhaecke, and G. Meijer, Manipulation and control of molecular beams, Chem. Rev.112, 4828 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Filsinger, U

    F. Filsinger, U. Erlekam, G. von Helden, J. Küpper, and G. Meijer, Selector for structural isomers of neu- tral molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 133003 (2008), arXiv:0802.2795 [physics]

    2008 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chang, F

    Y.-P. Chang, F. Filsinger, B. G. Sartakov, and J. Küp- per,CMIstark: Python package for the Stark-effect calculation and symmetry classification of linear, sym- metric and asymmetric top wavefunctions in dc elec- tric fields, Comp. Phys. Comm.185, 339 (2014), cur- rent version...

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Trippel, M

    S. Trippel, M. Johny, T. Kierspel, J. Onvlee, H. Bieker, H. Ye, T. Mullins, L. Gumprecht, K. Długołęcki, and J. Küpper, Note: Knife edge skimming for improved separation of molecular species by the deflector, Rev. Sci. Instrum.89, 096110 (2018), arXiv:1802.04053 [physics]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    I. S. Vinklárek, H. Bromberger, N. Vadassery, W. Jin, J. Küpper, and S. Trippel, Reaction pathways of water dimer following single ionization, J. Phys. Chem. A128, 1593 (2024), arXiv:2308.08006 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    L. He, M. Johny, T. Kierspel, K. Długołęcki, S. Bari, R. Boll, H. Bromberger, M. Coreno, A. D. Fanis, M. D. Fraia, B. Erk, M. Gisselbrecht, P. Grychtol, P. Eng- Johnsson, T. Mazza, J. Onvlee, Y. Ovcharenko, J. Petro- vic, N. Rennhack, D. E. Rivas, A. Rudenko, E. Rühl, L. Schwo...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Willitsch, Specific chemical reactivities of spatially separated 3-aminophenol conformers with cold Ca+ ions, Science342, 98 (2013), arXiv:1308.6538 [physics]

    Y.-P.Chang, K.Długołęcki, J.Küpper, D.Rösch, D.Wild, and S. Willitsch, Specific chemical reactivities of spatially separated 3-aminophenol conformers with cold Ca+ ions, Science342, 98 (2013), arXiv:1308.6538 [physics]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kilaj, H

    A. Kilaj, H. Gao, D. Rösch, U. Rivero, J. Küpper, and S. Willitsch, Observation of different reactivities of para- and ortho-water towards trapped diazenylium ions, Nat. Commun.9, 2096 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Johny, C

    M. Johny, C. A. Schouder, A. Al-Refaie, L. He, J. Wiese, H. Stapelfeldt, S. Trippel, and J. Küpper, Water is a radiation protection agent for ionised pyrrole, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.26, 13118 (2024), arXiv:2010.00453 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kilaj, J

    A. Kilaj, J. Wang, P. Straňák, M. Schwilk, U. Rivero, L. Xu, O. A. von Lilienfeld, J. Küpper, and S. Willitsch, Conformer-specific polar cycloaddition of dibromobutadi- ene with trapped propene ions, Nat. Commun.12, 6047 (2021), 2107.13858

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Bromberger, C

    H. Bromberger, C. Passow, D. Pennicard, R. Boll, J. Cor- rea, L. He, M. Johny, C. Papadopoulou, A. Tul-Noor, J. Wiese, S. Trippel, B. Erk, and J. Küpper, Shot-by-shot 250 kHz 3D ion and MHz photoelectron imaging using Timepix3, J. Phys. B55, 144001 (2022), arXiv:2111.14407 [physics]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    W. Jin, H. Bromberger, L. He, M. Johny, I. S. Vinklárek, K. Długołęcki, A. Samartsev, F. Calegari, S. Trippel, and J. Küpper, A versatile and transportable endstation for controlled molecule experiments, Rev. Sci. Instrum.96, 023305 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Even, The Even-Lavie valve as a source for high inten- sity supersonic beam, Eur

    U. Even, The Even-Lavie valve as a source for high inten- sity supersonic beam, Eur. Phys. J. Techn. Instrumen.2, 17 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Filsinger, J

    F. Filsinger, J. Küpper, G. Meijer, L. Holmegaard, J. H. Nielsen, I. Nevo, J. L. Hansen, and H. Stapelfeldt, Quantum-state selection, alignment, and orientation of large molecules using static electric and laser fields, J. Chem. Phys.131, 064309 (2009), arXiv:0903.5413 [physics]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L’Huillier, L

    A. L’Huillier, L. A. Lompre, G. Mainfray, and C. Manus, Multiply charged ions induced by multiphoton absorption in rare-gases at 0.53µm, Phys. Rev. A27, 2503 (1983)

    1983

  43. [51]

    Wiese, J.-F

    J. Wiese, J.-F. Olivieri, A. Trabattoni, S. Trippel, and J. Küpper, Strong-field photoelectron momentum imaging of OCS at finely resolved incident intensities, New J. Phys. 21, 083011 (2019), arXiv:1904.07519 [physics]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    S. M. Hankin, D. M. Villeneuve, P. B. Corkum, and D. M. Rayner, Nonlinear ionization of organic molecules in high intensity laser fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 5082 (2000)

    2000

  45. [53]

    Wang, S.-Z

    H. Wang, S.-Z. Luo, Y. Wang, M.-L. Hu, Q.-Y. Wang, S.-W. Zhao, and J.-Y. Zhang, Field-assisted dissociative ionization of CH2I2 induced by femtosecond laser field, Int. J. Quantum Chem.106, 1138 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    Zhang, D

    X. Zhang, D. Zhang, H. Liu, H. Xu, M. Jin, and D. Ding, Angular distributions of fragment ions in dissociative ionization of CH2I2 molecules in intense laser fields, J. Phys. B43, 025102 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    E. T. Karamatskos, S. Raabe, T. Mullins, A. Trabattoni, P. Stammer, G. Goldsztejn, R. R. Johansen, K. Dłu- gołęcki, H. Stapelfeldt, M. J. J. Vrakking, S. Trippel, A. Rouzée, and J. Küpper, Molecular movie of ultrafast coherent rotational dynamics of OCS, Nat. Commun.10, 3364 (...

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    S. M. Hankin, D. M. Villeneuve, P. B. Corkum, and D. M. Rayner, Intense-field laser ionization rates in atoms and molecules, Phys. Rev. A64, 013405 (2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    Leibscher, I

    M. Leibscher, I. Averbukh, and H. Rabitz, Molecular alignment by trains of short laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 213001 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    R. N. Zare, Laser Control of Chemical Reactions, Science 279, 1875 (1998)

    1998

  51. [59]

    J. M. Brown and J. K. Watson, Spin-orbit and spin- rotation coupling in doublet states of diatomic molecules, J. Mol. Spectrosc.65, 65 (1977)

    1977

  52. [60]

    Dantus, Ultrafast studies of elusive chemical reactions in the gas phase, Science385, eadk1833 (2024)

    M. Dantus, Ultrafast studies of elusive chemical reactions in the gas phase, Science385, eadk1833 (2024)

    2024

  53. [1202]

    [7], CH2I2 [8], andCH2BrI [9], which exhibit com- parable absorption spectra. However, despite the struc- tural and spectroscopic similarities betweenCH2I2 and CF2I2 [10, 11], their C–I bond dissociation energies differ substantially, 2.74 eV forCF2I2 compared with 4.94 eV for...

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.