Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Bremsstrahlung induced atomic processes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that bremsstrahlung radiation photoionizes atoms that already carry one K-shell vacancy, converting most of the K-alpha yield into K-alpha-alpha emission in low-energy Ne-on-Al collisions.

desk verdict Good data on Kαα lines, but the bremsstrahlung-photoionization claim rests on an identity and a self-cited cross-section, so the new mechanism is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02967 v3 pith:WGDN7R26 submitted 2025-01-06 physics.atom-ph

Shashank Singh , Narendra Kumar , Soumya Chatterjee , Deepak Swami , Manpreet Kaur , Alok Kumar Singh Jha , Mumtaz Oswal , K. P. Singh
show 1 more author
T. Nandi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords bremsstrahlung-inducedphotoionizationtwo-electronone-photontransitionsK-alphax-raysuppressionK-shelldoublevacanciesion-solidcollisionsKproductioncrosssectionK-alpha-alphaemissionlow-energyheavyions
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 reports x-ray spectra from 1.8 and 2.1 MeV neon ions striking an aluminum target, and claims that the dominant aluminum $K_\alpha$ line is being destroyed by the bremsstrahlung radiation generated in the same collision. Bremsstrahlung photons with energy at or above 1.545 keV knock out the second K-shell electron from ions that already have one K-shell vacancy, turning single-vacancy states into double-vacancy states. The authors estimate that about 82% of the $K_\alpha$ yield at 2.1 MeV is annihilated this way, and that the annihilated yield reappears as $K^h_\alpha$ and $K_{\alpha\alpha}$ lines with a conversion probability of 0.0966. If correct, this secondary ionization process would explain persistent "K-$\alpha$ deficits" in low-energy ion-solid experiments as a real physical effect rather than as an error in theory, and it would change how K x-ray spectra from plasmas and astrophysical sources are read.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is bremsstrahlung-induced photoionization of a singly ionized K-shell state. The load-bearing identity is that the energy difference between the $K^1_{\alpha\alpha}$ and $K^1_{\alpha}$ lines equals the energy difference between the $K^2_{\alpha\alpha}$ and $K^2_{\alpha}$ lines, both being 1.545 keV, so any bremsstrahlung photon above that threshold can promote a single K-shell vacancy to a double one. The paper defines the survival probability $P_{\rm sur}$ as the ratio of measured to theoretical K x-ray production cross section, and the conversion probability $P_{\rm con}$ as the ratio of the combined $K^h_\alpha$ plus $K_{\alpha\alpha}$ yield to the annihilated $K_\alpha$ yield, which comes out to 0.0966. Together with the theoretical cross sections, these two quantities reproduce the measured ratio of the 1.8 MeV to 2.1 MeV x-ray yields, 0.315.

What would settle it

Measure the aluminum $K_\alpha$ and $K_{\alpha\alpha}$ yields from the same neon-on-aluminum collision while suppressing bremsstrahlung, for example by using a much thinner target or a magnetic field that deflects secondary electrons; if the $K_{\alpha\alpha}/K_\alpha$ ratio does not drop when the bremsstrahlung background is reduced, the photoionization mechanism is not the cause. Alternatively, recompute the theoretical K x-ray production cross sections with an independent model; if the true cross section is close to the measured 360 mb, the deficit disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in low-energy heavy-ion collisions on solids, the intense bremsstrahlung background produced in the collision acts as a second ionizer. A K-shell vacancy created by the ion collision is, with high probability, converted by a bremsstrahlung photon into a double K-shell vacancy before the $K_\alpha$ photon is emitted. This single-to-double K vacancy conversion redirects the radiative decay: instead of $K_\alpha$, the atom emits $K^h_\alpha$ and $K_{\alpha\alpha}$ lines, the latter being a two-electron one-photon transition. The paper argues that this explains three otherwise puzzling observations: the aluminum $K_\alpha$ intensity is strongly suppressed, the $K_{\alpha\alpha}$ line appears at 2.1 MeV even though collisional shake-down cannot produce it at such low energy, and the measured ratio of $K_\alpha$ to $K_{\alpha\alpha}$ intensity is 82 rather than the theoretical 247.

