BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

B. Ebinger

B. Ebinger contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.atom-phphysics.plasm-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Hybrid subconfiguration-average and level-to-level distorted-wave treatment of electron-impact single ionisation of W$^{15+}$ and W$^{16+}$

Recently, we have demonstrated (Jin et al. 2020, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53, 075201) that a hybrid subconfiguration-average and level-to-level distorted wave treatment of electron-impact single ionisation (EISI) of W$^{14+}$ ions represents an accurate and manageable approach for the calculation of EISI cross sections of a complex ion. Here we demonstrate the more general validity of this approach by comparing hybrid cross sections for EISI of W$^{15+}$ and W$^{16+}$ with the recent experimental results of Schury et al. 2020, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53, 015201). Our calculations also account for the resonant-excitation double autoionisation (REDA) process which is important in the electron energy range 370-600 eV and for the possible presence of initially metastable ions in the experiment.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Electron-impact single ionisation of W$^{q+}$ ions: Experiment and theory for $\mathbf{11\leq q \leq 18}$

Absolute cross sections for electron-impact single ionisation (EISI) of multiply charged tungsten ions (W$^{q+}$) with charge states in the range $ 11 \leq q \leq 18$ in the electron-ion collision energy ranges from below the respective ionisation thresholds up to 1000~eV were measured employing the electron-ion crossed-beams method. In order to extend the results to higher energies, cross section calculations were performed using the subconfiguration-averaged distorted-wave (SCADW) method for electron-ion collision energies up to 150~keV. From the combined experimental and scaled theoretical cross sections rate coefficients were derived which are compared with the ones contained in the ADAS database and which are based on the configuration-averaged distorted wave (CADW) calculations of Loch et al. [Phys. Rev. A 72, 052716 (2005)]. Significant discrepancies were found at the temperatures where the ions investigated here are expected to form in collisionally ionised plasmas. These discrepancies are attributed to the limitations of the CADW approach and also the more detailed SCADW treatment which do not allow for a sufficiently accurate description of the EISI cross sections particularly at the ionisation thresholds.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access