Frequently Used References For Atomic Data In X-ray Spectroscopy

(2) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center); A. J. Fairchild (1); C. A. Kilbourne (2); F. S. Porter (2); G. V. Brown (1); M. A. Leutenegger (2); M. C. Witthoeft (2) ((1) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; M. E. Eckart (1); N. Hell (1)

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Frequently Used References For Atomic Data In X-ray Spectroscopy

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper curates reference atomic data for X-ray K-shell lines and presents four tables that it offers as best-available energies and line shapes for calibration and diagnostics.

desk verdict Useful reference compilation undermined by corrupted Table 1 entries; needs correction before calibration use. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17106 v1 pith:5L4QJUW7 submitted 2025-06-20 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEphysics.atom-phphysics.plasm-ph

N. Hell (1) , G. V. Brown (1) , M. E. Eckart (1) , A. J. Fairchild (1) , C. A. Kilbourne (2) , M. A. Leutenegger (2) , F. S. Porter (2) , M. C. Witthoeft (2) ((1) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

show 1 more author

(2) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEphysics.atom-phphysics.plasm-ph

keywords X-rayspectroscopyatomictransitionenergiesK-shelltransitionsH-likeionsHe-likeLi-likefluorescencelineshapesenergycalibration

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 argues that a small set of curated atomic-physics references, condensed into four quick-look tables, gives the community ready-to-use values for the K-shell lines most often used in X-ray spectroscopy: transition energies for H-, He-, and Li-like ions, and line positions and shapes for neutral fluorescence lines. The authors intend these tables to serve as a first-stop resource for plasma diagnostics and, in particular, for energy-scale calibration of high-resolution spectrometers, since the H- and He-like energies come from what they consider the best available calculations. If the tables are accurate, a user can adopt the printed values directly, with citation to the original calculations, rather than re-deriving or hunting through the literature. The document also supplies constants, unit-conversion conventions, branching-ratio references, and notation conventions that make the tables self-consistent.

What carries the argument

The carrying objects are the four quick-look tables. Table 1 lists Ly-series transition energies for H-like ions from hydrogen through darmstadtium; Table 2 lists He-like K-shell Rydberg-series energies (He-$\alpha$ through He-zeta plus series limits) from helium through fermium; Table 3 lists Li-like K-$\alpha$ energies for carbon through uranium; Table 4 lists energies, Lorentzian FWHM widths, and relative amplitudes for neutral K-$\alpha$ and K-$\beta$ fluorescence lines, mostly as sums of two to eight Lorentzians. The tables are tied to specific source references and, for the neutrals, to empirical solid-target measurements. The supporting constants section fixes the wavelength-energy conversion at $E\lambda = 12398.41984\ \mathrm{eV\,\AA}$ and the line-width-rate conversion at $\Delta E/A = \hbar$, making the tables internally consistent.

What would settle it

Inspect the Ni Ly$\beta_2$ entry in Table 1: the printed value 11973.2173 eV is larger than the adjacent Ly$\gamma_1$ value 11444.2486 eV and far above the same row's Ly$\beta_1$ value 9586.0644 eV; recomputing that transition from Erickson (1977) with the Yerokhin and Shabaev (2015) ground state will show whether the entry is a transcription error and whether the table can be trusted for calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is a practical one: Tables 1 through 4 assemble the reference data that X-ray spectroscopists most frequently need, and the H- and He-like transition energies in Tables 1 and 2 are the best currently available reference energies, accurate enough for energy-scale calibration. Table 4 provides empirical multi-Lorentzian models for neutral K-alpha and K-beta line shapes, based on very high-resolution laboratory measurements of solid targets, and the paper states that this neutral table is consistent with the reference used for the energy-gain scale calibration of the XRISM/Resolve instrument. The paper is not deriving new atomic physics; it is certifying a selection of existing calculations and measurements, including explicit corrections and caveats that neutral line shapes are source-dependent and of lower accuracy than the highly charged ion lines.