Load-bearing premise

The entire quantitative case rests on the assumption that the authors' own theoretical K x-ray production cross sections (1999 mb at 2.1 MeV, 815 mb at 1.8 MeV) are accurate; if those numbers are too high, the claimed 82% annihilation shrinks or vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Measured K x-ray production cross sections in low-energy ion-solid collisions have been systematically low because the K-alpha yield is depleted before emission; the survival probability quantifies the deficit.
  • K-alpha-alpha lines can appear at impact energies far below where collisional shake-down predicts them, so their presence is a diagnostic of intense bremsstrahlung in the collision environment.
  • The same bremsstrahlung photoionization channel should be included when interpreting K x-ray spectra from plasmas, tokamak runaway-electron events, and astrophysical sources.
  • Earlier experiments with oxygen, argon, krypton, and xenon ions that reported K x-ray deficits show the survival probability rising toward unity with target atomic number, consistent with the new mechanism's Z-dependence.
  • The unidentified 3.62 keV emission line in the Perseus cluster may be a silicon two-electron one-photon line rather than an argon dielectronic recombination line.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the mechanism is real, the fluorescence yield of a K-shell vacancy is not a fixed atomic property in dense collision environments; it depends on the local bremsstrahlung fluence, which would complicate elemental abundance estimates from x-ray line ratios.
  • Editorial inference: A direct experimental test would be to vary the bremsstrahlung fluence independently, for example by changing the target thickness or by adding a magnetic field to deflect secondary electrons, and checking whether the K-alpha-alpha to K-alpha ratio tracks the fluence.
  • Editorial inference: The same single-to-double vacancy conversion should also affect K-beta and hypersatellite lines in other low-Z targets, so published spectra with "missing" K-beta intensity could be re-examined for the signature.
  • Editorial inference: The 1.545 keV threshold is specific to aluminum; for other target elements, the corresponding threshold would predict which bremsstrahlung photons matter, offering a testable scaling law.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes x-ray spectra from 1.8 and 2.1 MeV Ne6+ impacts on an Al target, identifying Kα, Kαh, and Kαα (two-electron one-photon) lines with the help of FAC and GRASP atomic-structure calculations. The authors report that the measured Al K x-ray production cross sections are much smaller than theoretical estimates from their own model (115 and 360 mb vs. 815 and 1999 mb), and they attribute the deficit to a new process: bremsstrahlung-induced photoionization that converts singly ionized K-shell states into doubly ionized K-shell states. On this basis they claim that about 82% of the Kα yield at 2.1 MeV is annihilated and converted to Kαα and Kαh emission with a probability of 0.0966. The paper also extrapolates the mechanism to earlier experiments and to an astrophysical unidentified line.

