4.6 Article

Extension of the binary-encounter-dipole model to relativistic incident electrons

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 62, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.62.052710

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formulas for the total ionization cross section by electron impact based on the binary-encounter-dipole (BED) model and its simpler version, the binary-encounter-Bethe (BEB) model are extended to relativistic incident electron energies. Total ionization cross sections for the hydrogen and helium atoms from the new relativistic formulas are compared to experimental data. Relativistic effects double the total ionization cross section of H and He at incident electron energy approximate to 300 keV and dominate the cross section thereafter. A simple modification of the original BED-BEB formulas is: proposed for applications to ion targets and inner-shell electrons of neutral atoms and molecules. The relativistic and nonrelativistic BEB cross sections are compared to the K-shell ionization cross sections by electron impact for the carbon, argon, nickel, niobium, and silver atoms. For carbon and argon, the relativistic effects are small, and both forms of the BEB cross sections agree well with available experimental data. For the nickel and heavier atoms, the relativistic increase of cross sections becomes noticeable from about 100 keV and higher in the incident electron energy. The empirical formula by Casnati ef al. [J.. Phys. B 15, 155 (1982)] after correcting for relativistic effects as shown by Quarles [Phys. Rev. A 13, 1278 (1976)] agrees well with the BEB cross sections for light atoms. However, the peak values of the Casnati cross sections become higher than the relativistic BEB peak cross sections as the atomic number increases. The BEB model is also applied to the total ionization cross section of the xenon atom, and the theory agrees well with experiments at low incident electron energies, but disagrees with experiment at relativistic incident energies.

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

4.6
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