benis_2004

E. P. Benis, J. F. Xia, X. M. Tong, M. Faheem, M. Zamkov, B. Shan, P. Richard and Z. Chang, “Ionization suppression of Cl2 molecules in intense laser fields”, Phys. Rev. A 70, 025401 (2004)

Source record · Catalogue · Review register

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.025401

Source kind: measurement

Recorded technique: Ion yields of Cl2 and Xe from an equal-pressure mixture, resolved along the axis of the focus by imaging and separated by time of flight; 790 nm, 44 fs in the chamber (25 fs from the laser), linear polarisation, 51 uJ, f = 25 cm (pp. 1-2). The yields are converted to ionisation probabilities by Eq. (1) and compared with a rate the paper names the molecular PPT (MO-PPT) model, Eq. (2).

Materials in structured entries: None recorded.

Dataset quantities: None recorded.

Contents: 0 datasets; 1 formula.

Curation notes

Pages are journal pages (a four-page Brief Report). Identity checked on the first page. There are no tables: the yields and probabilities are in Figs. 2 and 3 only, in arbitrary units and against an intensity obtained from the geometry of the focus, with no stated uncertainty. Cl2 is not a curated species. No dataset is taken; the record holds the formula, which is the first statement of a molecular rate with a dependence on the frequency (the register’s entry on the molecular PPT rates).

WHAT THE FORMULA LEAVES OPEN. A_m(omega, gamma) and g(gamma) ‘are two correction factors to the ADK model, which can be found at Refs. [3,6]’ (p. 3; Perelomov, Popov & Terent’ev 1966 and Talebpour, Larochelle & Chin 1998): they are not written out. One m is printed, with no sum and no rotation of the molecule. No average over a cycle is printed. No structure coefficients of Cl2 are given. The ionisation energies quoted (p. 1; D2 15.467, O2 12.070, Ar 15.764, Xe 12.13, N2 15.581, F2 15.697, Cl2 11.48 eV) are not said to be vertical or adiabatic.

THE COMPARISON. ‘A reasonable agreement of the MO-PPT calculations with the measurements is seen’ (pp. 3-4); no number is given. ‘When gamma -> 0, the equation goes back to the ADK rate’ (p. 3; the library’s text has ‘g -> 0’). The library’s text also has ‘CO:Ar’ where the page has ‘CO:Kr’ (p. 1) and ‘51 mJ’ for 51 uJ (Fig. 3’s caption).

Recorded bibliographic identity status: VALIDATED. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents.

Datasets

No datasets are recorded.

Formulas

benis_2004/eq2_mo_ppt

{
  "id": "eq2_mo_ppt",
  "equation": "Eq. (2), p. 3",
  "printed": "w(omega, F) = [B^2(m)/(2^|m| |m|!)] [A_m(omega, gamma)/kappa^(2Z_c/kappa - 1)] e^(-(2 kappa^3/3F) g(gamma)) (2 kappa^3/(F sqrt(1 + gamma^2)))^(2Z_c/kappa - |m| - 1)",
  "variable": "Atomic units. F: amplitude of the field; kappa = sqrt(2 I_p); Z_c: the charge of the ion; B(m): the structure factor of the molecular tunnelling theory of Tong, Zhao & Lin 2002; gamma = sqrt(I_p/2U_p), the Keldysh parameter; A_m and g: the functions of Perelomov, Popov & Terent'ev 1966, not written out in the paper",
  "range": "Not stated; used at gamma > 1 ('Our present laser intensity is lower than 10^14 W/cm2 and therefore gamma > 1', p. 3)",
  "coefficients": {},
  "reproduced_from": [
    "A. M. Perelomov, V. S. Popov and M. V. Terent'ev, Sov. Phys. JETP 23, 924 (1966)",
    "tong_2002"
  ],
  "check": "Checked against the page image (p. 3), 2026-09-28. With the exponent split, (2 kappa^3/F)^(2n* - |m| - 1) (1 + gamma^2)^(-n* + |m|/2 + 1/2), n* = Z_c/kappa: against the rate of Perelomov et al. with Perelomov & Popov's Coulomb factor, whose power of (1 + gamma^2) is |m|/2 + 3/4 (perelomov_1967, larochelle_1998), it carries a further (1 + gamma^2)^(-n* - 1/4), and lacks the factor of the cycle average."
}

‘We will refer to the PPT model as the molecular PPT, or MO-PPT model’ (p. 3). The factor (1 + gamma^2)^(-n*) is that of Ilkov et al.’s form of the atomic rate (ilkov_1992, eq. 8), which Perelomov & Popov’s Coulomb correction does not have. zhao_2014’s eq. (13), as corrected by its corrigendum, is this equation.

Corrections

No dataset errata are recorded in this source record.

Formula corrections, where recorded, appear with their formulas above. Curation notes may also discuss corrections or unresolved interpretation. Consult the review register for the checks and decisions.