Significance. If established, the claimed bremsstrahlung-induced secondary photoionization would be a genuinely new channel in low-energy ion-solid collisions and would force a reinterpretation of many measured K x-ray cross sections. The paper has clear strengths: the spectral analysis is careful, with an internal calibration using P and Cl K-edge absorption dips; the FAC/GRASP transition-energy and rate calculations are compared with earlier theoretical and experimental results; and the comparison of the measured Kαα/Kαh branching ratio with theory in Section IV.B is a meaningful, non-circular validation. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the analysis as written. The survival probability is defined by an inverted equation, the supposedly confirming ratio in Eq. (2) is algebraically tautological, and the proposed mechanism is never confronted with a photon-flux or rate estimate. These are load-bearing defects, not presentation issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.C, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) defines Psur = estimated σxK / measured σxK, but with the numbers quoted in the text (estimated 1999 mb, measured 360 mb at 2.1 MeV) this gives 5.55, not 0.18. The text then uses Psur = 0.18 = 360/1999, i.e., the reciprocal of the written definition. The same inversion occurs at 1.8 MeV (115/815 = 0.14). Since the 82% annihilation claim is defined as 1 − Psur, the central quantitative quantity of the paper is internally inconsistent as written.
  2. [§IV.C, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is offered as a confirmation that the bremsstrahlung mechanism explains the measured yield ratio, but it is algebraically tautological. If Psur(E) is read as the measured-to-theoretical cross-section ratio (as the text actually uses it), then σxK(E) × Psur(E) equals the measured K x-ray production cross section at each energy. Equation (2) therefore reduces to (measured 115 mb)/(measured 360 mb) = 0.319, which is exactly the measured yield ratio of 0.315 ± 0.008 quoted in Table VI. Agreement with the measured value is thus guaranteed by construction and provides no independent evidence for the proposed photoionization mechanism.
  3. [§IV.C, bremsstrahlung photoionization mechanism] The mechanism is never quantified. The manuscript states that bremsstrahlung photons with energies ≥ 1.545 keV can convert singly K-vacant Al states to doubly K-vacant states, but it gives no estimate of the bremsstrahlung photon flux at those energies, no photoionization cross section for the K-vacant ion, and no comparison with the K-shell vacancy decay rate. For 82% of K-shell vacancies to be photoionized before radiative decay, the required flux at ~1.55 keV is of order 10^33–10^34 photons cm^-2 s^-1 given the femtosecond K-shell lifetime; the paper provides no evidence that the observed bremsstrahlung background approaches such a flux. Without such a rate estimate, the claim that bremsstrahlung is the underlying physical process is quantitatively unsupported.
  4. [§IV.C, theoretical K x-ray cross sections] The entire deficit rests on the theoretical K x-ray production cross sections of 815 mb (1.8 MeV) and 1999 mb (2.1 MeV), taken from the authors' own model (refs. [37,38]). No independent benchmark for this collision system is given, and no uncertainty is assigned to the theoretical values. Because the annihilation fraction is defined as 1 − (measured/theoretical), a model overestimate of even a factor ~2 would eliminate the claimed effect entirely. The sentence 'This theoretical estimate is very accurate' does not substitute for validation. The central inference therefore depends on an unverified input.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'In contrast, the Kαα lines in the target ions are also well observed with 2.1 MeV energy' is confusing: the contrast should be that projectile Kαα appears only at 1.8 MeV, whereas target Kαα appears at 2.1 MeV. Please rephrase.
  2. [§IV.C, after Eq. (3)] The conversion probability Pcon is quoted as 0.0966 with no uncertainty, and the branching-ratio estimate of 0.027 is given without an error bar. Given that these numbers are used to explain the absence of Al Kαα at 1.8 MeV, their uncertainties should be stated.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption refers to 'vertical lines in A as well as C' marking K-edge absorption features, but the features appear as dips in the bremsstrahlung background, not lines. Please clarify the notation.
  4. [General] There are numerous typographical inconsistencies, including 'Mev' for 'MeV' (e.g., in Table VI and surrounding text), 'Fac' for 'FAC', and an incomplete reference [22] that gives only the software name. These should be corrected.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The 82% annihilation claim reduces to an algebraic identity: Eq. (2) reproduces the measured K x-ray ratio by construction, and the theoretical baseline is set by the authors' own cross-section model.

  1. self definitional [Section IV C, Eq. (1)]
    "Let us define this ratio as the survival probability of the Kα x-rays (Psur) as follows: Psur = estimated σxK / measured σxK (1) ... Therefore, Eqn.1 gives a measure of Psur for neon-aluminum collisions at 2.1 MeV; it is only 0.18."

    As printed, Eq. (1) gives 1999/360 = 5.55 at 2.1 MeV, not 0.18; the text silently uses the reciprocal. In either form, Psur is not an independently measured quantity: the claimed annihilation fraction 1 - Psur is just a restatement of the ratio between the authors' theoretical K x-ray cross section and the measured one. The magnitude of the 'new process' is therefore definitionally tied to that theoretical baseline.

