Resolved Specific Ion Data Collections

Temperature Range
0.776 eV → 155 eV


Full Path
Download data
  • Spontaneous Emission: O+2(i) → O+2(j) + hv
  • Electron Impact Excitation: O+2(i) + e → O+2(j) + e
2s2 2p2 3P4.0 208.0 cm-1
2s2 2p2 1D2.0 20274.0 cm-1
2s2 2p2 1S0.0 43186.0 cm-1
2s1 2p3 5S2.0 60325.0 cm-1
2s1 2p3 3D7.0 120041.0 cm-1
2s1 2p3 3P4.0 142384.0 cm-1
2s1 2p3 1D2.0 187052.0 cm-1
2s1 2p3 3S1.0 197086.0 cm-1
2s1 2p3 1P1.0 210462.0 cm-1
2p4 3P4.0 283867.0 cm-1
2p4 1D2.0 298292.0 cm-1
2p4 1S0.0 343305.0 cm-1

  Energy Levels
  The results from Edlen (Phys Scr 31, 345, 1985) were used. They are only
  the odd wavenumber different from the results in NSRDS NBS 3 Sect 11.

  Ionisation Potential
  Taken from Kelly (J Chem Ref Data 16, 1987).

  A Values
  The results of Fischer and Saha (Phys Scr 32, 181, 1985) were used for
  transitions involving levels 1, 2 and 3. For other transitions the results
  of Bhatia et al (Ast and Ast 76, 359, 1979) were used.

  Collision Data
  Aggarwal (Astrophysics J Sup Series 52, 387, 1983) calculated collision
  strengths for 146 transitions in O III for non-dipole allowed transitions.
  He did a 12 state close coupling R matrix calculation based on earlier
  work of Baluja et al (J Phys B 13, 829, 1980 and J Phys B 14, 119, 1981)
  using configurations 2s22p2, 2s2p3 and 2p4. Each LS state was represented
  by configuration interaction wavefunctions from Hibbert's CIV3 program.
  The target state and configuration coefficients were as in the earlier
  work. The Baluja et al work included all partial waves with l<=4 of both
  doublet and quartet and spin and odd and even parities. Aggarwal extended
  the calculation by including 5 more partial waves with 4<= l <= 9, including
  sextet spin (to allow the calculations to go above the 5S2 threshold).

  More recently Burke et al (Mon Not Roy Astr Soc 236, 353, 1989) have
  used the close coupling method to calculate collision strengths already
  calculated by Baluja et al and Aggarwal. They say their results are not very
  different from those obtained in earlier calculations. In fact differences
  appear to be <= 5%. They also suggest that the calculation of Baluja et al
  failed to give better results for energies than earlier programs because of
  incomplete optimisation of the radial functions used for the target.

  For allowed transitions the results of Aggarwal (Ast and Ast 146, 149,
  1985) and in the JET excitation codes the A values from Baluja et al
  were used. However, only six values were available and others from
  programs used in the collision codes were not published. Aggarwal
  (Mon Not Roy Ast Soc 218, 123, 1986) parameterised his results and from
  these data we were able to get back the original six values and the others

  For transitions not dealt with by Aggarwal, the results of Bhatia et al
  (Ast and Ast 76, 359, 1979) were used. They explicitly gave some collision
  strengths as zero while others needed were given as constant and<= 10-4.

  The collision strengths of Bhatia et al and Ho and Henry (Astrophysical J
  264, 733, 1983) are discussed by Aggarwal.

  J Lang   February 1990



  • Jim Lang
  • Kanti Aggarwal
  • Processes
  • States
  • Comments
  • Origins

Data Classes