| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+ + H+ | total |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(n=3) + H+ | n-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(3s) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(3p) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(3d) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(n=4) + H+ | n-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(4s) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(4p) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(4d) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(4f) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(n=5) + H+ | n-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(5s) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(5p) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(5d) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(5f) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(5g) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(n=6) + H+ | n-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(6s) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(6p) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(6d) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(6f) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(6g) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(6h) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(n=7) + H+ | n-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(7s) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(7p) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(7d) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(7f) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(7g) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(7h) + H+ | nl-resolved |
| Li3+ + H0(n=2) → Li2+(7i) + H+ | nl-resolved |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: The data consists of results of CTMC calculations made at the University of Missouri over the period 1995-97. Comments: At this time, no direct comparison with other results is available for checking the quality of the nl selective cross-sections except for Li+3 for which results are given in a recent hidden curve crossing calculation by Janev et al. (1996). Large differences are observed in both the magnitude and energy dependence. From inspection of the total cross-sections, we have the strong impression that the CTMC data should be preferred. In a plot of the scaled total one-electron capture cross-sections (sigma_tot(16q)^-1) versus scaled energy (4Eq^-1/2), the total cross-sections should be approximately the same for all systems (Janev, 1991) at least for q>3. In these scaled units, a recommendation by Janev and Smith (1995) has been presented. The CTMC data are all close to this curve except at lower energies. The hidden curve crossing data for Li+3 deviate from this curve. Molecular orbital calculations by Errea et al. (1996) for B+5 are in good agreement with the corresponding CTMC data. For He+2, the recommendation of Janev and Smith is based on the calculations of Harel and Jouin (1990) and it is completely different from the CTMC results for He+2, especially at the lower energies. A reason for this huge difference is hard to see. It may be the extremely strong resonant nature of the electron capture at low collision energies. Resonant transfer from H(n=2) in collsions with He+2 would necessarily mean that the electron ends up exactly between the n=3 and n=4 levels of He+1. Therefore electron capture may be blocked. To what extent this is well described by the CTMC method is still a point of discussion. For higher charged receiver ions, levels are resonantly present. Except for He+2 at low energies, we recommend use of the present CTMC data. The data was assembled as ADAS data files of type adf01 at JET Joint Undertaking in the period 2-3 June 1997. Authors: F. W. Bliek*, R. Hoekstra*, R. E. Olson# * KVI, Groningen, Netherlands # University of Missouri, Rolla, USA. Date: 9 June 1997. Updates: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------