  2. self definitional [Section IV C, Eq. (2)]
    "RxY = σxK at 1.8 MeV × Psur at 1.8 MeV / σxK at 2.1 MeV × Psur at 2.1 MeV = 0.317. This estimated RxY is extremely close to the measured value o.315±0.008 as shown in Table VI. Thus, we proved here that the above assumption is in fact a physical phenomenon..."

    Substituting the values the text actually uses, Psur(1.8) = 115/815 and Psur(2.1) = 360/1999, the right-hand side of Eq. (2) becomes (815 × 115/815)/(1999 × 360/1999) = 115/360 = 0.319. This is exactly the measured ratio of K x-ray cross sections at the two beam energies, and it matches the measured normalized K x-ray peak ratio 0.315. The agreement is an algebraic identity, not an independent confirmation of the bremsstrahlung-photoionization hypothesis.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section IV C, paragraph beginning 'Past works, for example Khan et al.[36]...']
    "We have applied theoretical approach similar to Kaur et al.[37] to estimate the x-ray production cross sections ... This theory [38] takes account ... so correctly that theoretical estimates are well aligned with experimentally measured x-ray production cross sections [38, 39]. The estimated K x-ray production cross section for the collision of 105 keV/u Ne beam on Al-target turns out to be 1999 mb."

    The quantitative foundation of the paper is the deficit between measured K x-ray yield and the expected yield: 'the measured cross section is only 0.18 × the theoretical cross section.' That expectation comes from the authors' own model (Refs. [37]-[39] share authors with this paper), and the only accuracy support cited for the model at these cross sections is the same self-referenced work. The 82% annihilation is thus inherited from a self-citation chain rather than established by an external benchmark in this paper.

full rationale

The spectral analysis and FAC/GRASP transition-energy comparisons are largely self-contained and not circular: they are checked against earlier experimental energies and independent atomic-structure codes. The circularity is concentrated in the quantitative mechanism claim in Sec. IV C. The survival probability Psur is defined from the ratio of measured to the authors' theoretical K x-ray cross section (Eq. (1), printed inverted but used as its reciprocal), so the claimed 82% annihilation is just a restatement of that ratio. Equation (2), offered as the proof of the bremsstrahlung-photoionization assumption, substitutes these definitions and reduces to the measured 1.8-to-2.1 MeV K x-ray intensity ratio (115/360 = 0.319 vs. 0.315), making the 'prediction' an identity. The theoretical cross sections (815 mb and 1999 mb) come from the same group's model (Refs. [37]-[39]), and their accuracy is supported within this paper only by those self-citations. Hence the central quantitative claim is forced by definition and self-citation, even though the line identifications themselves are independently testable.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities, but its central claim rests on several parameters and assumptions that are either pulled from the authors' own prior work or invoked ad hoc. The most consequential is the theoretical cross-section baseline from ref [38], which determines the 82% deficit. The assumed bremsstrahlung photoionization flux and the detector efficiency correction are additional load-bearing premises that are not independently established.

free parameters (3)
  • Theoretical K x-ray production cross sections = 815 mb (1.8 MeV), 1999 mb (2.1 MeV)
    Taken from the authors' own model (ref [38]); these baselines define the Psur values and the claimed 82% deficit. Any error in these cross sections directly changes the central claim.
  • K x-ray fluorescence yield = 0.0365 ± 0.0025
    Used in the theoretical cross-section estimate; taken from prior literature (ref [38]). The uncertainty is not propagated into the reported Psur values.
  • Fermi velocity of Al = 1.599 × 10^6 m/s
    Input to the theoretical cross-section model, taken from ref [40]; not independently verified in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FAC and GRASP atomic structure calculations correctly assign every observed line to the listed transitions.
    Line identification depends entirely on theoretical transition energies and rates; the detector resolution (FWHM ~124 eV at Mn K-alpha) is insufficient to resolve the closely spaced components listed in Tables II and III.
  • domain assumption The theoretical K x-ray production cross-section model of ref [38] is accurate for 105 keV/u Ne on Al.
    The 82% deficit is defined relative to this model. The model is not benchmarked against independent calculations or data in this paper, and the authors are the same group.
  • ad hoc to paper The bremsstrahlung photon flux at energies ≥1.545 keV is sufficient to photoionize a large fraction of K-shell vacancies within their radiative lifetime.
    No measurement or calculation of the bremsstrahlung flux or the photoionization rate is presented. The paper only notes that K-edge absorption dips (P, Cl) prove photons are present at those energies.
  • domain assumption The efficiency correction for the SDD detector is accurate enough to derive the 82:1 intensity ratio between K-alpha and K-alpha-alpha.
    The K-alpha lines fall near the Al K-edge where the quantum efficiency is acknowledged to be difficult to determine; the fitted efficiency equation from ref [34] is used without a stated uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Pile-up of multiple low-energy X-rays does not contribute to the observed K-alpha-alpha peaks.
    Pile-up at 2×K-alpha and K-alpha+Kh-alpha would produce peaks near 3.0-3.1 keV, overlapping the claimed K-alpha-alpha peaks; no pile-up analysis or discussion is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bremsstrahlung induced atomic processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGDN7R26

