4.8 Article

Slow Interatomic Coulombic Decay of Multiply Excited Neon Clusters

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 117, 期 27, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.276806

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (MEXT)
  2. MEXT
  3. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [20310055, 21244062]
  4. Cooperative Research Program of Network Joint Research Center for Materials and Devices: Dynamic Alliance for Open Innovation Bridging Human, Environment and Materials
  5. European Union [641789]
  6. DOE-BES [DE-SC0012376]
  7. ERC Starting Research Grant STARLIGHT [637756]
  8. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  9. Swedish Research Council
  10. ERC Starting Research Grant UDYNI (EC Seventh Framework Programme) [307964]
  11. European Research Council (ERC) [637756] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  12. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0012376] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
  13. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16J02270, 20310055] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ne clusters (similar to 5000 atoms) were resonantly excited (2p -> 3s) by intense free electron laser (FEL) radiation at FERMI. Such multiply excited clusters can decay nonradiatively via energy exchange between at least two neighboring excited atoms. Benefiting from the precise tunability and narrow bandwidth of seeded FEL radiation, specific sites of the Ne clusters were probed. We found that the relaxation of cluster surface atoms proceeds via a sequence of interatomic or intermolecular Coulombic decay (ICD) processes while ICD of bulk atoms is additionally affected by the surrounding excited medium via inelastic electron scattering. For both cases, cluster excitations relax to atomic states prior to ICD, showing that this kind of ICD is rather slow (picosecond range). Controlling the average number of excitations per cluster via the FEL intensity allows a coarse tuning of the ICD rate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据