Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Multiple ionization and charge equilibration in slow, multiply charged $\mathrm{Ar^{q+} + Ar}$ collision studied via L-MM Auger-Meitner electron spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In slow Arq+ + Ar collisions, target and projectile both reach Ar4+ and emit identical ~150 eV Auger electrons.

desk verdict New absolute cross-section data for Ar3+/6+ + Ar, but the charge-equilibration conclusion rests on a circular Doppler analysis and an unbenchmarked theoretical energy scale. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08481 v1 pith:CZW55I3X submitted 2026-08-09 physics.atom-ph

Rohit Tyagi , L. C. Tribedi , M. K. Harbola , A. H. Kelkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 32.80.Hd34.70.+e
keywords Auger-MeitnerelectronspectroscopyL-MMtransitionsmultiplychargedargonionscharge-stateequilibrationmultipleionizationion-atomcollisionsDoppler-shiftedemissionabsolutecrosssections
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 measures L-MM Auger-Meitner electrons emitted when 600 keV Ar3+ and Ar6+ ions collide with argon atoms, and finds that the struck target and the projectile each emit electrons with the same energy, about 150 eV, in their own rest frames. That energy sits far below the ~194 eV characteristic of neutral argon, so the emitting species must be heavily ionized. A Hartree-Fock model of the dominant L-MM transitions places the cumulative peak of Ar4+ near 154 eV, matching the data. The paper concludes that multiple ionization and charge exchange equilibrate the target-projectile pair to charge 4+ before the inner-shell vacancy decays, independent of whether the beam started at 3+ or 6+. This makes Auger-Meitner spectroscopy a direct probe of collision-driven charge equilibration in slow symmetric ion-atom collisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the L-MM Auger-Meitner electron spectrum of argon in different charge states. Two tools carry the argument: the kinematic Doppler transformation $E_P = (\sqrt{\epsilon_e}\cos\theta \pm \sqrt{\epsilon_e\sin^2\theta + E'_P})^2$, which converts the laboratory-frame projectile peak into the projectile rest frame, and a Fermi-golden-rule transition-probability model using Hartree-Fock SCF wavefunctions built from Slater-type orbitals. The equivalent-core (Z+1) approximation, which treats the two-hole final state with potassium M-shell binding energies, supplies the peak energies that allow the measured 150 eV feature to be assigned to Ar4+.

What would settle it

Measure the 150 eV feature with sub-electronvolt resolution and compare its resolved fine structure and relative intensities of the $3s^{-2}$, $3s^{-1}3p^{-1}$, and $3p^{-2}$ components against independent ab initio calculations for Ar4+; if the pattern matches a different charge state, or if a directly produced Ar4+ source gives a measurably different peak energy, the charge-equilibration assignment fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that in slow (about 0.7 a.u.) Arq+–Ar collisions, the L-MM Auger-Meitner peak energy of the target and of the projectile is the same, roughly 150 eV, and does not depend on whether the projectile charge state is 3+ or 6+. Applying the Doppler-shift transformation to the projectile peak and comparing with a transition-probability model built from Hartree-Fock SCF wavefunctions and the equivalent-core approximation, the paper identifies this peak as L-MM decay of Ar4+. The equality of the target and projectile rest-frame energies is interpreted as charge-state equilibration: before the 2p vacancy decays, multiple ionization and electron capture bring both collision partners to the same charge state, 4+, even though one partner started as Ar3+ and the other as neutral Ar.

