Abstract

Table 1 contains two incomplete entries. Values of the coefficient a5 for Z 1⁄4 36 and 37 (for the M1 subshell) should be 4.301E 2 and 1.070E 1, respectively. We thank Dr. Chrystel Hombourger for pointing out these misprints. The statement ‘‘To correct partially for this shift we can use the analytical formulas (2) and (4) with the experimental value of the ionization energy in the definition of the overvoltage” (page 874, starting at the end of the left column) is incorrect. The numerical ionization cross sections used in the fits with the analytical formulas were calculated from the Dirac–Fock–Slater potential and, consistently, the ionization energies, En‘j, given in the tables are the eigenvalues of the radial Dirac–Fock–Slater equations. These ionization energies are also used in the Fortran subroutines provided as supplementary material in the online ver-

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.