Energy loss probability

Loss prevention. Walking around many chemical factories will reveal obvious sources of energy loss, probably the most noticeable being leaky steam valves. Good housekeeping can do much to conserve energy. 

Formula (3.14) for the energy-loss probability contains a typical factor... 

The energy loss probability for fast electrons, or the differential scattering cross-section per unit energy loss, E, per unit solid angle, SI, can be written ... 

Figure 6. Momentum dependence of the energy loss probability of polystyrene Curve a q = 0.15 A" , very similar to Figure 1 data Curve b q = 0.37 A Curve c q = 0.74 A - Curve d q = 1.0 A - arrow indicates optically forbidden excitation (13)...

In the harmonic approximation of the interatomic forces, the probability of absorption without energy loss (probability of the Mdssbauer effect) in crystal can be expressed as... 

The power dissipated at two different frequencies has been calculated for all reactions and compared with the energy loss to the walls. It is shown that at 65 MHz the fraction of power lost to the boundary decreases by a large amount compared to the situation at 13.56 MHz [224]. In contrast, the power dissipated by electron impact collision increases from nearly 47% to more than 71%, of which vibrational excitation increases by a factor of 2, dissociation increases by 45%, and ionization stays approximately the same, in agreement with the product of the ionization probability per electron, the electron density, and the ion flux, as shown before. The vibrational excitation energy thresholds (0.11 and 0.27 eV) are much smaller than the dissociation (8.3 eV) and ionization (13 eV) ones, and the vibrational excitation cross sections are large too. The reaction rate of processes with a low energy threshold therefore increases more than those with a high threshold. 

Now the probability density that the collision will result in an energy loss q is given by <7 /X, and the resultant mean energy loss in one collision is given by... 

When averaged over the distribution of energy loss for a low-LET radiation (e.g., a 1-MeV electron), the most probable event in liquid water radiolysis generates one ionization, two ionizations, or one ionization and excitation, whereas in water vapor it would generate either one ionization or an excitation. In liquid water, the most probable outcomes for most probable spur energy (22 eV) are one ionization and either zero (6%) or one excitation (94%) for the mean energy loss (38 eV), the most probable outcomes are two ionizations and one excitation (78%), or one ionization and three excitations (19%). Thus, it is clear that a typical spur in water radiolysis contains only a few ionizations and/or excitations. 

Dodelet and Freeman, 1975 Jay-Gerin et ah, 1993). The main outcome from such analysis is that the free-ion yield, and therefore by implication the (r(h) value, increases with electron mobility, which in turn increases with the sphericity of the molecule. The heuristic conclusion is that the probability of inter-molecular energy losses decreases with the sphericity of the molecule, since there is no discernible difference between the various hydrocarbons for electronic or intramolecular vibrational energy losses. The (rth) values depend somewhat on the assumed form of distribution and, of course, on the liquid itself. At room temperature, these values range from -25 A for a truncated power-law distribution in n-hexane to -250 A for an exponential distribution in neopentane. 

The Fokker-Planck equation is essentially a diffusion equation in phase space. Sano and Mozumder (SM) s model is phenomenological in the sense that they identify the energy-loss mechanism of the subvibrational electron with that of the quasi-free electron slightly heated by the external field, without delineating the physical cause of either. Here, we will briefly describe the physical aspects of this model. The reader is referred to the original article for mathematical and other details. SM start with the Fokker-Planck equation for the probability density W of the electron in the phase space written as follows ... 

How then, can one recover some quantity that scales with the local charge on the metal atoms if their valence electrons are inherently delocalized Beyond the asymmetric lineshape of the metal 2p3/2 peak, there is also a distinct satellite structure seen in the spectra for CoP and elemental Co. From reflection electron energy loss spectroscopy (REELS), we have determined that this satellite structure originates from plasmon loss events (instead of a two-core-hole final state effect as previously thought [67,68]) in which exiting photoelectrons lose some of their energy to valence electrons of atoms near the surface of the solid [58]. The intensity of these satellite peaks (relative to the main peak) is weaker in CoP than in elemental Co. This implies that the Co atoms have fewer valence electrons in CoP than in elemental Co, that is, they are definitely cationic, notwithstanding the lack of a BE shift. For the other compounds in the MP (M = Cr, Mn, Fe) series, the satellite structure is probably too weak to be observed, but solid solutions Coi -xMxl> and CoAs i yPv do show this feature (vide infra) [60,61]. 

---