Load-bearing premise

The whole charge-state assignment rests on the equivalent-core approximation, in which the binding energies of the final two-hole states are taken from potassium's M shell; if that approximation shifts the simulated Ar4+ peak by more than a few electronvolts, the 150 eV feature could belong to a different charge state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 150 eV peak becomes a usable fingerprint of Ar4+ L-MM decay in future ion-atom collision studies.
  • Initial projectile charge does not set the decaying ion's charge state; collision-driven multiple ionization and capture do, so Ar3+ and Ar6+ beams look identical in their rest frames.
  • Because the rest-frame angular distributions are isotropic, total Auger cross sections can be obtained from angle-integrated measurements; the paper reports total cross sections near $2.7\times10^{-18}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ for the target and $2.5\times10^{-18}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ for the projectile in the Ar3+ collision.
  • The equilibration picture extends naturally to other symmetric Xq+ + X systems, where Auger peak energies would track the equilibrium charge state rather than the beam charge state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If equilibration is generic, scanning q from 2 to 8 at similar collision velocity should reproduce the same ~150 eV peak; a gradual shift would reveal where the quasi-molecular sharing mechanism breaks down.
  • The equivalent-core assignment could be checked without collisions by producing Ar4+ through an independent route and measuring its L-MM spectrum; the paper does not report such a check.
  • Because target and projectile peaks are equal, charge exchange must outrun the inner-shell vacancy's Auger lifetime; electron-recoil coincidence measurements could turn this qualitative statement into a timescale.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports energy- and angle-resolved absolute double differential cross sections for L-MM Auger-Meitner electron emission in 100/200 keV H+ + Ar and 600 keV Ar3+/6+ + Ar collisions. The authors identify a stationary target peak near 150 eV and an angle-dependent projectile peak, model the projectile peak with a Doppler-shift formula, and fit the angular single differential cross sections assuming isotropic emission. They also develop a Hartree-Fock Slater-orbital model for L-MM transition probabilities and simulated spectra for Ar and Arq+ (q=2-4). Comparing measured 150 eV peaks with simulations leads them to assign the emitting species to Ar4+ and, because target and projectile rest-frame peak energies are claimed equal for both Ar3+ and Ar6+ projectiles, to conclude that the collision partners reach a common 4+ charge state before Auger decay.

Significance. The experiment addresses a genuinely interesting question: whether slow symmetric ion-atom collisions reach charge-state equilibration before inner-shell decay, and whether Auger-Meitner spectroscopy can reveal this. The absolute DDCS data and the clear observation of an angle-dependent projectile peak are useful contributions, as is the reproduction of Ar transition probabilities (Table III) in agreement with Asaad-Mehlhorn. However, the central charge-equilibration claim currently rests on a circular kinematic comparison and on an unquantified theoretical energy-scale offset, so the significance will be established only if the reanalysis supports it.