Load-bearing premise

The reliable use of every printed value depends on the compilers having transcribed the cited calculations without error and on their choice of 'best' reference being right, because the tables list no uncertainties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

High-resolution X-ray observatories can use the H- and He-like energies in Tables 1 and 2 as reference lines for gain-scale calibration without recomputing QED corrections.
Analysts modeling K-shell emission from astrophysical plasmas can assign line identifications and measure Doppler or velocity shifts using a single consistent set of energies rather than a scattered literature.
The neutral line-shape table provides a ready-made parameterization for fitting K-alpha and K-beta fluorescence from cold material, directly comparable with the reference used for the Resolve instrument's calibration.
The branching-ratio references and formulas define a standard route from radiative and Auger rates to fluorescence yields and branching ratios for K-shell transitions in ions.
The explicit historical table for $hc$ warns users that older papers' energy conversions may differ by up to about 0.1 eV, so calibration work should use the defined 2018 or 2022 constant and note which constants older measurements used.

Reading between the lines

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

If transcription errors exist in any table (for example the Ni Ly$\beta_2$ entry in Table 1, which is larger than the adjacent Ly$\gamma_1$ value in the same row), users who copy values without checking the original references will silently propagate those errors into calibration; a machine-readable table with uncertainties would reduce that risk.
The 'best available' status is time-limited: improved QED calculations for high-Z ions or new absolute measurements could supersede these values, so the tables should be treated as a snapshot that needs periodic revision rather than a permanent standard.
Because the neutral line shapes come from solid targets, applying them to gas or dust in astrophysical sources inherits systematic shifts from chemical and excitation effects; comparing the table models against high-resolution spectra of gas-phase species or different excitation mechanisms would test their transferability.
The omission of uncertainties from tables recommended for calibration is itself a practical hazard: users cannot propagate calibration error into derived physical quantities unless they return to the source papers.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a practical quick-reference compilation with a real flaw. Tables 1 and 2 are the reason to use this paper, and Table 1 has at least one corrupted row, so it cannot serve as a calibration resource as printed. The underlying idea is sound, the source list is solid, and the paper is honest about what it is. But the main selling point—state-of-the-art transition energies ready for energy-scale calibration—is undercut by transcription errors and missing uncertainties.

What is actually new: not much scientifically. The paper compiles published CODATA constants, Yerokhin et al., Erickson, Holzer, and others, and reformats them into convenient tables. It also gives parameterized Lorentzian models for neutral fluorescence lines, including some refits (Mn K-alpha) and one hand-adjusted Rb width. That is incremental, but a well-curated collection is genuinely useful to the X-ray spectroscopy community, especially for XRISM/Resolve calibration work.

Credit where due: the authors are explicit that this is a resource, not a new result. They list sources with DOIs and ADS links and include caveats about source-dependent line shapes and the lower accuracy of neutral data. That is the right framing, and the citation pattern looks clean—the values come from independent published calculations.

Soft spots: the load-bearing problem is Table 1. In the Ni row, Ly-beta-2 is printed as 11973.2173 eV and Ly-gamma-1 as 11444.2486 eV, while the series limit is 10775.3948 eV. A bound transition cannot exceed the ionization limit, and n=4 cannot lie above n=3. The K row also has Ly-beta-1 below Ly-beta-2, which is the wrong ordering. These are not judgment calls; they are transcription errors. Since the table's stated purpose is direct use for calibration, even a single such error means the table as printed fails that purpose. The whole table needs systematic checking against the source papers before anyone uses it. I also note that the calibration tables carry no uncertainties, which is a strange omission for a document aimed at calibrating high-resolution instruments. Table 4's hand-adjusted Rb width is flagged, which is honest, but it is still an undocumented tweak.

Who this is for: working X-ray spectroscopists and instrument teams who need a quick entry point to the literature. They will get value from the reference list and the neutral-line-shape models, but only after the errors are fixed and a machine-readable version with uncertainties is provided.

I would send this to peer review with a request for heavy revision—specifically, recompute or re-transcribe every table entry, add uncertainties, and state the verification procedure. A corrected version deserves to be in the literature.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a curated compilation of references and quick-look tables for atomic data used in X-ray spectroscopy, covering physical constants, laboratory benchmarks, K-shell transition energies for H-, He-, and Li-like ions, positions and line shapes of neutral fluorescence lines, radiative branching ratios, and transition notation. The stated purpose is to provide a practical resource for plasma diagnostics and energy-scale calibration, with the authors asserting that the H-, He-, and Li-like transition energies in Tables 1–3 are state-of-the-art calculations currently considered the best available. The neutral line-shape table (Table 4) is explicitly flagged as empirical and source-dependent. The data are drawn from external peer-reviewed publications, and the compilation is presented as consistent with XRISM/Resolve calibration use.

