-
8
-
-
84951339362
-
-
The coefficients in Eq. (3) are from a weighted least‐squares fit of Field’s (Ref. 5) form to the [formula omitted] and [formula omitted] values of the [formula omitted] states of [formula omitted] and CO compiled by Huber and Herzberg (Ref. 7). They differ only slightly from the coefficients given by Field. The precision of a predicted [formula omitted] value corresponding to an [formula omitted] of [formula omitted] which is typical for [formula omitted] [formula omitted] states, is [formula omitted] (one standard error). The accuracy is difficult to assess, but a comparison of the [formula omitted] value for the [formula omitted] state determined with Eq. (3) to that in Table I, which was determined in a different way, suggests that the accuracy could be about [formula omitted]
-
-
-
-
10
-
-
84951339364
-
-
A comparison of the [formula omitted] values for the [formula omitted] states of CO and [formula omitted] determined with Eq. (4) to the well‐known values (Ref. 7) determined by other means suggest an accuracy of about [formula omitted] for these [formula omitted] values reported here.
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
85034687714
-
-
To be specific, the reference for the zero of energy is the NO [formula omitted] [formula omitted] level. However, the spin‐orbit splitting of the Π and Δ states in Fig. 1 is typically less than 0.02 eV (where known) and hence is inconsequential on the eV‐sized scale of Fig. 1.
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
84951339375
-
-
“Ionization potentials and ionization limits derived from the analyses of optical spectra,” Natl. Stand. Ref. Data Ser. Natl. Bur. Stand. 34 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.)
-
(1970)
-
-
Moore, C.E.1
-
24
-
-
85034685729
-
-
and M.‐J. Hubin, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. (in press). The [formula omitted] estimated accuracy given with these data is consistent with the comparisons with the more accurate emission data (Refs. 15 and 16).
-
-
-
Natalis, P.1
Collin, J.E.2
Delwiche, J.3
Caprace, G.4
-
38
-
-
84951339372
-
-
The “α Rydberg series” has been identified now as parts of other progressions; see Ref. 20.
-
-
-
-
39
-
-
84951339827
-
-
These investigators also proposed that the [formula omitted] states be given the same alphabetic designations (i.e., a, b, w, [formula omitted] [formula omitted] W, etc.) as the corresponding states of [formula omitted] except with the use of upper and lower case letters interchanged. These designations have been used universally since.
-
-
-
-
44
-
-
0000116823
-
-
The accuracy of these Rydberg series data was given as [formula omitted] might be more appropriate and is the value used here.
-
(1977)
J. Mol. Spectrosc
, vol.66
, pp. 121
-
-
Takezawa, S.1
-
45
-
-
85034688790
-
-
Takezawa (Ref. 42) considers that this [formula omitted] value refers to the lowest multiplet component [formula omitted] of the [formula omitted] state this is based on the assumption that the magnitude of the spin‐orbit splitting constant of this state is similar to that of the corresponding states of [formula omitted] and CO, i.e., [formula omitted] However, Lefebvre—Brion’s SCF calculation (private communication) yields a value [formula omitted] which implies that the [formula omitted] value refers to either the [formula omitted] or [formula omitted] component
-
(1978)
-
-
-
46
-
-
85034690346
-
-
Gilmore (Ref. 1) did assign a state at 17.0 eV, but this was based on a reported (Ref. 45) [formula omitted] band at 4380 Å that was identified as a [formula omitted] transition and the location of the [formula omitted] at 14.22 eV, the latter of which has been revised.
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
84951339852
-
-
The standard errors alone of the [formula omitted] [formula omitted] and [formula omitted] values of the [formula omitted] state in Table I cannot directly show the improvements in precision arising from Takezawa’s data (Ref. 42). The variances and covariances from the fit (Ref. 4, pp. 55–57) yield a precision (one standard error) of about [formula omitted] for the [formula omitted] values predicted from these constants for [formula omitted] and 4, compared to about [formula omitted] from a weighted fit to the data of Edqvist et al. (Ref. 21) alone.
-
-
-
-
49
-
-
85034687402
-
-
As above (Ref. 46), the standard errors alone of the [formula omitted] [formula omitted] [formula omitted] [formula omitted] and [formula omitted] values of the [formula omitted] state in Table I cannot directly show the precision gained from the perturbation analyses. The standard errors on the [formula omitted] and [formula omitted] values predicted from the coefficients in Table I are 7, 2, 0.03, 4, and [formula omitted] and 0.02, 0.01, 0.001, 0.01, and [formula omitted] respectively, for [formula omitted] 3, 5, 7, and 9. A further perturbation analysis (Ref. 5) of the existing emission data (Ref. 16) could yield further improvements in the coefficients for the [formula omitted] state.
-
-
-
-
54
-
-
84951339854
-
-
“Theoretical determination of electronic transition probabilities for diatomic molecules,” Tech. Rep. AFWL‐TR‐72‐1, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, Kirkland Air Force Base, NM (May 1972). Some of these calculations have been published;
-
-
-
Miehels, H.H.1
-
58
-
-
0004135467
-
-
(North‐Holland, Amsterdam) pp. 73–76.
-
(1969)
ESC A Applied to Free Molecules
-
-
Siegbahn, K.1
Nordling, C.2
Johansson, G.3
Headman, J.4
Hedén, P.F.5
Hamrin, K.6
Gelius, U.7
Bergmark, T.8
Werme, L.O.9
Manne, R.10
Baer, Y.11
-
65
-
-
85034687574
-
-
Rather than perturbations being the cause of the “tail,” Lefebvre‐Brion suggests (private communication) that these levels may be predissoclated by a repulsive [formula omitted] state, as is the case for the [formula omitted] state of [formula omitted]
-
(1978)
-
-
-
73
-
-
84951339856
-
-
“Air molecular computation study,” Teeh. Rep. AFGL‐TR‐77‐0032, Air Force Geophysics Laboratories, Air Force Systems Command, Hanscom Air Force Base, MA (March 1977).
-
-
-
Michels, H.H.1
|