@misc{pith2026250102967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bremsstrahlung induced atomic processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGDN7R26}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02967}
}
read the original abstract

The observed spectra in the collisions of neon (Ne) projectiles of 1.8 and 2.1 MeV with an aluminum target (Al) have been successfully segregated from strong bremsstrahlung backgrounds and then analyzed by comparing the transition energies and rates with the theoretical predictions of the flexible atomic structure code and the general purpose relativistic atomic structure package. The spectra contain K{\alpha}, Kh{\alpha} , and K{\alpha}{\alpha} lines. The K{\alpha}{\alpha} emissions are due to two-electron one-photon transitions. Interestingly, the K{\alpha}{\alpha} lines in projectile ions are only seen with 1.8 MeV energy. In contrast, the K{\alpha}{\alpha} lines in the target ions are also well observed with 2.1 MeV energy. Surprisingly, the Al K x-ray line intensities are strongly suppressed, and the K{\alpha}{\alpha} line intensities are unexpectedly enhanced. The underlying physical process is found to be the photoionization caused by intense bremsstrahlung radiation. This photoionization process converts most of the singly ionized K shell states (\approx 82\% at 2.1 MeV) to doubly ionized K shell states. This phenomenon is silently present on many occasions. We take some of such events to validate this remarkable finding. This bremsstrahlung radiation induced secondary ionization process stands as an eye opening incidence to the plasma physics, astronomy and astrophysics communities; may revolutionize these fields of research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02967 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the two-electron one-photon transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The lines in blue (A and C) represent the background spectra of the Ne ions on Al-target at 1.8 (A) and 2.1 MeV (C), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The signal regions shown in Fig.2 are more clearly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Here, we can see how large this disagreement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Experimental to theoretical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    M. Kaur, S. Chatterjee, and T. Nandi, Toward a full understanding of the physics of heavy-ion-induced inner- shell ionization, Physical Review A 111, 042827 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Heisenberg, Zur quantentheorie der multiplettstruk- tur und der anomalen zeemaneffekte, Z

    W. Heisenberg, Zur quantentheorie der multiplettstruk- tur und der anomalen zeemaneffekte, Z. Phys. 32, 841 (1925)

    work page 1925

  3. [2]

    Condon, The theory of complex spectra, Physical Re- view 36, 1121 (1930)

    E. Condon, The theory of complex spectra, Physical Re- view 36, 1121 (1930)

    work page 1930

  4. [3]

    Goudsmit and L

    S. Goudsmit and L. Gropper, Many-electron selection rules, Physical Review 38, 225 (1931)

    work page 1931

  5. [4]

    W¨ olfli, C

    W. W¨ olfli, C. Stoller, G. Bonani, M. Suter, and M. St¨ ockli, Two-electron-one-photon transitions in heavy-ion collisions, Physical Review Letters 35, 656 (1975)

    work page 1975

  6. [5]

    ˚Aberg, K

    T. ˚Aberg, K. Jamison, and P. Richard, Origin of two- electron, one-photon k—x-ray transitions, Physical Re- view Letters 37, 63 (1976)

    work page 1976

  7. [6]