Significance. If the tables are accurately transcribed and the selection of references is appropriate, this document would be a genuinely convenient resource for X-ray astronomers and instrumentalists, particularly for high-resolution calorimeter missions such as XRISM/Resolve. The paper's strengths include the choice of reputable primary sources (Yerokhin et al., CODATA, Hölzer et al., Bearden, Scofield), explicit caveats about the source-dependent nature of neutral line shapes, and clear pointer-style references with DOIs and ADS links. However, the central claim of calibration-ready tables is currently undermined by apparent transcription errors in Table 1, and the absence of uncertainties limits the tables' usefulness for calibration. The compilation is useful in concept but needs correction and verification before it can serve its advertised function.

major comments (2)

[Table 1, Z=28 and Z=105 rows] Table 1 contains physically impossible entries. In the Ni (Z=28) row, Lyβ2 is listed as 11973.2173 eV and Lyγ1 as 11444.2486 eV, both exceeding the tabulated series limit of 10775.3948 eV; Lyβ2 also exceeds Lyβ1 (9586.0644 eV), violating the expected ordering of the 3p1/2 and 3p3/2 fine-structure components. Similarly, the Db (Z=105) row lists Lyβ2 = 201657.7150 eV, which is larger than both the series limit (181444.5711 eV) and Lyβ1 (163893.3680 eV). These values cannot describe transitions to the ground state of an H-like ion. As printed, this table cannot be used for calibration, and the presence of errors in at least two rows indicates that a systematic verification of every entry against the cited source papers (Garcia & Mack 1965, Yerokhin & Shabaev 2015, Erickson 1977) is required before the table's central claim can be accepted.
[Tables 1–3] The tables recommended for energy-scale calibration list transition energies without any uncertainties. The abstract states that these energies are "high accuracy and thus typically used for energy scale calibration," but calibration requires a quantitative error budget. Even if the original cited papers provide uncertainties, the compiled tables should quote them or at least give a direct reference to where they can be obtained. The absence of uncertainties is a load-bearing omission for the stated calibration purpose, as users cannot propagate errors or assess consistency between independent calibration lines.

minor comments (3)

[Table 3, header row] The header of the first part of Table 3 reads "6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 15 16 17"; the second "12" should be "14" for the element sequence C, N, O, F, Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Cl.
[Table 4, F Kα entries] For F Kα the table lists two identical components at 676.8 eV with the same width and amplitudes 1.0 and 0.5. The footnote describes this as a "faked 2 Lorentzian mode"; consider clarifying in the table or text that this is a single unresolved line represented by two components to mimic the Kα1/Kα2 intensity ratio, so that users do not misinterpret it as a resolved doublet.
[Section Transition energies, H-like ions] The text says the Erickson (1977) values are "adjusted to the ground state of Yerokhin & Shabaev (2015)" but does not specify the adjustment procedure. A brief description or equation would make the compilation reproducible and would help users judge whether the adjustment affects the relative uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper is an externally sourced compilation with transparent adjustments and no derivation-to-input dependence.

full rationale

This paper is a curated bibliography and quick-look table compilation, not a derivation. Every tabulated value is explicitly attributed to an external published source (e.g., Garcia & Mack 1965, Yerokhin & Shabaev 2015, Yerokhin & Surzhykov 2019, Hölzer et al. 1997, Bearden 1967). The paper's central claim is that these are frequently used, state-of-the-art references for X-ray spectroscopy; the output is a transcription and organization of those cited calculations, so the output is not used to define or derive the input. The few places where the authors add their own processing are transparent and documented: Erickson (1977) Ly-beta through Ly-zeta values are 'adjusted to the ground state of Yerokhin & Shabaev (2015)' using an independent, more accurate ground-state calculation, and the Rb K-alpha-1 width in Table 4 is explicitly adjusted from 4.92 eV to 4.42 eV with a note explaining that the quoted value is an outlier to the Z-trend. These are disclosed corrections, not renamed predictions or fitted parameters presented as independent results. Self-citations appear (e.g., Beiersdorfer & Brown 2015, and the XRISM/Resolve calibration reference for the neutral table), but they point to external experimental benchmarks and calibration usage; they are not load-bearing arguments that substitute for independent evidence, and the central tabulated values come from outside the author team. The apparent Ni Ly-beta-2/Ly-gamma-1 misprint in Table 1, and the omission of uncertainties, are correctness and usability concerns rather than circularity concerns, because those values are not derived from the paper's own outputs or from a self-citation chain. No circular step can be exhibited from the manuscript text, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The only invented or adjusted items are empirical line-shape parameters and one manually adjusted width, listed as free parameters. The central claim rests on the accuracy of external sources and on the compilers' expert selection.

