Proton formation in 2+1 resonance enhanced multiphoton excitation of HCl and HBr via (Ω=) Rydberg and ion-pair states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular beam cooled HCl was state selected by two-photon excitation of the V (1) summation operator(0(+)) [v=9,11-13,15], E (1) summation operator(0(+)) [v=0], and g (3) summation operator(-)(0(+)) [v=0] states through either the Q(0) or Q(1) lines of the respective (1,3) summation operator(0(+))<--<--X (1) summation operator(0(+)) transition. Similarly, HBr was excited to the V (1) summation operator(0(+)) [v=m+3, m+5-m+8], E (1) summation operator(0(+)) [v=0], and H (1) summation operator(0(+)) [v=0] states through the Q(0) or Q(1) lines. Following absorption of a third photon, protons were formed by three different mechanisms and detected using velocity map imaging. (1) H(*)(n=2) was formed in coincidence with (2)P(i) halogen atoms and subsequently ionized. For HCl, photodissociation into H(*)(n=2)+Cl((2)P(12)) was dominant over the formation of Cl((2)P(32)) and was attributed to parallel excitation of the repulsive [(2) (2)Pi4llambda] superexcited (Omega=0) states. For HBr, the Br((2)P(32))Br((2)P(12)) ratio decreases with increasing excitation energy. This indicates that both the [(3) (2)Pi(12)5llambda] and the [B (2) summation operator5llambda] superexcited (Omega=0) states contribute to the formation of H(*)(n=2). (2) For selected intermediate states HCl was found to dissociate into the H(+)+Cl(-) ion pair with over 20% relative yield. A mechanism is proposed by which a bound [A (2) summation operatornlsigma] (1) summation operator(0(+)) superexcited state acts as a gateway state to dissociation into the ion pair. (3) For all intermediate states, protons were formed by dissociation of HX(+)[v(+)] following a parallel, DeltaOmega=0, excitation. The quantum yield for the dissociation process was obtained using previously reported photoionization efficiency data and was found to peak at v(+)=6-7 for HCl and v(+)=12 for HBr. This is consistent with excitation of the repulsive A(2) summation operator(12) and (2) (2)Pi states of HCl(+), and the (3) (2)Pi state of HBr(+). Rotational alignment of the Omega=0(+) intermediate states is evident from the angular distribution of the excited H(*)(n=2) photofragments. This effect has been observed previously and was used here to verify the reliability of the measured spatial anisotropy parameters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".