No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Dissociative Ionization of N2 and N2O by Rare‐Gas Ion Impact
1.C. F. Giese and W. B. Maier II, J. Chem. Phys. 39, 197 (1963).
2.C. F. Giese and W. B. Maier II, J. Chem. Phys. 39, 739 (1963).
3.F. H. Dorman and J. D. Morrison, J. Chem. Phys. 34, 578 (1961).
3.Experimental evidence presently seems to favor relative transition probabilities from the rare‐gas atom to the and states of the ion which are not governed near the thresholds by the statistical weights of the ionic states: R. E. Fox, W. M. Hickam, and T. Kjeldaas, Jr., Phys. Rev. 89, 555 (1953);
3.J. D. Morrison, J. Chem. Phys. 40, 2489 (1964). On the other hand, the populations of the and states are not determined just by the direct transition probabilities;
3.autoionization occurs and affects the relative populations of these two states. E. Pettersson and E. Lindholm, Arkiv. Kemi 20, 49 (1963), claim to interpret their data successfully by assuming that the state is twice as populous as the state.
4.Note that Eq. (A2) of Ref. 2 is not valid in the region very near to a threshold.
5.C. E. Moore, Natl. Bur. Std. (U.S.) Circ. No. 467, Vol. I (1949).
6.F. D. Rossini, D. D. Wagman, W. H. Evans, S. Levine, and I. Jaffe, Natl. Bur. Std. (U.S.) Circ. No. 500 (1952).
7.“JANAF Thermochemical Tables, Quart. Suppl. No. 11” (Thermal Research Laboratory, The Dow Chemical Company, Michigan, 1963).
8.R. K. Curran and R. E. Fox, J. Chem. Phys. 34, 1590 (1961).
9.G. J. Schulz, J. Chem. Phys. 34, 1778 (1961).
10.Actually, any value for less than the maximum possible value, 1.77 eV, allowed here might be correct, since the measurements here, strictly interpreted, only set an upper limit to
11.L. M. Branscomb, D. S. Burch, S. J. Smith, and S. Geltman, Phys. Rev. 111, 504 (1958).
12.G. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. 128, 178 (1962).
12.Note that much doubt has been cast on Schulz’s interpretation of his experiment by P. J. Chantry and G. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Letters 12, 449 (1964).
13.A. G. Gaydon, Dissociation Energies and Spectra of Diatomic Molecules (Chapman and Hall Ltd., London, 1953), 2nd ed.
14.W. E. Koerner and F. Daniels, J. Chem. Phys. 20, 113 (1952).
15.M. Brook and J. Kaplan, Phys. Rev. 96, 1540 (1954).
16.H. Hurzeler, M. G. Inghram, and J. D. Morrison, J. Chem. Phys. 28, 76 (1958).
17.K. Watanabe, T. Nakayama, and J. Mottl, J. Quant. Spectry. Radiative Transfer 2, 369 (1962).
18.R. A. Young and R. L. Sharpless, Discussions Faraday Soc. 33, 228 (1962).
19.Curran and Fox, Ref. 8, find that the efficiency curve of the dissociative ionization of into by electron impact exhibits a break in linearity at roughly 3 eV above the threshold for the formation of
20.A discussion of the predissociation of diatomic molecules can be found in G. Herzberg, Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure (D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, 1950) Vol. I, p. 420 ff, pp. 413–414.
21.The “Wigner spin conservation rule” is expected to be somewhat relaxed due to the rather large spin‐orbit splitting in however, some reactions which violate this rule have previously been observed to proceed efficiently. Cf., H. S. W. Massey and E. H. S. Burhop, Electronic and Ionic Impact Phenomena (Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1952).
22.J. C. Light, J. Chem. Phys. 40, 3221 (1964).
23.J. C. Light (private communication).
24.E. Gustafsson and E. Lindholm, Arkiv Fysik 18, 219 (1960).
25.E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 73, 1002 (1948).
26.A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, Rev. Mod. Phys. 30, 257 (1958).
27.L. M. Delves, Nucl. Phys. 9, 391 (1959).
28.W. H. Guier and R. W. Hart, Phys. Rev. 106, 296 (1957).
29.This assumption is not entirely novel for collision processes. For example, G. H. Wannier, Phys. Rev. 100, 1180 (1956), has made a similar assumption in deriving approximate threshold laws for multiple ionization by electron impact. The method of this Appendix, together with Wannier’s assumptions, will reproduce his threshold law for single ionization.
30.It is possible that some reactions may proceed in two steps. Rough arguments indicate that the form of the cross section depends upon the mechanism involved in such a case and that the cross section may take on the same form as in Eq. (A4), possibly with the value of n reduced from its maximum value of 2.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month
Most cited this month