    W¨ olfli and H

    W. W¨ olfli and H. D. Betz, Calculation of two-electron, one-photon k—x-ray transition energies, Physical Review Letters 37, 61 (1976)

    work page 1976

  8. [7]

    Nagel, P

    D. Nagel, P. Burkhalter, A. Knudson, and K. Hill, Two- electron, one-photon k x-ray transition energies, Physical Review Letters 36, 164 (1976)

    work page 1976

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Knudson, K

    A. Knudson, K. Hill, P. Burkhalter, and D. Nagel, En- ergies and relative intensities of k α αx-ray transitions, Physical Review Letters 37, 679 (1976)

    1976

  2. [9]

    Stoller, W

    C. Stoller, W. W¨ olfli, G. Bonani, M. St¨ ockli, and M. Suter, Two-electron one-photon transitions into the doubly ionized k shell, Physical Review A 15, 990 (1977)

    1977

  3. [10]

    Auerhammer, H

    J. Auerhammer, H. Genz, A. Kumar, and A. Richter, Two-electron–one-photon transition in aluminum follow- ing double-k-shell ionization, Physical Review A 38, 688 (1988)

    1988

  4. [11]

    T. K. Mukherjee, J. Ghosh, and S. Sengupta, Branching ratio of two-electron–one-photon transitions in doubly ionized low-z atoms, Physical Review A 42, 3125 (1990)

    1990

  5. [12]

    Mukherjee and P

    T. Mukherjee and P. Mukherjee, Two electron one pho- ton transitions in atomic systems, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters 42, 29 (1997)

    1997

  6. [13]

    Diamant, S

    R. Diamant, S. Huotari, K. H¨ am¨ al¨ ainen, C. Kao, and M. Deutsch, Cu k h α 1, 2 hypersatellites: Suprathresh- old evolution of a hollow-atom x-ray spectrum, Physical Review A 62, 052519 (2000)

    2000

  7. [14]

    Briand, Two-electron, one-photon transition energies, Physical Review Letters 37, 59 (1976)

    J. Briand, Two-electron, one-photon transition energies, Physical Review Letters 37, 59 (1976)

    1976

  8. [15]

    Kadrekar and L

    R. Kadrekar and L. Natarajan, Two-electron one-photon transitions in atoms with 12≤ z ≤ 80, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 43, 155001 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    Togawa, S

    M. Togawa, S. Kuhn, C. Shah, P. Amaro, R. Steinbrugge, J. Stierhof, N. Hell, M. Rosner, K. Fujii, M. Bissinger, et al., Observation of strong two-electron–one-photon transitions in few-electron ions, Physical Review A 102, 052831 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    M. F. Gu, The flexible atomic code, Canadian Journal of Physics 86, 675 (2008)

    2008

  11. [18]

    Andriamonje, H

    S. Andriamonje, H. Andr¨ a, and A. Simionovici, Two electron-one photon x-ray emission in slow collisions be- tween fully stripped ions and solids, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters 21, S349 (1991)

    1991

  12. [19]

    Mukherjee, T

    T. Mukherjee, T. Ghosh, and P. Mukherjee, On the inter- pretation of two electron-one photon transitions in slow collisions between fully stripped ions and solid target, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters 33, 7 (1995)

    1995

  13. [20]

    Kato, Highly charged ions from solar flares, Physica Scripta 1997, 98 (1997)

    T. Kato, Highly charged ions from solar flares, Physica Scripta 1997, 98 (1997)

    1997

  14. [21]

    P. Beiersdorfer, Highly charged ions in magnetic fusion plasmas: research opportunities and diagnostic necessi- ties, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 48, 144017 (2015)

    2015

  15. [22]

    FREEDOM, acquisition and analysis software, de- signed to support accelerator based experiments at the iuac, New Delhi, India

    D. FREEDOM, acquisition and analysis software, de- signed to support accelerator based experiments at the iuac, New Delhi, India

  16. [23]