major comments (3)
  1. [Result and Discussion, Eq. (2), Fig. 5, Table I] The analysis sets E'_P = 150 eV, 'same as Et1,' before computing the Doppler-shifted projectile peak. Consequently the agreement between the calculated curve and the measured EP1 in Fig. 5 only confirms the functional form of the Doppler shift; it cannot independently establish that the projectile rest-frame energy equals the target energy. The claimed equality of target and projectile rest-frame energies is therefore imposed by construction rather than demonstrated. Please refit Eq. (2) treating E'_P as a free parameter, report the fitted value with uncertainty, or otherwise provide an independent calibration of the projectile rest-frame energy.
  2. [Table I] The stationary-target peak energies are not constant in angle as they should be: Et1 varies from 147 eV to 178 eV and Et2 from 145 eV to 164 eV, with variations exceeding the stated ~6% spectrometer resolution (e.g., 178 eV at 60 degrees versus 152 eV at 90 degrees). At 75, 90, and 105 degrees the two peaks are unresolvable and are assigned identical energies, so the extracted projectile energies at those angles carry no independent information. Without centroid uncertainties and a quantitative comparison to the resolution, the equality conclusion based on these values is not reliable. Please provide a fitting procedure with uncertainties and covariance, or restrict the comparison to angles where the peaks are resolved.
  3. [Ar and Ar q+ L-MM Auger-Meitner peak energy, Fig. 7] The simulated neutral-Ar cumulative peak is 212 eV, while the measured proton-induced peak is 194 eV; the text states these are in good agreement, but the 18 eV offset is comparable to the spacing between the simulated Ar3+ (165 eV) and Ar4+ (154 eV) peaks. If a systematic offset of similar magnitude applies to the multiply charged predictions, the assignment of the ~150 eV feature to Ar4+ rather than Ar3+ could change. The authors should present the underlying binding-energy calculation (including the equivalent-core/Z+1 inputs) explicitly and quantify the model uncertainty before relying on the simulated peak energies for charge-state identification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Experimental section] The phrase 'the ion-target gas collision experiments' should be reworded for grammar, and the typo 'efficiency' in Eq. (1) should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption refers to 'hollow circles' while the text says 'open circles'; please use consistent terminology.
  3. [Result and Discussion, quasi-molecule] The phrase 'quai-molecule formation' is a typo for 'quasi-molecule formation.'
  4. [Table II] The uncertainties for the Ar6+ rows are comparable to the central values; please state explicitly whether these cross sections are statistically distinguishable from zero.
  5. [Eq. (3) and Fig. 6] The fit parameters A and B defined in the Fig. 6 caption are not explicitly connected to dσ'p/dΩ' and dσt/dΩ in Eq. (3); please define them in the text.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Target-projectile energy equality is partly assumed: E'_P is set equal to Et1 before the Doppler comparison, and unresolved peaks are fitted with equal centroids, so the charge-equilibration claim is not fully independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 'Ar3+/6+ + Ar collision', Eq. (2) and Fig. 5 discussion]
    "Using E′P = 150 eV (same as Et1 in table I), we have calculated the Doppler shifted projectile Auger-Meitner peak energy ( ECalP1 ) for various angles of measurement. In figure 5 we have plotted the measured Auger-Meitner peak energy corresponding to electron emission at different angles from stationary Ar target (filled circles) as well as (a) Ar3+ and (b) Ar6+ projectile ion (open circles). The calculated projectile Auger-Meitner energy values ( ECalP1 ) are also shown as the solid curve in the same plot."

    In Eq. (2), once ϵe = 8.2 eV is fixed, E′P is the only free parameter. The authors set E′P equal to the measured target peak Et1 = 150 eV. The later conclusion that “The energy peak values are similar (∼150 eV) for target (atom) and projectile (ion) in their respective rest frames” is therefore a restatement of the chosen input, not an independently fitted result. The agreement in Fig. 5 tests the functional form of the Doppler transformation, but it does not independently determine the projectile rest-frame energy, since no fit or uncertainty is reported for E′P. Thus the central equality used to support charge-state equilibration is partly imposed by construction.

  2. self definitional [Table I and text near Figs. 3 and 4]
    "The DDCS spectra in figure 3 show two dominant broad peaks covering a wider energy range at forward and backward angles (30o, 45o, 120o, 135o and 150o) whereas this changes to a single broad peak at angles close to 90o (60o, 75o, 90o and 105o). ... 90 152 152 149 148; 105 147 147 145 145."

    At angles 60°, 75°, 90°, and 105° the paper states that the DDCS becomes a single broad peak, yet Table I reports separate target and projectile centroids that are exactly equal in several cases (e.g., 90°: Et1 = EP1 = 152 eV; 105°: Et1 = EP1 = 147 eV). The apparent equality of target and projectile rest-frame energies at these angles is therefore an artifact of decomposing one unresolved feature into two identical centroids rather than an independent measurement. This feeds the same charge-equilibration conclusion and is another by-construction element of the claimed equality.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine kinematic check: a moving projectile should emit a Doppler-shifted Auger-Meitner line that varies with angle, and the measured projectile peak positions do roughly follow the expected angle-dependent curve. The theoretical transition-rate calculation is also independent of the charge-equilibration claim, and the equivalent-core approximation for Ar4+ is a substantive (if uncertain) input rather than a circular one. However, the central claim—that the target and projectile have equal L-MM Auger-Meitner rest-frame energies and hence have equilibrated to the same charge state—is not independently derived. In the Doppler analysis the projectile rest-frame energy is set equal to the target peak energy (E′P = 150 eV, 'same as Et1'), and the subsequent 'finding' of equal rest-frame energies is a restatement of that input. The kinematic agreement validates the functional form of Eq. (2), but because E′P is not fitted and no uncertainties are reported for the tabulated centroids, the equality is not an independent measurement. Additionally, at angles where the two peaks are unresolved, the fitting procedure reports identical target and projectile centroids, further building the equality into the analysis. These are partial, by-construction reductions rather than complete circularity; the angle-dependent Doppler kinematics and the theoretical transition probabilities provide independent content. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present. The score of 6 reflects that one or more central 'predictions' reduce by construction while the paper retains nontrivial independent checks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central charge-state assignment rests on standard perturbation theory plus the Z+1 equivalent-core approximation for binding energies; no new entities are introduced. The main free parameter is the projectile rest-frame peak energy, which is set equal to the target value rather than measured independently.