free parameters (2)

Rb K-alpha-1 Lorentzian width = 4.42 eV
The value from Krause and Oliver (1979) is 4.92 eV, which the authors call an outlier; they manually adjusted it to 4.42 eV to fit the Z-trend. This hand-chosen value is used in the Table 4 line-shape model for Rb.
F K-alpha line-shape model parameters = 676.8 eV, 0.20 eV width
The entry for F is described as a 'Faked 2 Lorentzian mode' with width extrapolated from Krause and Oliver (1979) and position from Bearden (1967). This is a constructed placeholder, not a measured model.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The cited sources (CODATA, Yerokhin et al., Holzer et al., etc.) are accurate and correctly transcribed.
The tables are direct transcriptions or compilations of values from the cited papers; if those sources contain errors or if transcription introduced errors (for example the apparent Ni Ly-beta-2 misprint), the tables inherit them.
domain assumption Empirical Lorentzian models measured on solid targets are usable for astrophysical neutral fluorescence lines.
The paper acknowledges that line shapes depend on excitation mechanism and chemical composition, but still provides solid-target-based models as the reference, with the caveat that they are lower accuracy.
domain assumption The compilers' selection of best available reference energies is accepted.
The claim that these are the best energies is an expert judgment, not derived or benchmarked within this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frequently Used References For Atomic Data In X-ray Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5L4QJUW7

@misc{pith2026250617106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frequently Used References For Atomic Data In X-ray Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5L4QJUW7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17106}
}

read the original abstract

Accurate atomic physics reference data are a crucial requirement for analysis and interpretation of observed spectra, even more so for observations with high spectral resolution. This document provides a curated list of atomic physics references frequently used for plasma diagnostics in X-ray spectroscopy, outside of comprehensive plasma models that typically come with their own underlying atomic databases. The list includes references to physical constants, laboratory benchmarks, transition energies, position and line shapes of neutral fluorescence lines, radiative branching ratios, and commonly used notation for prominent transitions. Quick-look tables for transition energies in H-, He-, and Li-like ions and line positions and shapes for fluorescence lines in neutrals. The main focus is on K-shell transitions. For the H- and He-like tables, we cite state-of-the art calculations that we consider currently the best available reference energies, which are considered high accuracy and thus typically used for energy scale calibration in laboratory measurements. Omissions in these tables are due to the lack of availability in the chosen references, and are not a statement about the relevance of these lines. Due to their complex and highly source-dependent line shape, the atomic data for neutrals is of lower accuracy than that for the highly charged ions, and the best reference data for these line shapes typically consist of empirical models derived from very high-resolution laboratory measurements. The table for neutrals provided here is consistent with the reference used for the energy gain scale calibration of XRISM/Resolve. This document is meant to serve as a resource to help find relevant references and conveniently formatted overview tables. When making use of the information found in these papers, credit should be given to their original authors by citing the appropriate references.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Sub-keV Electron Recoil Calibration for Macroscopic Cryogenic Calorimeters using a Novel X-ray Fluorescence Source
physics.ins-det 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A two-stage X-ray fluorescence source provides calibration lines from 677 eV to 8 keV, revealing a nonlinear response in a gram-scale cryogenic calorimeter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

0.6256 1 034.1798 1 034.2172 1 059.0036 1 059.0228 1 072.4860 1 072.4970 1 080.6144 1 080.6215 1 103.1172 10 Ne 1 021.4979 1 021.5180 1 021.9531 1 210.8267 1 210.9617 1 277.0733 1 277.1302 1 307.7282 1 307.7573 1 324.3769 1 324.3938 1 334.4140 1 334.4247 1 362.1989 11 Na 1 236.3072 1 236.3353 1 236.9742 1 465.4894 1 465.6870 1 545.6759 1 545.7594 1 582.77...

work page
[4]

Garcia & J.E

and series limit ( n =∞): J.D. Garcia & J.E. Mack (1965) JOSA 55, 654 – doi:10.1364/JOSA.55.000654 Z = 21–110: Ly α (n =

work page doi:10.1364/josa.55.000654 1965
[5]

