Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'"
In reply to the Comment of Jorge et al. [Phys. Rev. A 93, 066701 (2016)], we agree and reconfirm that the alternative classical trajectory Monte Carlo method (called hydrogenic-Z-CTMC) radial distributions for H∗(n = 2) we recently published are not stable in time. However, we show that such lack of...
| Autores: | ; ; |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Artículo |
| Estado: | Published version |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | Argentina |
| Institución: | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| Repositorio: | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62270 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/62270 |
| Nivel de acceso: | Acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Charge Exchange Line Emission Cross Sections Ctmc https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
| _version_ | 1878403860863647744 |
|---|---|
| author | Cariatore, Nelson Daniel |
| author2 | Otranto, Sebastián Olson, R. |
| author2_role | author author |
| author_browse | Cariatore, Nelson Daniel Olson, R. Otranto, Sebastián |
| author_facet | Cariatore, Nelson Daniel Otranto, Sebastián Olson, R. |
| author_role | author |
| collection | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| description | In reply to the Comment of Jorge et al. [Phys. Rev. A 93, 066701 (2016)], we agree and reconfirm that the alternative classical trajectory Monte Carlo method (called hydrogenic-Z-CTMC) radial distributions for H∗(n = 2) we recently published are not stable in time. However, we show that such lack of stability which is more noticeable for H(2s) than for H(2p) is due to the initialization procedure employed and not to the hydrogenic-Z-CTMC method itself. A new set of completely stable hydrogenic-Z-CTMC calculations for H∗(n = 2) is introduced and found in very good agreement with standard microcanonical results reinforcing our previous findings. A second criticism of Jorge et al. concerning the number of components in hydrogenic-ZCTMC with n > 1 for H(1s) is shown not to have a significant impact on relative (n,l) populations in the final state. |
| eu_rights_str_mv | openAccess |
| format | article |
| id | AR_cdfc862aaa166b928c7eee2ca0c23d9a |
| identifier_str_mv | Cariatore, Nelson Daniel; Otranto, Sebastián; Olson, R.; Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'"; American Physical Society; Physical Review A: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics; 93; 6; 6-2016; 667021-667025 1050-2947 CONICET Digital CONICET |
| institution | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| instname_str | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| language | eng |
| network_acronym_str | AR |
| network_name_str | Argentina |
| oai_identifier_str | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62270 |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publishDateSort | 2016 |
| publisher | American Physical Society |
| publisherStr | American Physical Society |
| reponame_str | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| spelling | Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'" Cariatore, Nelson Daniel Otranto, Sebastián Olson, R. Charge Exchange Line Emission Cross Sections Ctmc https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 In reply to the Comment of Jorge et al. [Phys. Rev. A 93, 066701 (2016)], we agree and reconfirm that the alternative classical trajectory Monte Carlo method (called hydrogenic-Z-CTMC) radial distributions for H∗(n = 2) we recently published are not stable in time. However, we show that such lack of stability which is more noticeable for H(2s) than for H(2p) is due to the initialization procedure employed and not to the hydrogenic-Z-CTMC method itself. A new set of completely stable hydrogenic-Z-CTMC calculations for H∗(n = 2) is introduced and found in very good agreement with standard microcanonical results reinforcing our previous findings. A second criticism of Jorge et al. concerning the number of components in hydrogenic-ZCTMC with n > 1 for H(1s) is shown not to have a significant impact on relative (n,l) populations in the final state. Fil: Cariatore, Nelson Daniel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Física del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Física. Instituto de Física del Sur; Argentina Fil: Otranto, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Física del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Física. Instituto de Física del Sur; Argentina Fil: Olson, R.. University of Missouri; Estados Unidos American Physical Society http://hdl.handle.net/11336/62270 Cariatore, Nelson Daniel; Otranto, Sebastián; Olson, R.; Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'"; American Physical Society; Physical Review A: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics; 93; 6; 6-2016; 667021-667025 1050-2947 CONICET Digital CONICET |
| spellingShingle | Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'" Cariatore, Nelson Daniel Charge Exchange Line Emission Cross Sections Ctmc https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
| status_str | publishedVersion |
| title | Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'" |
| title_full | Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'" |
| title_fullStr | Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'" |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'" |
| title_short | Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'" |
| title_sort | Reply to "comment on 'Classical description of H(1s) and H∗(n=2) for cross-section calculations relevant to charge-exchange diagnostics'" |
| topic | Charge Exchange Line Emission Cross Sections Ctmc https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
| topic_facet | Charge Exchange Line Emission Cross Sections Ctmc https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/62270 |