free parameters (1)
  • Projectile rest-frame L-MM Auger peak energy E'_P = 150 eV (set equal to target peak Et1)
    In the Doppler analysis, E'_P is chosen to be the same as the measured target peak energy rather than fitted independently to the projectile peak, so the target-projectile equality conclusion is imposed by this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fermi golden rule and Coulomb interaction expansion for Auger rates
    Used in Eq. 4 and 5 to calculate transition probabilities; assumes lowest-order perturbation theory.
  • domain assumption Clementi-Roetti SCF bound-state wavefunctions accurately represent Ar and Arq+ orbitals
    The transition probability calculation uses these wavefunctions directly; errors in orbitals propagate to rates and peak intensities.
  • domain assumption Z+1 equivalent-core approximation for binding energies of final two-hole states
    Invoked to estimate binding energies and k values for Arq+; the simulated peak energies depend on this, but it is not benchmarked for Ar2+ to Ar4+.
  • domain assumption Projectile ions are in ground electronic states when they enter the scattering cell
    The paper assumes the 5 m travel time is sufficient for all ECR-source excited states to relax; if not, the projectile initial configuration differs from assumed.
  • domain assumption Target and projectile Auger emission are isotropic in their respective rest frames
    Used to fit the angular SDCS and extract total cross sections; supported by the proton data but not independently verified for heavy-ion data where peaks overlap.
  • domain assumption Single collision conditions
    Target pressure kept below 5e-5 mbar to ensure single collisions; if violated, measured DDCS would include multi-collision contributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiple ionization and charge equilibration in slow, multiply charged $\mathrm{Ar^{q+} + Ar}$ collision studied via L-MM Auger-Meitner electron spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZW55I3X

@misc{pith2026260808481,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiple ionization and charge equilibration in slow, multiply charged $\mathrmAr^q+ + Ar$ collision studied via L-MM Auger-Meitner electron spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZW55I3X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08481}
}
abstract

We report energy and angle resolved absolute cross section measurements for LMM Auger-Meitner electron emission following collisions of hundred keV protons and $\mathrm{Ar^{3+/6+}}$ ion with an atomic Ar target. The double differential cross section spectra show distinct contributions from target and projectile Auger-Meitner decay. The projectile emission exhibits the expected Doppler shift for various angles of electron emission, and the measured peak energies are in excellent agreement with kinematic calculations. The energy integrated cross sections show isotropic angular distribution for target and projectile species in their respective rest frames. The Auger-Meitner peak energy for target as well as projectile emission show significant difference in comparison to the characteristic L-MM Auger-Meitner energy peak from atomic Ar. The experimental measurements have been complimented with development of a theoretical model to calculate the transition probabilities corresponding to prominent L-MM Auger-Meitner transitions in neutral and multiply charged Ar atom. Comparison between measured and calculated spectra shows that the measured emission peak at approximately 150 eV originates from Auger-Meitner decay of $\mathrm{Ar^{4+}}$ ions. The peak energies for target and projectile emission are found to be equal, independent of the initial projectile charge state. This indicates that the decay occurs following extensive multiple ionization, charge exchange processes resulting in charge-state equilibration of the collision partners. The results demonstrate that collision-induced electronic rearrangement strongly modifies the Auger-Meitner spectra and provide evidence for an equilibrium target-projectile charge state in low-energy $\mathrm{Ar^{q+} - Ar}$ collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08481 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Absolute DDCS spectra at 150o , for Ar in collision with (a and b) 100 keV proton ion beam and (c and d) 200 keV proton ion beam. The DDCS in panel (a) and (c) show the full DDCS spectrum (including the Coulomb continuum background). The solid (red) curve in (a) and (c) is a polynomial background fit to estimate continuum electron background in the Auger - Meitner energy region. Panel (b) and (d) show the background… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Angular SDCS for 100 keV (black circle) and 200 keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Coulomb continuum background subtracted electron DDCS for 600 keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Coulomb continuum background subtracted electron DDCS for 600 keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Target (filled squares) and projectile (hollow cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated L-MM Auger-Meitner energy spectra for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The calculated transition probabilities for atomic Ar are in ex- cellent agreement with those reported earlier by Asaad and Melhorn [27]

