Resolved Specific Ion Data Collections

Temperature Range
6.204 eV → 1.241 x 104 eV


Full Path
Download data
  • Spontaneous Emission: Fe+11(i) → Fe+11(j) + hv
  • Electron Impact Excitation: Fe+11(i) + e → Fe+11(j) + e
3s2.3p3 4S1.5 0.0 cm-1
3s2.3p3 2D1.5 41555.0 cm-1
3s2.3p3 2D2.5 46088.0 cm-1
3s2.3p3 2P0.5 74108.0 cm-1
3s2.3p3 2P1.5 80515.0 cm-1
3s.3p4 4P2.5 274373.0 cm-1
3s.3p4 4P1.5 284005.0 cm-1
3s.3p4 4P0.5 288307.0 cm-1
3s.3p4 2D1.5 339761.0 cm-1
3s.3p4 2D2.5 341703.0 cm-1
3s.3p4 2P1.5 389668.0 cm-1
3s.3p4 2P0.5 394352.0 cm-1
3s.3p4 2S0.5 410401.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4F1.5 424219.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4F2.5 427838.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4F3.5 433040.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4F4.5 439556.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1d).3d 2F2.5 443439.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4D0.5 446498.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4D3.5 447107.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4D1.5 447591.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4D2.5 451928.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1d).3d 2F3.5 461033.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1d).3d 2G3.5 495321.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1d).3d 2G4.5 498219.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 2P1.5 501800.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4P2.5 512510.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4P1.5 516740.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 4P0.5 519770.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 2P0.5 513850.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1s).3d 2D1.5 526120.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1s).3d 2D2.5 538040.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1d).3d 2D2.5 554610.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1d).3d 2D1.5 554030.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1d).3d 2P0.5 568940.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1d).3d 2P1.5 577740.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 2F2.5 576740.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 2F3.5 581180.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(1d).3d 2S0.5 579630.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 2D2.5 603930.0 cm-1
3s2.3p2(3p).3d 2D1.5 605480.0 cm-1

 Date :Tue Oct 23, 1997
 File generated by Alessandro Lanzafame using C2ADAS
 (conversion from CHIANTI 1.01 database) 

 References (from CHIANTI 1.01 data files):

 Energy levels:  
  energy levels: (2-4,9,11-13) Jupen, Isler & Trabert, MNRAS *264* 627 (1994)
  energy levels: Corliss & Sugar, J.Phys.Chem.Ref.Data *11* 135 (1982)
  theoretical energy levels: from a 4 configuration model of "superstructure"
  used to mimic the Flower collisional model
  comment: The third column of energies denotes energies "rescaled" from the output
  of "superstructure". The 24 configuration model used to derive the transition
  probabilities in the ".wgfa" file, gave energy levels which were slightly
  different from the observed levels. A way of estimating this difference
  for the 3s2 3p2 3d levels is to take all the levels with the same parent
  configuration (i.e., the term in brackets, e.g., (3P), (1D)), and average
  the difference between the observed and theoretical level. For the levels
  for which we don't have observed energies, we subtract the averaged
  difference for the particular parent configuration.

  For example, the levels with a (3P) parent configuration are, on average,
  given energies by "superstructure" 15551 cm-1 above the observed energies,
  so we subtract this amount off the 4F and 4D levels in the 3s2 3p2 3d

  The energies so derived by this method are expected to be accurate to

  Flower orders the levels according to his theoretical energies, but
  the 3s2 3p2 3d 2D5/2 level has been mis-assigned the energy 591259,
  which should have been assigned to the 2F5/2 level. Thus these two
  levels have been swapped around in the above table
 Oscillator strengths: 
  A values: from a 24 configuration model of "superstructure", 
  courtesy of A. Binello.

 Collision strengths:
  collision strengths (1-5): Tayal, Henry & Pradhan ApJ *319* 951 (1987)
  collision strengths (6-41): Flower, A&A 54, 163 (1977)
  comment: The collision strengths for levels 37 and 40 were mis-assigned
    in Flower's paper (compare the 2D5/2 - 2P3/2 and 2F5/2 - 2P3/2
    transitions). This has been corrected here.

  The gf values were not given in Flower's paper, so a 4 configuration
  "superstructure" model was used to derive them.

  For the transitions between levels in the ground configuration, the
  upsilons of Tayal have been used. Otherwise Flower's data is used.
  collision strengths: Flower, A&A 54, 163 (1977)



  • Alessandro Lanzafame
  • Processes
  • States
  • Comments
  • Origins

Data Classes