    Grant, B

    I. Grant, B. McKenzie, P. Norrington, D. Mayers, and N. Pyper, Atomic multiconfigurational dirac-fock pack- age, Comput. Phys. Commun.;(Netherlands) 21 (1980)

    1980

  17. [24]

    Kumar, S

    N. Kumar, S. Shivankar, A. K. S. Jha, M. Dimri, D. Dawra, and M. Mohan, Relativistic atomic structure calculations, plasma and thermodynamic parameters for ca x, The European Physical Journal Plus 138, 1155 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Fl¨ ors, R

    A. Fl¨ ors, R. F. Silva, J. Deprince, H. Carva- jal Gallego, G. Leck, L. J. Shingles, G. Mart ´ ınez- Pinedo, J. M. Sampaio, P. Amaro, J. P. Marques, S. Goriely, P. Quinet, P. Palmeri, and M. Godefroid, Opacities of singly and doubly ionized neodymium and uranium for kilonova ...

    2023

  19. [26]

    Gavrila and J

    M. Gavrila and J. Hansen, Calculation of k α αand khα transition rates, Physics Letters A 58, 158 (1976)

    1976

  20. [27]

    Winick, X-ray data booklet, X-RAY DATA BOOK- LET (2009)

    H. Winick, X-ray data booklet, X-RAY DATA BOOK- LET (2009). 11

    2009

  21. [28]

    J. Saha, T. Mukherjee, S. Fritzsche, and P. Mukherjee, The effect of a 2s vacancy on two-electron–one-photon lines: Relativistic approach, Physics Letters A 373, 252 (2009)

    2009

  22. [29]

    Martins, A

    M. Martins, A. Costa, J. Santos, F. Parente, and P. Indel- icato, Relativistic calculation of two-electron one-photon and hypersatellite transition energies for 12 ≤ z≤ 30 ele- ments, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics 37, 3785 (2004)

    2004

  23. [30]

    M. H. Chen, B. Crasemann, and H. Mark, Relativistic k-shell auger rates, level widths, and fluorescence yields, Physical Review A 21, 436 (1980)

    1980

  24. [31]

    M. H. Chen, Auger transition rates and fluorescence yields for the double-k-hole state, Physical Review A 44, 239 (1991)

    1991

  25. [32]

    Franke and J

    R. Franke and J. Hormes, The p k-near edge absorp- tion spectra of phosphates, Physica B: Condensed Matter 216, 85 (1995)

    1995

  26. [33]

    S. A. Kozimor, P. Yang, E. R. Batista, K. S. Boland, C. J. Burns, D. L. Clark, S. D. Conradson, R. L. Martin, M. P. Wilkerson, and L. E. Wolfsberg, Trends in cova- lency for d-and f-element metallocene dichlorides identi- fied using chlorine k-edge x-ray absorption spectroscop...

    2009

  27. [34]

    Ahmad, R

    C. Ahmad, R. Gupta, K. Chakraborty, D. Swami, and P. Verma, Inner-shell ionisation of xeq+–au and pb col- lision systems: Mo picture, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interac- tions with Materials and Atoms 531, 9 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    Bakhtiari, G

    M. Bakhtiari, G. Kramer, M. Takechi, H. Tamai, Y. Miura, Y. Kusama, and Y. Kamada, Role of bremsstrahlung radiation in limiting the energy of run- away electrons in tokamaks, Physical review letters 94, 215003 (2005)

    2005

  29. [36]

    J. Khan, D. Potter, and R. Worley, Studies in x-ray pro- duction by proton bombardment of c, mg, al, nd, sm, gd, tb, dy, and ho, Physical Review 139, A1735 (1965)

    1965

  30. [37]

    M. Kaur, S. Kumar, and T. Nandi, Understanding the electron capture mechanisms during heavy-ion collisions, Physical Review A 108, 052817 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Chatterjee, P