    The calculated transition rates for atomic Ar and multiply charged Arq+ ion are given in table III. The calculated transition probabilities for atomic Ar are in ex- cellent agreement with those reported earlier by Asaad and Melhorn [27]. TABLE. III: Calculated transition probabilities (in a.u.) for atomic Ar and multiply charged Arq+ ions. Final hole stat...

    work page

  2. [2]

    However, due to the varied over lap of the two Auger- Meitner peaks and their indistinguishably for angles close to 90o, we have used an alternate procedure to extract target and projectile SDCS. The total SDCS, target and projectile ion combined, is given as [13, 23]: 6 /s51/s48 /s52/s53 /s54/s48 /s55/s53 /s57/s48 /s49/s48/s53 /s49/s50/s48 /s49/s51/s53 /...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Lichten, Phys

    W. Lichten, Phys. Rev. 164, 131 (1967), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.164.131

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.164.131 1967

  4. [4]

    The energy range for integration contains the SDCS of target as well as projectile ions

    can be further integrated over the Auger-Meitner energy range to obtain the angular SDCS. The energy range for integration contains the SDCS of target as well as projectile ions. The SDCS values for target and projectile ions can be separately obtained using the Gaussian fits in figure 3 and

    work page

  5. [5]

    The experimental resolution of the spectrome- ter (6%) determined the width of the Gaussian

    Each transition line was simulated as a Gaussian curve with centroid at the peak energy. The experimental resolution of the spectrome- ter (6%) determined the width of the Gaussian. Area under the curves was normalized to the calculated transition prob- ability (see table III) for respective transitions. The dotted - black curve in figure 7 shows the weig...

    work page

  6. [6]

    DeGroot, M

    P. DeGroot, M. Zarcone, and Q. Kessel, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 24-25, 159 (1987), ISSN 0168-583X, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0168583X87906136

    arXiv 1987

  7. [7]

    Shanker, R

    R. Shanker, R. Hippler, U. Wille, R. Bilau, and H. O. Lutz, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 15, L495 (1982), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/ 15/14/003

    doi:10.1088/0022-3700/ 1982

  8. [8]

    Fano and W

    U. Fano and W. Lichten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 627 (1965), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.14. 627

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.14 1965

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    J. D. GARCIA, R. J. FORTNER, and T. M. KA VANAGH, Rev. Mod. Phys. 45, 111 (1973), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.45.111

    1973 doi

  2. [10]

    Barat and W

    M. Barat and W. Lichten, Phys. Rev. A 6, 211 (1972), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.6.211

    1972 doi

  3. [11]

    Eichler and U

    J. Eichler and U. Wille, Phys. Rev. A 11, 1973 (1975), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.11.1973

    1975 doi

  4. [12]

    Eichler, U

    J. Eichler, U. Wille, B. Fastrup, and K. Taulbjerg, Phys. Rev. A 14, 707 (1976), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.14.707

    1976

  5. [13]