Yerokhin & V.M

and series limit ( n =∞): V.A. Yerokhin & V.M. Shabaev (2015) JPCRD 44, 033103 – doi:10.1063/1.4927487 Z = 21–110: Ly β-ζ (n = 3–7): G.W. Erickson (1977) JPCRD 6, 831 – doi:10.1063/1.555557 – corrected for the ground state of Yerokhin & Shabaev (2015) Compiled by N. Hell, LLNL. hell1@llnl.gov . Cite the quoted references when using these values! 2 of 2 Ta...

doi:10.1063/1.4927487 2015
[8]

Yerokhin & K

and series limit (n = ∞): V.A. Yerokhin & K. Pachucki (2010) PRA 81, 022507 – doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.022507 Z = 6–92: Kα–ζ (n = 2–7) and series limit (n = ∞): V.A. Yerokhin & A. Surzhykov (2019) JPCRD 48, 033104 – doi:10.1063/1.5121413 Z = 93-100: Kα (n =

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.81.022507 2010
[9]

Artemyev, V.M

and series limit (n = ∞): A.N. Artemyev, V.M. Shabaev, V.A. Yerokhin, G. Plunien & G. Soff (2005) PRA 71, 062104 – doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.062104 Compiled by N. Hell, LLNL. hell1@llnl.gov . Cite the quoted references when using these values! 2 of 2 Table 3: Energies in eV for transitions to the n = 2 shell of Li-like ions 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 15 16 17 K...

doi:10.1103/physreva.71.062104 2005
[10]

Note that the exact line shapes depend on source conditions (solid, gas; molecules causing chemical shifts), excitation process, and excitation energy. Z Trans. Energy FWHM Amplitude Intensity References Type [eV] Γ [eV] area · 2/π/Γ (normalized) 9 F K α 676.8 0.20 1.000000 0.66667 676.8 0.20 0.500000 0.33333 [theory] Positions from Bearden (1967) in Zsch...

work page 1967
[12]

width from Wollman et al. (2000). Because the satellite lines change based on details of the x-ray generator, their values may be different from the values listed in the table. If fitting for gain or line-spread function parameters, especially with a resolution ≲ 4 eV, we suggest using the 2-Lorentzian model, which has the better energies. 14 Si K α 1 739...

work page 2000
[13]

21 Sc K α 4 090.592 1.243 1.000 0.52790 4 089.38 2.291 0.087 0.08499 4 085.765 1.358 0.387 0.22330 4 086.29 3.660 0.086 0.13303 4 093.484 1.742 0.042 0.03078 [empirical] Ito et al. (2016). [empirical] Using FWHM column (uncorrected widths) for the satellite lines (2,4,5) and the CF column (corrected widths) for lines 1 and

work page 2016

Show all 14 references

[14]

(2006) on data from Kawai et al

22 Ti K α 4 510.918 1.37 1.0000 0.49368 4 509.954 2.22 0.1337 0.10696 4 507.763 3.75 0.0480 0.06486 4 514.002 1.70 0.0301 0.01844 4 504.910 1.88 0.4417 0.29923 4 503.088 4.49 0.0104 0.01683 [empirical] 6 Lorentzian model from Chantler et al. (2006) on data from Kawai et al. (1...

2006
[16]

Note that the exact line shapes depend on source conditions (solid, gas; molecules causing chemical shifts), excitation process, and excitation energy. Z Trans. Energy FWHM Amplitude Intensity References Type [eV] Γ [eV] area · 2/π/Γ (normalized) 25 Mn K α 5 898.882 1.71450 0....

1997
[17]

2 Lorentzian model (widths) from Krause & Oliver (1979)

33 As K α 10 543.72 3.08 1.000000 0.65994 10 507.99 3.17 0.500670 0.34006 [theory] Positions from Bearden (1967). 2 Lorentzian model (widths) from Krause & Oliver (1979). Relative intensities from Scofield (1974a). 34 Se K α 11 222.4 3.33 1.000000 0.65972 11 181.4 3.46 0.49642...

1967
[18]

Note that the exact line shapes depend on source conditions (solid, gas; molecules causing chemical shifts), excitation process, and excitation energy. Z Trans. Energy FWHM Amplitude Intensity References Type [eV] Γ [eV] area · 2/π/Γ (normalized) 37 Rb K α 13 395.3 4.42 1.0000...