    S. Chatterjee, P. Sharma, S. Singh, M. Oswal, S. Kumar, C. Montanari, D. Mitra, and T. Nandi, Significance of the high charge state of projectile ions inside the target and its role in electron capture leading to target-ionization phenomena, Physical Review A 104, 022810 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Gall, Electron mean free path in elemental metals, Journal of Applied Physics 119, 085101 (2016)

    D. Gall, Electron mean free path in elemental metals, Journal of Applied Physics 119, 085101 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Brandt, R

    W. Brandt, R. Laubert, M. Mourino, and A. Schwarzschild, Dynamic screening of projectile charges in solids measured by target x-ray emission, Physical Review Letters 30, 358 (1973)

    1973

  34. [42]

    Gorlachev, N

    I. Gorlachev, N. Gluchshenko, I. Ivanov, A. Kireyev, S. Kozin, A. Kurakhmedov, A. Platov, and M. Zdorovets, K-, l-and m-shell x-ray productions induced by oxygen ions in the 0.8–1.6 mev/amu range, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam In- teractio...

    2016

  35. [43]

    Gluchshenko, I

    N. Gluchshenko, I. Gorlachev, I. Ivanov, A. Kireyev, S. Kozin, A. Kurakhmedov, A. Platov, and M. Zdorovets, K-, l-and m-shell x-ray productions induced by argon ions in the 0.8–1.6 mev/amu range, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interac- tion...

    2016

  36. [44]

    Gorlachev, N

    I. Gorlachev, N. Gluchshenko, I. Ivanov, A. Kireyev, V. Alexandrenko, A. Kurakhmedov, A. Platov, and M. Zdorovets, K-, l-and m-shell x-ray productions in- duced by krypton ions in the 0.8–1.6 mev/amu range, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam In...

    2017

  37. [45]

    Gorlachev, V

    I. Gorlachev, V. Alexandrenko, N. Gluchshenko, I. Ivanov, A. Kireyev, M. Krasnopyorova, A. Kurakhme- dov, A. Platov, and M. Zdorovets, K-, l-and m-shell x-ray productions induced by xenon ions, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam In- teractions ...

    2018

  38. [46]

    Bulbul, M

    E. Bulbul, M. Markevitch, A. Foster, R. K. Smith, M. Loewenstein, and S. W. Randall, Detection of an unidentified emission line in the stacked x-ray spectrum of galaxy clusters, The Astrophysical Journal 789, 13 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    W. Xu, R. A. Marshall, X. Fang, E. Turunen, and A. Kero, On the effects of bremsstrahlung radiation during energetic electron precipitation, Geophysical Re- search Letters 45, 1167 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Lamoureux and N

    M. Lamoureux and N. Avdonina, Bremsstrahlung in hot plasmas with partially ionized atoms, Physical Review E 55, 912 (1997)

    1997

  41. [49]

    Milder, H

    A. Milder, H. Le, M. Sherlock, P. Franke, J. Katz, S. Ivancic, J. Shaw, J. Palastro, A. Hansen, I. Begishev, et al., Evolution of the electron distribution function in the presence of inverse bremsstrahlung heating and col- lisional ionization, Physical Review Letters 124, 025...

    2020

  42. [50]

    M. G. Baring, F. C. Jones, and D. C. Ellison, Inverse bremsstrahlung in shocked astrophysicalplasmas, The Astrophysical Journal 528, 776 (2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    J. F. Ziegler, M. D. Ziegler, and J. P. Biersack, Srim– the stopping and range of ions in matter (2010), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 268, 1818 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Hoszowska, J.-C

    J. Hoszowska, J.-C. Dousse, J. Szlachetko, Y. Kayser, W. Cao, P. Jagodzi´ nski, M. Kavˇ ciˇ c, and S. Nowak, First observation of two-electron one-photon transitions in single-photon k-shell double ionization, Physical re- view letters 107, 053001 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Schlosser, P

    D. Schlosser, P. Lechner, G. Lutz, A. Niculae, H. Soltau, L. Str¨ uder, R. Eckhardt, K. Hermenau, G. Schaller, F. Schopper, et al., Expanding the detection efficiency of silicon drift detectors, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spe...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.