    Tawara and P

    H. Tawara and P. Richard, Canadian Journal of Physics 80, 1579 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    P. H. Woerlee, R. J. Fortner, and F. W. Saris, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 14, 3173 (1981), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/14/17/022

    1981 doi

  7. [15]

    G. H. Morgan and E. Everhart, Phys. Rev. 128, 667 (1962), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.128.667

    1962 doi

  8. [16]

    Everhart and Q

    E. Everhart and Q. C. Kessel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 247 (1965), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.14.247

    1965

  9. [17]

    Stolterfoht, D

    N. Stolterfoht, D. Schneider, D. Burch, B. Aagaard, E. Bøv- ing, and B. Fastrup, Phys. Rev. A 12, 1313 (1975), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.12.1313

    1975 doi

  10. [18]

    M. E. Rudd, T. Jorgensen, and D. J. Volz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 929 (1966), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.16.929

    1966

  11. [19]

    M. E. Rudd, T. Jorgensen, and D. J. Volz, Phys. Rev. 151, 28 (1966), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.151.28. 10

    1966

  12. [20]

    Schiwietz, B

    G. Schiwietz, B. Skogvall, J. Tanis, and D. Schneider, Phys. Rev. A 38, 5552 (1988), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.38.5552

    1988

  13. [21]

    A. N. Agnihotri, A. H. Kelkar, S. Kasthurirangan, K. V. Thulasiram, C. A. Desai, W. A. Fernandez, and L. C. Tribedi, Physica Scripta 2011, 014038 (2011), URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/2011/T144/014038

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    Misra, K

    D. Misra, K. Thulasiram, W. Fernandes, A. H. Kelkar, U. Kadhane, A. Kumar, Y. Singh, L. Gulyás, and L. C. Tribedi, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 267, 157 (2009), ISSN 0168-583X, URL https: //doi.org/...

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    A. H. Kelkar, D. Misra, L. Gulyás, and L. C. Tribedi, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 157 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjd/e2020-10139-y

    2020

  16. [24]

    Kelkar and L

    A. Kelkar and L. Tribedi, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 258, 147220 (2022), ISSN 0368-2048, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0368204822000573

    2022

  17. [25]

    D. J. Volz and M. E. Rudd, Phys. Rev. A 2, 1395 (1970), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.2.1395

    1970 doi

  18. [26]

    Stolterfoht, D

    N. Stolterfoht, D. Schneider, and P. Ziem, Phys. Rev. A 10, 81 (1974), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.10.81

    1974

  19. [27]

    Stolterfoht, Physics Reports 146, 315 (1987), URL https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(87)90036-6

    N. Stolterfoht, Physics Reports 146, 315 (1987), URL https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(87)90036-6

    1987 doi

  20. [28]

    Clementi and C

    E. Clementi and C. Roetti, Atomic Data and Nu- clear Data Tables 14, 177 (1974), ISSN 0092-640X, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0092640X74800161

    1974

  21. [29]

    Clementi and D

    E. Clementi and D. L. Raimondi, The Journal of Chemical Physics 38, 2686 (1963), ISSN 0021-9606, URL https:// doi.org/10.1063/1.1733573

    1963 doi

  22. [30]

    Gordon, Zeitschrift für Physik 48, 180 (1928), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01351302

    W. Gordon, Zeitschrift für Physik 48, 180 (1928), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01351302

    1928 doi

  23. [31]

    W. N. Asaad and W. Mehlhorn, Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and nuclei 217, 304 (1968), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF01394104

    1968 doi

  24. [32]

    G. A. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 504 (1977), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.504

    1977 doi

  25. [33]

    S. P. Kowalczyk, L. Ley, F. R. McFeely, and D. A. Shirley, The Journal of Chemical Physics 61, 2850 (1974), ISSN 0021-9606, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/61/7/2850/18892523/2850_1_online.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1682422

    1974 doi

  26. [34]

    R. L. Watson and L. H. Toburen, Phys. Rev. A 7, 1853 (1973), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 7.1853

    1973 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.