1967
[1994]

13 Al K α 1 486.708 0.43 1.000000 0.66520 1 486.295 0.43 0.503300 0.33480 [theory] Positions from Bearden (1967) in Zschornack (2007)

2 Lorentzian model (widths) from Krause & Oliver (1979). 13 Al K α 1 486.708 0.43 1.000000 0.66520 1 486.295 0.43 0.503300 0.33480 [theory] Positions from Bearden (1967) in Zschornack (2007). 2 Lorentzian model (widths) from Krause & Oliver (1979). Relative intensities from Sc...

1979
[2005]

23 V K α 4 952.237 1.45 1.0000 0.47319 4 950.656 2.00 0.1773 0.11572 4 948.266 1.81 0.0532 0.03142 4 955.269 1.76 0.0322 0.01849 4 944.672 2.94 0.3592 0.34463 4 943.014 3.09 0.0164 0.01654 [empirical] 6 Lorentzian model from Chantler et al. (2006). The Lorentzian amplitudes we...

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

0.6256 1 034.1798 1 034.2172 1 059.0036 1 059.0228 1 072.4860 1 072.4970 1 080.6144 1 080.6215 1 103.1172 10 Ne 1 021.4979 1 021.5180 1 021.9531 1 210.8267 1 210.9617 1 277.0733 1 277.1302 1 307.7282 1 307.7573 1 324.3769 1 324.3938 1 334.4140 1 334.4247 1 362.1989 11 Na 1 236.3072 1 236.3353 1 236.9742 1 465.4894 1 465.6870 1 545.6759 1 545.7594 1 582.77...

work page

[2] [4]

Garcia & J.E

and series limit ( n =∞): J.D. Garcia & J.E. Mack (1965) JOSA 55, 654 – doi:10.1364/JOSA.55.000654 Z = 21–110: Ly α (n =

work page doi:10.1364/josa.55.000654 1965

[3] [5]

Yerokhin & V.M

and series limit ( n =∞): V.A. Yerokhin & V.M. Shabaev (2015) JPCRD 44, 033103 – doi:10.1063/1.4927487 Z = 21–110: Ly β-ζ (n = 3–7): G.W. Erickson (1977) JPCRD 6, 831 – doi:10.1063/1.555557 – corrected for the ground state of Yerokhin & Shabaev (2015) Compiled by N. Hell, LLNL. hell1@llnl.gov . Cite the quoted references when using these values! 2 of 2 Ta...

doi:10.1063/1.4927487 2015

[4] [8]

Yerokhin & K

and series limit (n = ∞): V.A. Yerokhin & K. Pachucki (2010) PRA 81, 022507 – doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.022507 Z = 6–92: Kα–ζ (n = 2–7) and series limit (n = ∞): V.A. Yerokhin & A. Surzhykov (2019) JPCRD 48, 033104 – doi:10.1063/1.5121413 Z = 93-100: Kα (n =

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.81.022507 2010

[5] [9]

Artemyev, V.M

and series limit (n = ∞): A.N. Artemyev, V.M. Shabaev, V.A. Yerokhin, G. Plunien & G. Soff (2005) PRA 71, 062104 – doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.062104 Compiled by N. Hell, LLNL. hell1@llnl.gov . Cite the quoted references when using these values! 2 of 2 Table 3: Energies in eV for transitions to the n = 2 shell of Li-like ions 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 15 16 17 K...

doi:10.1103/physreva.71.062104 2005

[6] [10]

Note that the exact line shapes depend on source conditions (solid, gas; molecules causing chemical shifts), excitation process, and excitation energy. Z Trans. Energy FWHM Amplitude Intensity References Type [eV] Γ [eV] area · 2/π/Γ (normalized) 9 F K α 676.8 0.20 1.000000 0.66667 676.8 0.20 0.500000 0.33333 [theory] Positions from Bearden (1967) in Zsch...

work page 1967

[7] [12]

width from Wollman et al. (2000). Because the satellite lines change based on details of the x-ray generator, their values may be different from the values listed in the table. If fitting for gain or line-spread function parameters, especially with a resolution ≲ 4 eV, we suggest using the 2-Lorentzian model, which has the better energies. 14 Si K α 1 739...

work page 2000

[8] [13]

21 Sc K α 4 090.592 1.243 1.000 0.52790 4 089.38 2.291 0.087 0.08499 4 085.765 1.358 0.387 0.22330 4 086.29 3.660 0.086 0.13303 4 093.484 1.742 0.042 0.03078 [empirical] Ito et al. (2016). [empirical] Using FWHM column (uncorrected widths) for the satellite lines (2,4,5) and the CF column (corrected widths) for lines 1 and

work page 2016