Experimental verification of line- and band-shape asymmetry in the Schumann-Runge system of O2

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 118, Issue 24, 2003, Pages 10924-10928

  Kono, M ^a   Lewis, B R ^a   Baldwin, K G H ^a   Gibson, S T ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LASER APPLICATIONS; PHOTODISSOCIATION; PHOTONS; ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION;

QUANTUM-MECHANICAL INTERFERENCE EFFECTS;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 0038793540     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1574512     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. P. M. Dooley, B. R. Lewis, S. T. Gibson, K. G. H. Baldwin, P. C. Cosby, J. L. Price, R. A. Copeland, T. G. Slanger, A. P. Thorne, J. E. Murray, and K. Yoshino, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 3856 (1998).
2. P. M. Dooley, Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University, 1997.
3. T. M. Fang, S. C. Wofsy, and A. Dalgarno, Planet. Space Sci. 22, 413 (1974).
4. A. J. Blake, J. Geophys. Res. 84, 3272 (1979).
5. M. Allen and J. E. Frederick, J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 2066 (1982).
6. D. P. Murtagh, Planet. Space Sci. 36, 819 (1988).
7. M. Nicolet and R. Kennes, Planet. Space Sci. 37, 459 (1989).
8. K. Minschwaner, G. P. Anderson, L. A. Hall, and K. Yoshino, J. Geophys. Res. 97, 10103 (1992).
9. B. R. Lewis, S. T. Gibson, L. W. Torop, and D. G. McCoy. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2457 (1998).
10. F. T. Hawes, L. W. Torop, B. R. Lewis, and S. T. Gibson, Phys. Rev. A 63, 012513 (2000).
11. K. Minschwaner and V. Starke, Phys. Chem. Earth C26, 539 (2001).
12. B. R. Lewis, P. M. Dooley, J. P. England, K. Waring, S. T. Gibson, and K. G. H. Baldwin, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3923 (1996).
13. K. Yoshino, D. E. Freeman, and W. H. Parkinson, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 13, 207 (1983).
14. B. R. Lewis, S. T. Gibson, F. T. Hawes, and L. W. Torop, Phys. Chem. Earth C26, 519 (2001).
15. E. F. van Dishoeck, M. C. van Hemert, A. C. Allison, and A. Dalgarno, J. Chem. Phys. 81, 5709 (1984).
16. L. Torop, D. G. McCoy, A. J. Blake, J. Wang, and T. Scholz, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 38, 9 (1987).
17. In contrast to line-by-line SR models, where an additional full set of parameters is required for each isotopomer, no further parameters are required for the CSE model, the isotopic cross section being computed simply by changing the reduced mass in the relevant equations (see Ref. 14).
18. S. T. Gibson, B. R. Lewis, K. G. H. Baldwin, and J. H. Carver, J. Chem. Phys. 94, 1060 (1991).
19. B. R. Lewis, S. T. Gibson, and E. H. Roberts, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 245 (2001).
20. B. R. Lewis, S. T. Gibson, and P. M. Dooley, J. Chem. Phys. 100, 7012 (1994).
21. B. R. Lewis, L. Berzins, J. H. Carver, S. T. Gibson, and D. G. McCoy, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 34, 405 (1985).
22. g states. In the context of atmospheric applications requiring SR-region modeling, this continuum is usually defined as the difference between the experimental cross section and the SR-band contribution. Since this model-dependent definition is clearly inappropriate for the comparisons examined here, we rely on a computed continuum cross section informed by SR-independent experimental data (see Ref. 19).
23. K. Minschwaner (private communication).
24. 2) over the full range of transition energies studied here.
25. K. Yoshino, D. E. Freeman, J. R. Esmond, and W. H. Parkinson, Planet. Space Sci. 35, 1067 (1987).
26. -1 are the most uncertain. The corresponding scanned experimental cross section is significantly lower than the fixed-wavelength measurement of Fig. 2(a), possibly caused by the very narrow minimum in the cross section, together with some wavelength uncertainty. Furthermore, the CSE model suffers from some systematic line position errors in this high-energy, perturbed region of the spectrum, as evident in Fig. 4(e). The plotted points are determined using the minimum experimental and model cross sections in this region, regardless of exact wavelength.