†Corresponding author. E-mail: K.Aggarwal@qub.ac.uk
Recently, S. Aggarwal et al. [ Chin. Phys. B24 (2015) 053201] reported energy levels, radiative rates, and lifetimes for the lowest 148 levels belonging to the 3s23p, 3s3p2, 3s23d, 3s3p3d, 3p3, 3p23d, 3s3d2, 3p3d2, and 3d3 configurations of Al-like tungsten. While their calculated energies for the levels and the radiative rates for transitions are correct, the reported results for lifetimes are completely wrong. According to our calculations, errors in their reported lifetimes are up to 14 orders of magnitude for over 90% of the levels. Here we report the correct lifetimes and explain the reasons for discrepancies.
Tungsten (W), being an important constituent of tokamak reactor walls, is perhaps the most important element for studying fusion plasmas. It immensely radiates at almost all ionization stages, and therefore to assess radiation loss and for modelling plasmas, atomic data (including energy levels and oscillator strengths or radiative decay rates) are required for many of its ions. The developing ITER project has raised urgency for the data requirements, and as a result several groups of people are engaged in producing atomic data for its ions. However, the most desirable requirement for (any) atomic data is its accuracy[1] without which the modelling of plasmas will not be reliable. Recently, S. Aggarwal et al., [2] henceforth to be referred to as AJM, have reported results for energy levels, oscillator strengths, radiative rates, and lifetimes for Al-like W. For their calculations, they adopted the modified version of the GRASP (general-purpose relativistic atomic structure package) code, available at the website
AJM have reported energies and lifetimes (τ ) for the lowest 148 levels of the 3s23p, 3s3p2, 3s23d, 3s3p3d, 3p3, 3p23d, 3s3d2, 3p3d2, and 3d3 (nine) configurations. They have also listed radiative rates (A-values), oscillator strengths (f-values) and line strengths (S-values) for four types of transitions, namely electric dipole (E1), electric quadrupole (E2), magnetic dipole (M1), and magnetic quadrupole (M2), but only from the ground to higher excited levels. However, unfortunately there are several discrepancies and a few serious errors in their paper, and here we focus only on three, discussed below.
Firstly, their use of the nomenclature of the ion (being wrong) in the title and throughout the text of the paper is confusing and misleading. This is because Al-like tungsten is W LXII, and not W XLVII. Secondly, to calculate atomic data they have included configuration interaction (CI) among 894 levels of 35 configurations, the additional 26 are: 3s3p4ℓ , 3s3d4ℓ , 3p3d4ℓ , 3s24ℓ , 3p24ℓ (except 3p24d), 3p4ℓ 2 (except 3p4p2), and 3d4ℓ 2. However, these 35 configurations generate 1007 levels in total (see Section 2), and hence there is a discrepancy of 113 levels. Both of these discrepancies may, at best, be attributed to oversight and do not affect the calculated results. However, the third and the final one is the gross error in their calculated lifetimes, of up to 14 orders of magnitude for over 90% of the levels — see Section 3. Therefore, the purpose of this comment is to report the correct τ values and to explain the reasons for these large errors.
For our calculations we adopt the same version of the
The energies obtained in our calculations for the lowest 148 levels of W LXII are comparable to those reported by AJM in their Table 1, and hence are not repeated here. Similarly, there is no (significant) discrepancy with their A-values, listed in their Table 3. Therefore, we now focus on the τ values for which we find large discrepancies.
The lifetime τ of a level j is determined as τ j = 1/∑ i Aji, i.e., the summation is over all transitions from lower levels i to higher j. Generally, A-values for E1 transitions dominate for the determination of τ , but for other types of transitions, they become important, particularly when the E1 transition does not exist, such as for 1– 3/5/9 (see Table 2 for level definitions). For this reason, A-values from all types of transitions are included in calculations, as was also done by AJM.[2] In Table 2, we list our calculated τ from both GRASP1 and GRASP2 calculations, and also include the results of AJM (GRASP3) for a ready comparison.
For all 148 levels listed in Table 2, there is no (appreciable) discrepancy between the GRASP1 and GRASP2 results. Therefore, as stated earlier, the inclusion or exclusion of the 3p24d and 3p4p2 configurations, omitted by AJM, is of no consequence, and hence the values of τ calculated by AJM should have been comparable to those of ours. Unfortunately, there are large discrepancies for almost all levels, over 90% to be precise. For all levels, the reported values of τ by AJM are invariably higher, by up to 14 orders of magnitude, see for example levels 11, 12, 25, 26, 37, and 82. Below we explain the possible reasons for these large discrepancies.
For level 3
In this work, we have calculated energy levels, radiative rates and lifetimes for the lowest 148 levels/transitions of Al-like tungsten, i.e., W LXII. For the calculations, the well-known
Finally, the A-values listed by S. Aggarwal et al.[2] for transitions from the ground level alone are not sufficient for applications, because a complete set of data for all transitions are required for any modelling application. Besides this, there is scope for improvement in their work, because in their CI calculations they have ignored the inclusion of some of the important configurations, such as 3p24d, 3p4p2, 3d24ℓ , and 3ℓ 4ℓ ℓ ′ , apart from those of n = 5. Therefore, an improved set of complete data for all transitions of W LXII are reported in a separate paper.[3]
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|